Saniel Bonder on Spirit & Money

Saniel Bonder writes on spirit/money split. Quote:

"What we may have here is a Spirit/Money split so pervasive among us it’s like the atmosphere before we figured out it was dangerously polluted. As the Chinese leaders figured out about Beijing not so very long ago. The economists have been super-specialized, super-outstanding paragons of the “Money” side of the split. Olympic champions. I’ve been rabidly focused most of my adult life on the “Spirit” side. So have many of my colleagues. Most all of us are so ill-informed about one another’s disciplines and understandings, we often act as if they don’t exist—or if they do, they’re secondary if not irrelevant to life in our own (to us, the only) “real world.”"

Read the whole article.

!And this reminds me - there's an article by Ken Wilber on this very topic called "Right Bucks" (here in pdf format).

Emergent Dharma

Evolution is not simply birth/death, as in the classical, cyclic model of samsara. Evolution is something coming out of no-thing and then developing through time, and once we're aware of this everything changes in a significant way. Not only the material universe, but also our life-forms, our spirituality, and everything in the range of dependent co-arising, including all forms of natural perception and all levels of cultural complexity, have developed through time.

This means that, instead of having one cyclic model of samsara (worldly or laukika pratityasamutpada) and another unfolding model of liberation (transcendent or lokuttara pratityasamutpada), we need to recognize the unfolding in the world-process itself, an unfolding which allows a much deeper integration of the two models in a post-metaphysical manner.

So, basically dharmas don't simply arise - though they appear to simply arise when observed phenomenologically from a 1st person position - they arise in a developmental space. And, in 13.7 billion years of this cosmic evolution, not all dharmas have arisen simultaneously. At the beginning of this story, there were no sentient beings to be reborn and no five skandhas to start with. And so starts the recalibration of abhidharma to embrace and acknowledge a perspective-based, instead of a phenomena-based, evolutionary reality.

Enactivism, IT & 21st Century Spirituality

Bruce Alderman opens the symposium on "Enactivism, Integral Theory, and 21st Century Spirituality" with a very good piece:

In this essay, I would like to look at some of the essential features of the enactive paradigm, including the Integral reformulation of enactive principles, and consider their implications for an embodied, transformative modern spirituality. Each of the topics in the title is rich and multi-faceted, as I mentioned above, so in these reflections, I will only be evoking a small portion of their potential for interaction and mutual enaction; I will rely on others to explore other potentials, with the aim not only to voice a plurality of perspectives, but to invite creative integration and embodiment of shared spiritual vision.

Read the whole article.

*Aug 15th: James Barrow continues the symposium by arguing also for the physicalist approach -

Extreme versions of the Myth of the Given say subject and object are totally separate and when human beings look at those object we see them for what they are. Myth of the Framework says subject and object are not separate, and in fact it’s all one big subjective indistinguishable mush.

Enactivism claims to be looking at “a middle way”. If so I think it needs to be clearer on what ways we are connected AND in what ways we are separate. I get the feeling that since things have moved on from the simplistic orange scientific world view somewhat harshly described by Cook-Greater earlier, that no one wants to go back and look particularly closely at questions regarding the ways in which we are separate, and to do so within the context of an awareness of how we are also all interconnected.

Read the whole article.

*Aug 16th: Matt (Buddhacious) delivers -

To even believe for a moment that our thoughts will bring us whatever we want, we have to already be completely encased and blinded by a lonely solipsistic shell, not recognizing that every other person around us is also hoping and wishing for their own fantasies to be fulfilled. Who is going to end up on top in this struggle for personal happiness? There can only be so many lottery winners… Again, maybe it is just my Buddhist bias, but who can deny that life is suffering? We are made through an act of carnal love in the pursuit of fleeting bliss, grown in the womb at the behest of the crystalline death records of untold generations prior, and born as naked, delicately woven bodies, our intricate dynamics hardly noticed until something goes wrong. And when it does, we’re faced with that ultimate uncertainty– with the completely unknowable, unfathomable reunion with that from which we came.

Read the whole article.

Further articles: Adam, Julian, Erin, Ben.

Alan Wallace on the Paula Gordon Show

A revolution is upon us, says B. Alan Wallace, founder of the Santa Barbara Institute for Consciousness Studies. We could all be extraordinary people with extraordinary hearts, minds and states of consciousness, as well as talents and skills.

The revolution's source? The exploration of consciousness and the mind, using direct, immediate, first-hand observation -- meditation. This is the serious meditation in the Sanskrit sense of "cultivation" -- not meditation's cute or trivial impersonators -- and the world's many wisdom cultures offer a wide variety.

What's between us and extraordinary? Being stuck in the modern, Dr. Wallace says, specifically modernity's obsession with all things external and our "imagination deficit disorder." That and our overwhelming lack of balance.

With this revolution comes, Dr. Wallace hopes, a new Renaissance. He sees enormous possibilities for an unprecedented fusion of the East and the West. How? Maintain the strengths, beauty, depth and acuity of modernity while tapping into the deep wisdom cultures of the world.

Read the rest of intro, and listen to an hour of audio (format Real Audio) divided in six conversations.

Transformative power of development: Feedback 3/3

[Previous installments: 1/3 and 2/3.] The third section of Julian Walker's article is called "Telling the difference". Again, my emphasis given here are not present in the original article. Here we go:

So the antidote here is to:
a) develop more resources, especially post-narcissistic self-love and support and cognitive development that includes critical thinking
b) do the necessary healing and self-awareness work to process through enough of the traumatic (shadow) material and
c) take up a serious set of practices that help one to develop transrational awareness. Of course this takes years and is very difficult work - but the honest truth is that this is the way with genuine stagewise development.You can't just read about it in a book.

The rational arrest (as oppposed to the prerational regression) tends to perform the same mistake in reverse: where the regressive type has mistaken magic and myth for interior depth of transrational, the rationally arrested type has categorized anything non-rational as belonging to the magic and mythic category - and in so doing cuts off the possibility of genuine interior development of depth, embodied aliveness, emotional connection, intuitive/rational synthesis, and the power and beauty of experiences on the other side of egoic-identification, experiences that are made possible through meditative practice and energetic initiation.

The difficulty here is that the rationally arrested individual doesn't want to have a spiritual life - unlike the prerational regressive, who is longing for one but has taken a wrong turn! However, for arguments sake - the antidote here might be an equal investment in both:
a) healing (shadow) work and
b) inquiry-based practice (which is still deeply rational in it's foundation), but along with (instead of what is probably already well-developed critical thinking )
c) work that deepens the relationship to the body and emotional life.

Solutions given here are just fine, only Julian clearly focuses on doing, without considering how much such processes may depend, sometimes decidedly, on other influences and resonances, namely - cultural codes and beliefs one internalizes from various sources plus the impact of significant mundane and sacred relationships. I'm sure Julian's quite aware of these factors, and I think including them here in a blurb would make his distinctions and suggestions more meaningful. Apart from that, I think that shadow-inquiry-embodiment provides an excellent general basis. Of course, much depends on the methods employed to make these principles operational and effective.

