Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

What does the term “integral spirituality” mean to you?  Do you have a vision of what it should look like - how it will show up in terms of beliefs, areas of core concern, modes of discourse, practices, and institutions?  How would it differ from traditional religion?  From the New Age?

Ken Wilber has recently published a book which presents one vision of “integral spirituality,” and which recommends adjustments that modern religions could make in order to be more integrally informed and more relevant in the postmodern world.  In this thread, I welcome your thoughts on Wilber's vision, but I am also interested in hearing your own “integral visioning”…whether you consider the tradition you practice to be integral already (and if so, how); whether you are trying to realize an integral iteration of a traditional religion; whether you are working on integrating a personalized core set of practices, unaffiliated with any particular tradition; or if you are still looking for something that really fulfills the promise of an integral spirituality.

In some of our discussions here, Julian has emphasized a number of core features of “adult (integral) spirituality”:  critical thinking, psychological awareness, and inquiry based practice.  Wilber stresses that an integral religion must begin to incorporate, in a coherent way, the insights of modernity and postmodernity - in particular, by dispensing with outmoded metaphysical models and challenging “the myth of the given” wherever it is found.

What do you think of these ideas?  Are they essential elements of any truly “integral” spirituality?  Do you have any others you would add? 

In a recent discussion, I mentioned that there are a number of significant “movements” afoot that, in my view, give evidence of at least some of the potential “shape” of integral spirituality in the 21^st century.  I will name a few here, and will welcome descriptions of other movements if you think they exemplify the promise of (postmodern) integral spirituality.

The Teachings of J. Krishnamurti

Krishnamurti famously condemned traditional religions for having failed to deliver the radical transformation of mankind that they promise, and he spent his life teaching that “truth is a pathless land,” emphasizing radical inquiry into our conditioning in lieu of formal dogmas, rituals, and practices (all of which he says tend to lull people to sleep with satisfying translations, or involve them in fruitless projects of “becoming” based on psychological projection and avoidance of “what is.”)  Although K was open to the teachings of science and encouraged his listeners to critically examine all beliefs, particularly metaphysical ones, I do not think his teachings are fully integral.  And the value system of many of his followers also tends to be rather firmly “Green.”  However, even with these qualifications, I think his teachings have many gifts to offer those who are interested in a modern, “adult,” inquiry-centered spirituality which eschews the comforts of mythic-membership religion without surrendering the mystical depths of the ancient traditions, nor falling into dry rationalism (K was quite a nature poet, for instance).  K also approached spiritual transformation in a unique way:  he founded, not ashrams or spiritual centers, but boarding schools for children, in which inquiry and awareness practice form central parts of the curriculum.

The Diamond Approach

The Diamond Approach is a relatively new spiritual movement which I think merits attention in any discussion of integral spirituality.  It integrates Eastern and Western spiritual practices and insights with modern depth psychology, using psychological work and open-ended inquiry not as adjuncts to spiritual practice, but as the vehicle itself.  In Integral Spirituality, Wilber points out that Diamond Approach teachings still depend on a number of metaphysical beliefs, and I believe this is generally true, but the overall vision is still quite sophisticated and its practices are deeply rooted in an elegant wedding of profound spiritual teachings (Dzogchen, Sufism, Shaivism, contemplative Christianity) and leading edge theories in Object Relations and Self psychology, shadow work (called “clearing” in DA), somatic processing, etc.  It may not meet all of Wilber's “postmodern/postmetaphysics” tests, but it is nevertheless an modern tradition which integrates ancient and modern thought and praxis in fruitful ways.

The Time-Space-Knowledge vision (TSK)

In my opinion, TSK is a profound vehicle of transformation which is integral, integrative, and fully sensitive and responsive to the perspectives of modernity and postmodernity.  I do not believe it can actually be placed in either a “modern” or “postmodern” box, but it directly addresses many of the core concerns of these two “streams” of human thought and praxis, while remaining indebted to neither.  Its central practice is inquiry, but it encourages the use and development of all modes of human experience and cognition…even those which are eschewed in other, more austere paths of inquiry.  (For instance, Krishnamurti dismissed the value of speculation and imagination in spiritual transformation; in TSK, they are just part of its rich palette).  Where TSK could be said to be lacking, from an Integral perspective, is in the area of psychology:  it does not give attention to conventional psychological issues, at least not directly.  However, it takes this path consciously, rather than as an oversight.  It seeks to dig beneath conventional psychological structures and effect transformation in a different way.  The value of such an approach is open to debate, though I think it is well supported within the TSK vision itself.

Integrative Spirituality

A year or two ago, I posted a thread on the old Integral Naked forum entitled, The Integral Church of AQAL:  A New Religion?   In it, I expressed concern that Integral theory was on its way toward becoming a religion in its own right - a development which I had, and continue to have, reservations about.  If you are interested in this argument, click on the link above.

While Integral, under Ken Wilber, may not be a religion yet (and, of course, may never be), there is a movement afoot in the Bay Area to consciously and collectively construct an “open source spirituality” which is Integral at its core.  I am not very familiar with it yet, though I've met with some of its leaders and they are thoughtful, sensitive people.  If you are interested, here's a link to their site:  Integrative Spirituality.  And here is an article on the “open source spirituality” movement. 

EnlightenNext

I have expressed reservations elsewhere on this forum about Andrew Cohen and his methods, but there is no question that this is a group which is striving to embody the central message of Wilber's Integral Spirituality, perhaps moreso (nowadays) than any other spiritual movement.  So I think it deserves mentioning.

There are likely a number of other modern movements out there that I have not mentioned, and I invite you to bring them to the table if you are familiar with them.  The ones I have mentioned here are all “new visions” rather than Integral reformulations of traditional religion; I chose these particular traditions because I am either directly involved with them, or because they are consciously trying to “apply” Integral in a thorough-going way.

This thread could just be a catalogue or resource for sharing different Integral movements we are aware of, but my aim is a bit more ambitious:  I am wanting to know what moves and inspires you, what vision you have for “integral spirituality” in the future, and what elements you think are absolutely essential.  Also, what must be tossed out or left behind, if anything?

Perhaps this thread is too ambitious, and it will stall out because its perspective is so wide.  But let's see where this goes.  I started it in part because of ongoing “head butting” in this forum over what is essential and allowable in adult, integral spirituality, and we can narrow in on that if we want.  But I wanted to start with a wider view first.

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

I should not fail to mention Aurobindo's Integral Yoga – in a number of ways, the grandfather of Wilber's own Integral vision.  It does not meet all the criteria for “postmodern spirituality” that Wilber set forth in his new book, but it