So the BIG question is: how do we tell the difference between prerational and transrational ideas, experiences, beliefs, worldviews etc? What is transcended, what is included? This is nowhere as important as in the realm of developing a contemporary, grounded, integrated, adult spirituality. In fact it is in many ways the crucible of the next stage of our growth as a species.

One simple answer comes directly from Integral Theory originator Ken Wilber in his very recent Salon.com interview: ""The mystical state is often beyond words. It is trans-rational because you have access to rationality but it's temporarily suspended. A 6-month-old infant, for instance, is in a pre-rational state, whereas the mystic is in a trans-rational state. Unfortunately, "pre" and "trans" get confused. So some theorists say the infant is in a mystical state."

"The rational scientist looks at all the pre-rational stuff as nonsense -- fairies and ghosts and goblins -- and lumps it together with the trans-rational stuff and says, "That's nonrational. I don't want anything to do with it."

Now the funny thing is, even regressive types deeply interested in Wilber's work will see a quote like this and either gloss right over it or make some kind of gesture toward disagreeing with it and suggesting that he was having a bad day or not thinking clearly...

When initially reading that statement by Ken Wilber, I scratched my head just a little bit, and thought, there's a tricky simplification by Wilber's own standards. Surely, we need simplified ideas about these things to help hoi polloi make significant distinctions which are completely absent from education and public discourse. The notion that, for example, there is prerational spirituality, rational spirituality, and transrational spirituality is a very basic one, and the same may be applied to many different types of experience and human development in general. What Wilber is saying, effectively, is that only an adult person with critical faculties can reach into transrational proper. Now, this was based on multi-valued logic before Wilber recognized the crucial difference between stages in frontal psychological development, proceeding as transitional and enduring structures on one side, and shifts in witnessed states that characterize mystical experience and longterm meditative training. These two were previously pushed unto the same axis, and thus even Wilber himself participated in the pre/trans confusion for some time after coining the term "pre-trans fallacy" (PTF). As clarified initially with the Wilber-Combs lattice - where structures of consciousness from archaic to magic to mythic to rational to pluralistic to integral and beyond are given the vertical axis, and forms of mysticism from nature to deity to formless to nondual are given the horizontal axis - people have spiritual experiences of various depths at virtually all levels of structural development. So, even in that rather simple lattice, one can posit two dozen combinations, of which one half is rational and beyond, that is transrational. This makes PTF useful though insufficient. The main thrust of WCL is that not only can we differentiate between four inclusive types of spirituality, but each of these may be experienced and then interpreted at different levels of thinking about and engaging the manifest world. Pertinent to Julian's consideration, prerational interpretations of actual and/or potential experience disempower the individual not just by producing a very shallow account of "what happens" but also through directly fueling spiritual narrow-mindedness and narcissism. Now, individuals and groups may espouse a rational, pluralistic, and even integral view of reality, and yet fail to avoid making prerational judgements on very important issues concerning translation, transformation and spiritual awakening.

What I would add to this is that more often than not prerational worldviews, beliefs, ideas etc are ungrounded. They will include (instead of transcend):
* fantastical beliefs
* unscientific views of reality
* confusions between inner and outer reality and their relationships (category/quadrant errors), and very often
* various kinds of metaphysical denial structures around suffering, trauma, injustice, and the randomness of the world at large.

Generally there is a narcissistic tone - one of specialness, being at the center of the universe, being chosen, having angels, spirit guides and special intentional powers etc.. On the other hand the transrational worldview is in no way at odds with reasonable perceptions and interpretations of reality - it just takes them deeper, develops them further.

Here I beg to differ, since this leaves room for considerable doubt. I mean, "reasonable perceptions and interpretations of reality" is simply too vague. Or, even worse, Julian perhaps suggests that we can remain "reasonable" while adjusting ourselves to reality. Being "in no way at odds wiith reasonable" is hardly a working definition of transrational. Even if you move up the WCL and then suddenly turn right at "rational". Reality has absolutely no problem with reasonable or unreasonable, although the distinction remains quite clear. What appears as reasonable, however, should be questioned for the sake of those that hold it dear. There is a "reasonable" at every point in WCL, and there's pathology at every point, as well. It seems I can hear what Julian is saying, sort of, and I agree with that. But I don't resonate with "rational" and "reasonable" being used without delineation of the specific meaning employed and qualification regarding their quirks. In short, rational will take you as far as it goes, the problem is it doesn't go very far. And I'm afraid that by using it as a primary point of reference we cannot really address the problems that are behind this whole mess of narcissism and wishcraft in the current view of development and transformation.

There is a choice-less awareness of the reality of suffering and injustice - without the ironically linear attempt to make spiritual sense of these things via metaphysics. The transrational worldview is deeply compassionate and insightful, discerning and realistic. It encapsulates reality as it is and sees the sacred awe-inspiring nature of life without denying any of it's horror or meaninglessness. Transrational awareness is able to very deeply inquire into the more intuitive creative language of poetic metaphor, mythic symbol and archetypal experience without literalizing any of it or committing category/quadrant errors that turn those intrapsychic revelations into propositional statements about objective reality.

There is also, even more so, an awareness of the illusory nature fo the whole display, starting with dissolving the self-contraction of myself standing back from this whole suffering and injustice, relaxing into it while also relaxing the hold on it and what it means. Being realistic? Like being "reasonable"? Yes, but only because and only when that's how things work. Not because that's what the transrational view "is". Namely, a certain level of sophistication in manifesting ultimate clarity is necessary because at any given time in history there is a standard of civilized, dignified thought - today that standard is rational or higher, and moving. Also, whatever is good from any existing structure is ideally retained, included and embraced to serve that purpose.

Sane harmony as well as a kind of integrated differentiation between inner and outer reality is amplified, deepened and celebrated in it's stark and beautiful is-ness. Though some of the interior meaning that magic and myth were unconsciously fumbling toward may be included in it's deeper unfoldment in transrational awareness, none of the literalism, narcissism, magical thinking or pseudo science lasts a nano-second in the crystal clear, diamond-like perception of reality as it is.

To be consistent, nothing lasts a nano-second in the perception of reality as it is. There are pre-trans fallacy, category error, quadrant absolutism, level/line fallacy etc. But there's also the problem of two-truths conflation in various forms. "Isness" and "diamond-like" pertain to the ultimate, and the ultimate - being as it is - gives birth to many different expressions, while we're free to prefer any of them, thus making ourselves an identity amidst all other expressions. The ultimate, however, also known as "reality", never really becomes any one of its expressions, never really enters time so to speak, though it never exists elsewhere, or elsewhen. The ultimate is indeed the isness, as revealed in diamond-like perception, of anything observed, whether magical, mythic, or rational, or beyond - this isness is stark, and beautiful, in each and every one of those. Most everyone who have discovered this clarity in the past have had no idea there will be a rational, scientifically re-defined world in their near future. And the best among them could see and understand "everything" there was to understand. Yet, now we need a new platform to continue their legacy. We need a new way of bringing in both development and awakening, each informed by the other. Yes, this new way cannot allow itself to confuse pre- with post- anything, because it must maintain a deep evolutionary logic concerning everything in the manifest domain. Also, this new way must be effective in persuading the world that cultures and views also evolve, and that sacred cows are never what they seem. Transformation can be pursued by those who find themselves so inclined, and should be made into a universal right, but will nonetheless remain a tricky, non-linear, and difficult process, one that has just become quite a bit more complex than it used to be. Isn't that fun?

There are many points in addition to these, that need to be considered in more detail, like individual development and spiritual practice NOT being a private affair in a rational-and-beyond space, like development plus/vs awakening NOT being separate issues in an integral space, like these distinctions being characteristics of an emergent culture and therefore in dire need of differentiation from cognate and/or similar ideas already in use etc. What I have said in this feedback hopefully reflects my basic position of agreement and sympathy with Julian's take on the power of development. I'm looking forward to take this mutually enriching discussion further. Godspeed!

Transformative power of development: Feedback 2/3

After indulging in a somewhat exaggerated critique of the introductory section, I can now move on into the part which feels very much like something I would enjoy writing, on a good day at least. So, let's move to the second part of Julian Walker's article on transformation. This section is called „Interior Depth“.

The mystery of the inner world becomes available in a way that was simply not possible when we were unwittingly projecting it outward. The magic of the outer world becomes available in a way that was not possible when we were seeing it as a narcissistic extension of ourselves. The sacredness of the real world becomes more apparent in a way that was not possible when we were seeking a different world, a magical world, an otherworldly god, a fantasy dimension of all-good, all-powerful perfection in which to disappear.

This is true, and extremely important. Our critical faculties and the capacity to employ rational in a systematic inquiry is crucial in this step. The naive „I create my reality“ syndrome so prevalent in today's spiritual scene isn't a product of authentic magical thought, in any of its potent expressions, Eastern or Western, but of rampant narcissism made possible by an almost systemic collapse of 20th century intellectual and ethical frameworks holding our reality from falling apart, followed by an erosion of our academic and public-discourse standards. Religious institutions were proven unreliable, and commodification plus bastardization of spirituality was a natural consequence. At the same time, however, an unprecedented situation emerged in that previously esoteric techniques and arcane knowledge have become available to virtually everyone everywhere, and soon could be claimed by anyone anywhere. Specifically, spiritual paths have been presented for the last 40 years in a context of market-inspired offerings, where surfing on the smorgasbord of multiple options everyone is given to choose something that expresses their unique selves, which in the vast majority of cases means expressing their not-so-unique egos (*the eclectic result makes a faithful psychospiritual profile, a portrait and caricature at once, depending from the vantage point). Checks and balances are absent, so anything goes. Teachings have become mere techniques. Arduous initiation has become 1-day workshop at best. Purification of awareness has become a 10-minute guided meditation. But the problem is not in mere quantity. Relaxing the edge has gone too far to completely annihilate the critical faculties of a deeply desacralized eclectic mindset. No rapport, no challenge, no confrontation: "renowned teachers" have become "bestselling authors", somewhat like mail-order brides.

But in order to discover a more genuine sacredness, without „seeking a different world“, a robust existential rationality must be coupled a genuine search for truth beyond one's contractions. Indeed, if spiritual culture becomes/remains just a vestige, a cross-dressing for an inflated affection of magical vulnerability, there's no hope something as „sacredness“ will ever be available. Instead, it will be avoided. In such case, la-la-land of wishcraft remains a promising option. And therapy, of course.

There is no going back. Suffering is real. Injustice has no pleasing metaphysical explanation. Death will happen. And yet life is magnificent, mysterious, complex, beautiful in equal measure to its tragedy, meaninglessness, and cruelty.

Beautiful! No... Going... Back! Key phrase: injustice has no pleasing metaphysical explanation. But most of even serious practitioners remain deaf to this crucial insight, quoting dharma-phrases to defend from what they won't acknowledge. Disenchantment is the key to real magic. Thank you, Julian. What follows is rather straightforward and brilliant in its simplicity.

In fact, it is in the very contrast between evil and nobility, callousness and sensitivity, mediocrity and brilliance, oppression and freedom, that the exquisite fragility and power of the human spirit reveals itself.

Striving. Growing. Being humbled by reality in its harshness. Having no choice but to bow before truth. Fighting for what is good. Being blown open by Beauty.

The interior origin of art, myth, dreams and meaning becomes apparent in all of its splendor and chaos. The activity of a mind that seeks to represent, express, understand, symbolize the dynamics and forces we intuit at play, underlying, inter-weaving the reality we perceive.

We are ready for the leap to the next stage, but only in so far as we have really completed this intense transition and begin to engage the practices that will make transrational meaningful.

Unlike the revolutionary overhaul that occurred from prerational to rational, transrational will not negate rational, rather it will build and expand upon it's solid foundation - it's accurate purchase on inner and outer reality via a deepening relationship to contemplative practice, mind-body integration, intuitive intelligence and even more rigorous dedication to truth, beauty and goodness.

I tend to be less optimistic about rational, in and of itself, serving as "solid foundation" for transrational or even postrational, since they expose inherent limitations and shadows of a rational platform - as to solid foundation, I would opt for a reflective, evolutionary impulse of soulful authenticity - still, perhaps I can go along with this formulation. Specifically, if we really want to grow, not just individually, but also create an authentic spiritual culture as we go, we must move away from morbid vestiges of magical thinking. At this point in our culture, and probably equally in the East, it's much more important to develop a mature existential culture, than relaxing our angst through meditation, or devotion to an idealized tradition/guru/channeled wisdom/whatever. Depending on a variety of motivational factors, meditative techniques can be used for better or worse, like any other artifact - even to truncate development. In fact, meditation mustn't be treated as spiritual viagra. Growing as humans and patiently ripening the growing discomfort of clarity in confronting our dilemma is the real wishfulfilling jewel at this point. The great bliss is the flip side of the way things are now. Meanwhile, catering to the lowest common denominator in the spiritual showbiz, the vulgarity of many offerings is rather appalling.

But this is a difficult passageway - not attempted by many. There are two powerful pulls - one is to remain in the rational realm of what has simple location, what can be expressed in an equation - the other is to want to regress to childhood magic and myth. Both serve a similar purpose - but with different variations.

Remaining in narrow rationalism is often a defensive reaction against having to acknowledge feelings, vulnerability and the non-rational power of creativity, intuition, embodied, experience, love, intimacy, soul-rockin' sex - in short, experience that the ego cannot pretend control over...

This rejects the classic mundane maneuver, shallow and hollow as it is.

Regressing into the previous fascination with literalized magic and myth is often a defense both against personal suffering but also against facing the reality of collective suffering and injustice and taking responsibility for living in the real world on its own terms.

This refutes the actual manifesto of pop-spirituality.

Both strategies are based in a fear of or inability to enter the next stage of growth - i think about this in terms of two variables: trauma and resources. If one has sufficient resources (love, self-esteem, intelligence, education, support etc..) and has either a) a small amount of trauma, or b) has done a lot of interior work to heal and resolve trauma - we are better prepared to move into the genuinely transrational stages of development.

The simple equation here is that the more disadvantageous the trauma/resource ratio is and the greater the concomitant gulf between critical thinking and spiritual longing, the more likely one will be to misperceive a regression to childhood magic and myth as the next stage of development beyond rational.

Good stuff here. A lot of substance. And next, to my favorite, the third section.

> next installment here

Transformative power of development: Feedback 1/3

This is an unusually long post... If you're a regular reader here, then you know I appreciate Julian Walker's engagement in formulating a sober 21st century spirituality, which is realistic and inspiring, inquiry-based and psychologically astute. Julian Walker and I write with a different purpose, on a different continent, coming from diverse backgrounds, immersing our minds into distinct arenas of individual and cultural transformation, and having disparate feelings on zaadz/gaia.com, yet we share an interest in genuine integral and post-metaphysical spirituality, and often we see eye to eye on important issues.

Here follow some of my thoughts on Julian's recent article "The Transformative Power of Development: A Three-Part Distinction", which you can read at his blog, followed by the ensuing discussion (Julian is great with initiating discussions, and you get pulled in before you know what happened). I will quote the whole text, then emphasize in italic the passages I find significant, and then critically reflect on their implications, which will not exhaust or perhaps even remain faithful to their intended meaning. This is a response based on reading the article at the level of its language. Julian may have used "reason" and "rationality" as a designation-only for a general critique of widespread nonsense in popular "spiritual" discourse, but I don't accept such abstraction as conducive to solution, so I'll simply reply to the obvious. Julian's article is divided in three sections: Growth, Interior depth, and Telling the difference. So, Growth first.

Something happens. It happens to all humans. We grow. Our minds literally become more adequate to reality. Each step forward in development is both a deepening and a clarifying of our relationship to both inner and outer reality. Cause and effect becomes clear. The inner and outer worlds get better differentiated. As such, many perceptions - in fact an entire worldview, get left behind, negated, transcended - call it what you will - the way we formulate, interpret and interact with reality completely transforms.

So far, so good. Though, everything I left unitalicized belongs, in my opinion, to the „horizontal“ enlightenment, that is spiritual awakening in strict sense. But let's move on.

This is good. Growth is good. Its what happens.

Growth in itself is, as confirmed in the third sentence, something that simply happens, so saying it's "good" is unnecessary and tenuous at best. Growth can go wrong, which doesn't make it bad either. There's potential, of course, which when unfulfilled tends to cause problems. But growth, unlike change, is not a constant. And, in humans especially, not all growth is a given. Therefore, not all growth "happens", including both growth in wordlviews and spiritual growth.

Its why we know that: There is no Santa Claus. Your mom can't see through walls. Jesus was not born of a virgin. There is not an evil spirit under your bed. Grandma didn't die because you wished she would in a moment of petulant frustration.

"We know that" refers to a specific "we", and a specific "knowing". What is mirrored in following statements is a rational perspective on relative truth, specifically applied to dismiss magical and mythical relative truths, by which such rational gets passively defined. But, beyond rational, a different "we" would insist on formulating the developmental dynamics of facts, not just of knowledge, and so the postrational perspective on relative truth will specify the altitude at which pronouncements are made, and make clear whether that altitude is enacted and voiced a priori or a posteriori, whether as an adequate stage-level-station of discourse and meaning making or a caricature of a regressive slide.

Otherwise, to someone saying "There is no Santa Claus", we could reply in the same vein, "What are you talking about? What Santa Claus?" That is, the object of negation cannot be totally nonexistent. It must exist in some way in order for the refutation of its existence to make any sense at all. Therefore, we must be careful to define the existence we are refuting, and the resulting existence we are establishing. And the way to do that is in developmental terms, allowing a sequence of qualified existences.

The shift from prerational to rational is an absolute revolution. New software comes on-line. Cause and effect becomes apparent and the place-holder of magical causation becomes less plausible. The narcissism of placing oneself at the center of the universe and reading personal magical significance into random events and special communication from god to your tribe gets relinquished.

The shift from prerational to rational was a revolution 300 years ago. Now it's just a transition, part of conventional, and kids today don't get much excited about it, mostly because its unrealistic promise, typical for every revolution, has worn off. In real life circumstances, those of enmeshed philo- and ontogenetic unfoldment, worldviews and paradigms tend to establish themselves and persist in dual structures (one leg in the previous structure, one in the next, which allows some vertical flexibility, and provides for creative inner tension), so that we often have magico-mythic, mytho-rationalist, and rational-relativist positions. But yes, the shift from any level to any new level is a huge move, unexplainable only in terms of anything previously existing. However, it's not and has never been an "absolute revolution". Rational (universalist) remains blind to all things that lay ahead of it, and applies to the magico-mythic (absolutist) components the same narrow judgement, only from a relatively more elevated vantage point. While the absolutist claims, "You are wrong, and you're going to hell for it", the universalist retorts "Actually, you're wrong on both counts." The obsession with proving others wrong remains strong in the rational view, and only begins to be recognized, albeit in confused or partial manner without any effective remedy, by the relativist. So, in an important way, placing oneself at the center of the universe is really done by the rationalist for the first time - at magical and mythical structures, the self is not completely separate from the universe and the meaning of it to be placing itself anywhere; it is being placed in the continuum of meaning as a node, not at the center as a regressed narcisistic ego. Specifically, while I'm aware that this isn't a treatise on complex developmental patterns, nonetheless I'm convinced that transitional structures known as magical and mythical, as well as historical phases - at different times in different places - when these were adequate stations of life and vantage points for individual and social meaning making, should be given due respect and distinguished from sordid regressions, whether partial or wholesale, after higher structures have been established, as well as from troublesome fixations which amount to mere developmental pathology. I believe this has been done insufficiently, so that these distinctions are often collapsed, resulting in refutations of something that is a necessary precedent. This, then, is similar to what some extreme relativists have been doing with those structures that preceed the advent of contemporary relativism, and are therefore to a significant degree a necessary precondition for it. At the same time, rational as an available structure and potential should be distinguished from rationalism in any of its calcified expressions and formulations, conditioned during the initial breaking-away from the mythic order by means of desacralization. For example, Wilber does this by speaking of the dignity and disaster of modernity, offering to heal the disaster while redeeming the dignity. He applies the same dual wisdom to premodernity and postmodernity. I believe we should replicate this general approach. In short, we should demonstrate the cruelty of magical and mythical realities in their socio-economic aspect, as well as their narrowness in their interpretation of human interior. But we should never confuse or even compare magical pockets in 21st century adults with actual primitive thinking. The later is much more benign, the previous much more destructive. Just as the magical worldview and its developmental equivalent transitional structures need not impress us as anti-rational, but instead be clarified as simply pre-rational, even so the various rational and relativist claims, oblivious as they are of their non-superior status in the unfolding of paradigms and eventually meta-paradigms, become clarified as pre-integral, and yet not anti-integral.

What's more the magic of the real becomes more available. Looking through the lens of the natural sciences, reality gets more deeply revealed in it's powerful, mysterious wonder!

"Magic of the real" is discovered through initial spiritual awakening, and structural shifts are insufficient to produce one. Furthermore, "looking through the lens of the natural sciences" warrants exactly nothing, without the I that is doing the looking being inclined to discover an intuited powerful, mysterious wonder. Never before have pictures of this immense universe and sights and sounds of this beautiful wilderness been available to everyone everywhere: yet never has the sense of mystery and awe been more absent on all levels of society. Looking through the lenses is not enough! Understanding who sees what is crucial. A non-reductionist interpretation of what is seen is certainly necessary to make sense of what is "discovered", by complementing it with what remains even more obviously hidden to those lenses, namely - the mysterious wonder itself! - that remains a primarily interior affair.

Using reason we begin to interact with the internal world and the love of truth - philosophy. Using our newly developed, beautiful ability to self-reflect, we begin to interact with that other aspect of inner life - psychological awareness. The moral dimension of our being deepens too as we begin to be able to have more empathy for others and see the reality of suffering and injustice through the less self-centered and tribally identified and now more humanistic and world-centric lenses.

Reason has been used in defense of the mythic truths for centuries prior to European enlightenment, and much before in Indian thought. Indeed, most philosophers worth their salt have practiced their philosophy to reconcile reason and that which, for whatever reason, defies reason. In doing so, they have jointly established an elevated vantage point that takes reason itself for an object of inquiry to discover both its virtues and limitations, known sometimes as vision-logic or mandalic reason. But the problem of a recurrent magical thinking and rampant narcissism awaits at the level beyond mere rationality, when the reconcilitation of reason and that which defies it is carried out in absence of depth, as if to make everything equal and thus cease all claims to superiority - the relativist revolution - which has already proven impossible, or at least intolerable. Rationality is insufficiently reflective of its own role in developmental dynamics, since complex developmental dynamics go quite beyond orderly natural laws.

From rational orange-altitude vantage point, magic and mythic are less moral, and more self-centered, yet also less self-aware (therefore less responsible). It is a dialectical fact that the most self-aware structure available in "1st tier" exclusivist range of structures, namely the green-altitude, relativist, pluralist etc. is also potentially the most narcissistic when it resonates with poorly integrated magic impulses, producing a spiritual culture where "ego" - itself a product of previous rationality - gets hated and loved simultaneously in widespread bewilderment and confusion. The semantic mess created in the last 50 years, a period of simultaneous expansion and collapse of horizons, won't allow any easy solutions, or straight answers to these issues.

Notice that in this whole thing no mention is made of how these structures of magical, mythical, rational, relativist and further tend to light up - or collapse sometimes - with stages of spiritual awakening. Also, Julian uses a simple scale of prerational, rational, and transrational, which these days is only useful for explaining the pre-trans fallacy. No use of relativist and existential comparative signifiers too add depth and granularity. No mention of rationality's inability to handle anything truly paradoxical or downright immediate. The second and third part of the text develop the initial argument to point toward a "transrational" integration, and yet arguing for strengthened rationality not just as a capacity, but as an enduring framework. So I'm not sure what to make of it.

I intend to continue this critical reflection with the remaining two parts of the article: Interior depth, and Telling the difference.

UPDATE:
Interior Depth: Feedback 2/3
Telling the difference: Feedback 3/3

Rabbi Gafni Update

I'm reposting this with some additions. Two years ago I posted on Rabbi Mordechai Gafni (that is, Marc Gafni) and the drama surrounding him, being accused of sexual abuse. Perhaps one of these days allegations made against him will be finally clarified. Quote from "Trial by Internet":

Sexual harassment laws have given women much-needed legal protection and gone a long way to support civil treatment of women everywhere. But when a woman tells the story of a sexual encounter and claims harassment, the man—guilty or innocent—will likely be in deep trouble if he does not have physical proof to the contrary. The woman doesn’t even have to seek legal redress—the complaint alone can sometimes be enough to get a professor or executive reprimanded or even fired. To complicate matters for the man, in Israel, unlike anywhere else, sexual harassment is a criminal offense....

Worse than a weird dream, it was now a nightmare. He had no way of refuting the complaints. By this time, the story had been leaked to the Jewish press. Though many people in his community felt that Gafni was being railroaded, hysteria prevailed. Without consulting Rabbi Gafni, without cross-questioning the complainants or checking into their motives, a chain reaction was set in motion which resulted in the dissolution of Gafni’s movement. Several newspapers published sensational articles chronicling Gafni’s “downfall.” One reported (falsely) that he had been accused of rape. Another (again, falsely) claimed that he had made promises to marry five women. Within a few days, Gafni’s teaching work and the organization to which he had dedicated his life had been discredited and destroyed....

Sally Kempton, a former journalist, leading spiritual teacher and second wave feminist was asked what good might come from this story. She responded, “Marc has gone through a deep evolution. He will be an even deeper, better teacher in the second half of his life than he was in the first. The question is, can the people involved move from victimhood to power and responsibility? If they can, then Marc, the women, and all the shadowy players behind the scenes, will offer us great hope for healing in our world.”

The third act of this drama has yet to be written. Can this spiritual teacher come back from the dead? The answer is most likely “yes,” due to Gafni’s unflagging persistence. Did the obloquy and ignominy of the last two years break his spirit? No, though it has left some scars. Yet, throughout the whole of this nightmare, in circumstances that could easily, and forgivably, break the spirit of nearly any other person, Gafni has managed to hold onto his chronic optimism and genuine love for humanity.

The article in question is found in July 2008 issue of Catalyst magazine (also, pdf file here from page 20 to 25). Particularly interesting is also the sidebar by Jeff Bell entitled "On the 'net: Lies Live Forever".

Gafni's website has an informative section "Controversy" with a particular listing of Professional Evaluations, letters of support by Sally Kempton, Gabriel Cousens, John Kesler, Paul Goodberg, Rabbis Gershon Winkler and Abram Davis, Ciny Lou Golin, Joseph Berke, and even polygraph tests. If you have an opinion on the "Gafni scandal", read through all those letters for a perspective on what could become an exemplar of web-based defamation, with it's amalgam of "victim chic" rhetoric and guru-busting professional defaming and a precious pinch of trash journalism.

Elsewhere on the web, the attacks on him don't seem to subside. Is not this supposed to be resolved at courts by legal authorities? I suspect this case has a political-religious background. Also, the more "impartial" and "balanced" accounts by various bloggers give credibility to the more extreme attacks by providing links and search-machine ratings. While in cases such as these one cannot be impartial, one should take the side of truth and justice.

If what "Gafni supporters" claim is to be trusted - and they are out on a limb with their affirmative candor, their vulnerable credibility at stake - what then should we think of those who started and maintained this lynching campaign, based as it undoubtedly is on distortion and projection?

Projecting the Dharma

An intriguing talk by Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche on "projecting" Dharma in the Western world, given at Yale Law School, New Haven, Connecticut on 25 January, 2008. Time 82 minutes. Note: the first half is most interesting, and an AQAL analysis of the discourse Dzongsar Khyentse uses with this audience gives interesting - though not surprising - results.


Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche: Projecting the Dharma from Siddhartha's Intent on Vimeo.

Change and the Changeless

An utterly delightful talk from Father Thomas Keating, entitled "Oneness and the Heart of the world", found at GlobalOneness. Time 35 minutes. Enjoy!



Thanks to Vincent Horn for heads up. Here's the link to the original video, available in high and low res, and also for download in .mp4 format.

1-click Shift

One minute shift with teacher Adyashanti. Also, some cool stuff at the Cafe Dharma section of his website. Enjoy!



Thanks to WH for heads up.

A Call to Depth

Julian Walker writes in "Call to Depth: Part One":

I am enamored of depth, for the sake of depth. Complexity, nuance and substance are beautiful, soulful in and of themselves. Depth also unfolds more meaning. Greater meaning as a layered tapestry not only of relativist perceptions and perspectives but also of a patterning that tends (if followed faithfully) toward more essential truths. Truths that are truer by virtue of their depth and clarity, by virtue of their underlying and immutable nature. Truths that are often obscured by the first few layers on the surface - and by the appearance of depth in some of those mistakenly constructed (yet often initially convincing) layers of surface analysis or belief. One such mistaken construction is the self-contradictory assertion that there are in fact no immutable underlying truths - or that any attempt to identify or express these leads inevitably to fascism.

This mistake negates:

* the great wisdom traditions and philosophical academies and their insights
* the progress of science in all its forms
* the process of development (toward greater degrees of complexity, depth and accuracy) that exists everywhere in nature
* the evolutionary drive itself

Read the whole post.

Only Breath by Rumi

Translated and recited by Coleman Barks.

Integral Heart

This video was filmed in Netherlands at the Integral spirituality seminar led by Terry Patten. His new website - The Integral Heart - features articles, media, and links to partners. Here's an excerpt from Integral Agency-in-Communion:

"I chose the URL and identity of this website, "Integral Heart," in part to emphasize the healthy communion that is a natural expression of healthy Integral agency.

Structures of awareness always have special strengths and weaknesses. Since Integral consciousness has evolved so recently, there's no research yet that clearly identifies its tendencies towards limitations and pathologies. But most structures differentiate themselves from the previous one via a somewhat exaggerated reaction."

Check out the website.

So, no bonbons by the pool, eh?

Features of the Mystic Experience

"...it is necessary to explain five principal features of the mystic experience: (1) intense realness, (2) unusual sensations, (3) unity, (4) ineffability, and (5) trans-sensate phenomena. (...) It is assumed by those who have had a mystic experience, whether induced by years of meditation or by a single dose of LSD, that the truthfulness of the experience is attested to by its sense of realness. The criticism of skeptics is often met with the statement, "You have to experience it yourself and then you will understand." This means that if one has the actual experience he will be convinced by its intense feeling of reality. "I know it was real because it was more real than my talking to you now." But "realness" is not evidence. Indeed, there are many clinical examples of variability in the intensity of the feeling of realness that is not correlated with corresponding variability in the reality. A dream may be so "real" as to carry conviction into the waking state, although its content may be bizarre beyond correspondence to this world or to any other. Psychosis is often preceded or accompanied by a sense that the world is less real than normally, sometimes that it is more real, or has a different reality. The phenomenon of depersonalization demonstrates the potential for an alteration in the sense of the realness of one's own person, although one's evidential self undergoes no change whatsoever. However, in the case of depersonalization, or of de-realization, the distinction between what is external and what is internal is still clear. What changes is the quality of realness attached to those object representations. Thus it appears that (1) the feeling of realness represents a function distinct from that of reality judgment, although they usually operate in synchrony; (2) the feeling of realness is not inherent in sensations, per se; and (3) realness can be considered a quantity function capable of displacement and, therefore, of intensification, reduction, and transfer affecting all varieties of ideational and sensorial contents..."

See the whole paper "Deautomatization and the Mystic Experience" by Arthur J. Deikman. More useful articles to be found at the website.

Carl Gustav Jung

Carl Gustav Jung is featured in the Feb-Apr 2008 issue of WIE that arrived yesterday, along with Pierre Teilhard de Chardin in an excellent article by Carter Phipps. The WIE team are doing a great service with this amazing magazine. Back to Jung, here's a link to an anthology of Jung's thought, and below you can have a look at "Matter of Heart", a documentary conceived and written by Suzanne Wagner, made in 1986 by Mark Whitney, featuring interviews with those who knew him and archive footage of Jung. Time 1 hour 45 minutes. Enjoy!

Hidden Newton

Or, Newton the Alchemist. "Hidden" meaning "not known to general public", because there's a hidden Einstein, a hidden Schroedinger, a hidden Heisenberg, a hidden Planck... These hidden aspects of our great scientific geniuses are actually reflections of taboos long held by the modern scientific community at large since its inception and rise to power, taboos that were introduced to consolidate the "scientific outlook" and make it the rational way of seeing the universe and man's place in it. However, these same taboos became generative of a scientific shadow of shallowness and a dissociation of rationality from deeper aspects of human beingness, thus handing over the esoteric (hidden, profound) to the overtly religious (as if they knew what to do with it), and unleashing the scientistic impulse to assail and ultimately debauch both science and rationality.



As proposed (or made clear) in this BBC documentary, the alchemical Newton was hidden on purpose, and it's more than we can say about the arrogant narrow-mindedness of many contemporary scientific minds, who have been brought up and educated in the climate of "hidden identities", where they were assured and assuaged there's no such thing as a hidden (or interior, or unquantifiable) reality, for which the measurement and objective evaluation simply won't do, and were never asked nor encouraged to inquire into the nature of that which remains immeasurable. Thus, they learned early on to strategically postpone their own awareness, "We are ten years from answering the most difficult question, but answer it we will...", acting somewhat like mice from Adams' "H2G2" who knew the answer, but needed more time to "calculate the question".

Just as religion has accepted to impersonate its own caricature offered by science, so has science often reduced itself to a lame denial of interiority on one hand, and radical mystery on the other.

Resource: Quantum Questions, what else.

Hat tip to to WH.

Simple truths

Julian Walker shares some pithy observations in a series of "Simply put" posts. Here's a quote from Simply put #3:

Look under the belief that we have chosen everything in life and you will find a deep fear of not being in control.

None of us has control over the circumstances of our birth.

Children do not choose to be born into poverty, dysfunction, socio-political unrest or trauma.

Nor do we choose our intelligence, gifts or other genetic traits.

Denying this is a form of hubris, that while attempting to feel empowered actually diminishes our power.

As painful as it is to acknowledge, there really are victims in the world.

Accepting this pain allows for a grounded compassion toward the human condition.

~
See also Simply put #1 and Simply put #2. Concise, though not sententious. The ensuing discussions tend to obfuscate the posts themselves, unfortunately.

Fast Deep Sexy

A nice interview with David Deida by Vijay Rana, concerning his book "Instant Enlightenment: Fast, Deep, and Sexy". Quote:

"Anyone who’s too uptight or rigid about their spirituality probably wouldn't even open the book because they'll likely think it's a schlock book or glib and superficial. But, you know, enlightenment is instant in a certain way, as an always accessible yet often brief state rather than as a more or less permanent stage, to use Ken Wilber's language. In general, significant spiritual stages often require decades, some might even say lifetimes, to mature into stability. But as a 'peek', as a profound relaxation in love and truth, that moment of kensho - or whatever you want to call the overwhelming insight or relaxation in love, of 'aha' - that's always instant in the ever-present moment, and then it has to be practiced to become stable. You might need a well-designed set of practices to engage year after year, as well as relationships with friends and teachers and everything else that goes with true maturity blooming throughout a lifetime. I titled this book Instant Enlightenment because, on the one hand, the state of enlightenment as opposed to the stage of enlightenment is instant, but also as a kind of tongue-in-cheek, humorous, tipping of my hat to today’s microwave, plug and play, or short-attention-span cultural style."

See the whole post.

Kitsch, Paranoia, Nihilism

Julian Walker posts the second part of his "Power of Worldviews" entitled "Spiritual Kitsch, Paranoid Process and Relativist Nihilism". Here's an excerpt:

"...In it's healthy form, Postmodern spirituality deconstructs the cultural baggage and prerational superstions of Magic and Mythic and expands Rational natural-world, sensual spirituality into a deeper valuing of both the inner world of the psyche and the universal truths and states of consciousness made available through the still valid perrenial practices at the heart of those traditions.

Instead we have what I call spiritual kitsch - a kind of lowest commmon denominator combining of angels, aliens, karma, positive thinking, narcissistic fantasies about manifestation and how the universe works, extra-dimensional spirit guides, astrology, psychics and everything happening for some cosmic reason - all supported by an imaginary new science that is really just a self-referential reflection of the marketing material that keeps this segment of the economy chugging along at ever greater profits.

This spiritual kistch is of course reflected throughout popular culture as a kind of dumbing down of the arts and the elevation of self-help platitudes to the status of philosophy and psychology."

See the whole piece, it's worth reading.

Dharma MUST be political

'...It’s fair to say that— within contemplative communities—discourse about specific social and political issues has typically been met with a general unease. This discomfort even extends to many people who feel deeply passionate about social issues in their personal lives, but feel wary about bringing that discourse into the conversations and interactions that occur within their meditation community. Even on the pages of a magazine like this, a letter to the editor expressing dissatisfaction with politically oriented content could make the editorial staff fret that the magazine is being viewed as “too political.” A general fear of appropriateness abounds, coming from a compassionate intention not to alienate those who don’t share our political inclinations.

This uneasiness seems to hinge on a worldview that sees participation in political and social issues as a personal choice. Some people choose to be political, some people don’t, this worldview claims. No matter what choice they make, the inner work of meditation can benefit them. So please, let’s not alienate those who have chosen differently from us. From this point of view, keeping the context of our meditation practice personal and apolitical seems to be the most compassionate and inclusive thing to do. Everyone can work on personal issues, and no one feels alienated. In the various training programs I attended to become a teacher of meditation, we were warned multiple times against using too many political or societal examples in lectures and discussions. There is only one little problem: the view that participation in social and political issues is a matter of personal choice is based on a complete and utter fallacy...'

Read the whole thing by Ethan Nichtern.

Wilber on Shadow

'...One of the things that's great about shadow work is it doesn't just have you say, feel into your feelings, get in touch with feelings, how do you feel about it, etc. It actually takes the opposite of how you feel and says “OK, feel that.” Because that's pretty much what your shadow is, is the opposite of what you're consciously aware of. So as I say, using the monster example again, if you are out of touch with your aggression, your anger - and, incidentally, for Buddhists to say, “well, you're never supposed to feel anger,” the point it, well, if you're unconsciously feeling it, you have to consciously feel it first, and then you can try to transcend it or transmute it - but for you to just go around saying, “I'm not going to feel anger now,” that just seals your repression. So the worst possible thing you can do if you have repressed negatives like anger or aggression is to get caught up in one of those practices that say that aggression is the root of all evil because your shadow loves that kind of stuff.

So what you do then is: the monster shows up in your dream, your projected anger shows up in your dream as this monster that's trying to attack you, and what you feel is fear; so we don't say get in touch with your fear - I mean you can if you want to, but it's an inauthentic emotion. [laughs] We say identify with the monster, feel the monster, now what does the monster want to say? The monster is not afraid of you, I assure you. [laughs] You're not going to feel fear, you're going to feel, “I hate you so much I want to kill you” or “I'm so angry at you I could rip your head off” or something like that. So that's the way that you can - to some degree, on your own, and at least as a sort of introduction/initiation into it - you can get a sense of your shadow, because it's really helping you feel almost the opposite of what you think you're feeling. Like I say, just feeling your feelings and getting in touch with your feelings and all that, that won't get you in touch with your shadow, because your shadow is the opposite of what you feel, and that's just a pretty good definition of what the shadow is - the opposite of what you're consciously feeling....'

From a transcript of a recent conference call with Ken Wilber. Transcribed by Arthur Gillard. Thanks to Julian for heads up. Read the whole piece here (a lot more in the transcript, not limited to shadow).

AND, there's a free audio where Ken is asked "How would you define what you do?" Listen to find out what he answers. To download go here.

Faith and Reality

The always inspiring Father Thomas Keating speaks in this excerpt from a discussion with Ken Wilber. Father Thomas addresses the issues of Faith, necessity of religion, the false self, love as motivation, spiritual and psychological maturity etc. Ken Wilber then replies with several important points on states and stages. And then Father Thomas returns, quote, "The contemplative practices, of themselves, I think, make one vulnerable to the unconscious..." Have a look and enjoy.

Reflections of a contemporary yogi

Julian Walker writes:

...My young man insistence that everything could be cured by meditation or yoga or just dropping the ego was being slowly replaced by not only a full spectrum model that acknowledged that different practices and therapies were appropriate to different issues, but that there was also a series of developmental stages that had to be traversed by every human being AND that all of this could be situated on a four quadrant map of reality that made extraordinary sense. I understood now (for example) that some kinds of meditation would make trauma survivors dissociate from their felt experience even further rather than actually providing an opportunity to heal and integrate. Also, spiritual experiences were available to all - regardless of their stage of development, but that those experiences would be interpreted in predictable ways depending on that stage of development and the cultural context within which it was occurring. Wow. I understood that the Upper Right empirical perspective on depression was of great importance and that some people really did benefit from medication - that there needn't be a war between Prozac and practice, between medication and meditation...

Read the whole article.

Integral Spirituality

The Catholic theologian Karl Rahner famously said "the Christian of tomorrow will be a mystic, or not a Christian at all." Few people have impacted Christianity in this regard as has Fr. Thomas Keating. A Cistercian monk from St. Benedict's Monastery in Snowmass, Colorado, Fr. Thomas has spent a lifetime in deep Christian practice, and in sharing the fruits of this contemplation with countless others. We were enormously blessed to host a dialogue with Fr. Thomas and Ken Wilber in April of 2006, and we're delighted to share with you some of those beautiful moments. In this video, Ken presents some of the foundational concepts of Integral spirituality.

Link to video at KW's blog.

On feminine spirituality

An essay by Anita Floris. Quote:

‘Why bring in these opposites, of masculine and feminine? Why not reach for the Non-dual and take it from there? We can arise above these differences and find that they do not matter. And then find a new way to be a man or a woman again.’

I am impressed every time I hear this, the spiritual implications dumbfounds me. Sometimes I have enough wit about me to ask: so how do you get to that non-dual state to begin with? ‘Just letting go - of everything.’ O, right, I see.

Who doesn’t want to reach for the Non-dual? I am never quiet blunt enough to say: But by not calling it masculine doesn’t make it non-dual. That path still is masculine, by that I don’t mean wrong or mistaken. That path just has not risen above the opposites, even though it likes to talk about the non-dual.

Read the whole text.

History and Dharma (7)

What's the relationship between structures and states? Clearly, something is going on. It's not that we have invented structure-stages, but it's impossible to find a specific description of them in wisdom traditions. However, intuitive understanding of structures is present in the best stage conceptions we may find in later Buddhist teachings (e.g. Nyingma, Sakya, Huayen, Tendai, Shingon). Also, the three turnings of the wheel in the Buddhist tradition are not only an advancement and refinement in states, but also in structures (at the esoteric level, that is).

How does consciousness, being a nondual union of absolute and relative at once, not twice, appear as structure and state simultaneously? This dual nature is somewhat reminiscent of quanta having both wave and particle properties.

Basic binary combinations may also be applied to state-stages and structure-stages to figure out what will not work. It will not work, because "structures" and "states" are neither identical, nor separate, that is, they are two different perspectives on the process of development.

(1) States are the only reality, structures an illusion, everything can be explained and all purposes achieved by relying on states. This is zone#1 absolutism, wherein structure-stages are either not discerned, or not admited. In some cases, this approach turns into a state absolutism, where only one state is recognized as really real.

(2) Structures are the only reality, states do not have meaning, all development takes place in structures, as structures, through structures. This is zone#2 absolutism, wherein state-stages are seen as non-existent, or unproven/fancy, or downright pathological.

(3) Structures and states are not related, though both are relatively real. This is an impossible situation, since it is quite clear that prolonged disturbance in states will cause a regression in structures. Therefore, it is clearly the case that structure growth and stability depends on some sort of state-cohesion.

(4) Structures and states are situated in the same continuum, wherein state-stages actually refer to the highest structure-stages. This was the model embraced also by KW at least until TOE (2000), though he was quite clear on "levels and lines", as well as "states and stages". This conception also doesn't work.

None of these seem to offer an appreciation of WCL. When interpreting the WCL, Wilber is not explaining how the two sets of stages are related, he is instead pointing out why we need both of these sets to better understand the nature of the process of transformation which obviously can accomodate both structure and states, and may consist of both types of stages. A lattice is, of course, a very simple illustration of a category-distinction. In practice, this relationship will exhibit complex fractals because of which it is easy to fuse and/or confuse the two categories.

On that note, there's another chart used to supplement the traditional view, that KW used in "One Taste" (2000). Here's the full quote preceeding the illustration:

"... the traditional Great Chain tends to confuse the levels of Being and the types of self-sense associated with each level. For example, mind is a level of the Great Chain, but the ego is the self generated when consciousness identifies with that level (i.e., identifies with mind). The subtle is a level of the Great Chain, the soul is the self generated when consciousness identifies with the subtle. The causal/spirit is a level in the Great Chain, the True Self is the "self" associated with that level, and so on. So the sequence of levels in the Great Chain should be body, mind, subtle, and causal/spirit, with the correlative self stages of bodyego, ego, soul, and Self--to use the very simplified version. Although I often use the traditional terminology (body, mind, soul, spirit), I always have in mind the difference between the actual levels (body, mind, subtle, causal) and the self at those levels (bodyego, ego, soul, Self).

Here is where some of these distinctions start to pay off (and the usefulness of the move from wilber-2 to wilber-3 becomes more obvious). The traditions generally maintain that men and women have two major personality systems, as it were: the frontal and the deeper psychic. The traditional Great Chain theorists (and wilber-2) would simply say that the frontal is the self associated with the body and mind, and the deeper psychic is associated with the soul, which would indeed be a type of ladder arrangement. But the frontal and the deeper psychic seem much more flexible than that; they seem to be, not different levels, but separate lines, of development, so that their development occurs alongside of, not on top of, each other. We can graph this as shown in figure 7 (for which I have reverted to a more accurate 6 levels)." (KW)

This is an example of "levels & lines" distinction, only applied not to preconventional, conventional and postconventional development of, say, cognition and morals, but instead on the traditional Great Spectrum development of three self-senses. If you're interested in the entire entry from One Taste, see here. But essentially, what is offered is levels of Being on the left/vertical scale and through these levels/stages we find developing three types of self-sense, i.e. frontal personality, deeper psychic and witness, phasing in and out at appropriate state-stages. Therefore, quote

"As the ego orients consciousness to the gross, and the soul orients consciousness to the subtle, the Self orients consciousness to the causal." (KW)

And then, to continue,

"While all of them have their root dispositions in specific realms or waves of the Great Nest, they also have their own lines or streams of development, so they often overlap each other, as indicated in the figure. And this is what I think so many meditation teachers and transpersonal therapists see in themselves and their clients, namely, that ego and soul and Spirit can in many ways coexist and develop together, because they are relatively separate streams flowing through the waves in the Great Nest of Being. And there can be, on occasion, rather uneven development in between these streams." (KW)

Well, the Great Nest is here to stay as Involution, and soon enough we will visualize 3D integral mandala, a synthesis of several necessary distinctions made so far to conceptualize the complexity of the ULQ: involution plus levels-and-lines plus structures-and-states as two crucial sets of stages. Plus, of course, the Shadow, and voila: prospect of upper-left quadrant, zone#1/zone#2 combined.


Indeed, from Integral Spirituality (KW, 2006) page 87, before introducing the Wilber-Combs lattice: "As for transformation itself: how and why individuals grow, develop, and transform is one of the great mysteries of human psychology. The truth is, nobody knows. There are lots of theories, lots of educated guesses, but few real explanations. Needless to say, this is an extraordinary complex subject."

It's my contention that Buddhadharma is, at it's esoteric core, perfectly capable of updating to include and express these propositions. That is, inasmuch as we're interested in an authentic 21st century continuation (lit. tantra) of the Gautama Buddha's proclamation of timeless Freedom, in fullest terms available in our time.

(to be continued, of course)

History and Dharma (5)

In the previous post (#4) I have briefly outlined the average/advanced model, used by Ken Wilber in "Up from Eden" to explain the difference in structure that most frequently goes with exoteric vs. esoteric views and their representatives. Pope John XXII and Meister Eckhart are definitely not to be placed in the same structure, hence the latter was tried by the first as a heretic. The example of Meister Eckhart (and Giordano Bruno etc.) perfectly illustrates how adequate (read: favorable) conditions in all four quadrants are necessary for growing in structures (even when, or especially when, you are awake in all states). And now, let's have a look at the W-C-Lattice.

As stated earlier, individuals and groups and societies at large develop through stages of structural increasing complexity, unevenly in various developmental lines. On the other hand, authentic contemplative training is mainly a matter of state-training, which itself evolves in stages. These two kinds of development have confused researchers for some time, so that twenty years ago, for example, the stages of mystical realization would be put on top of the more conventional structures (like in the average/advanced model). However, the W-C-L makes the important distinction of state and structures, that finally makes it possible to understand some deeper dynamics at work, namely disce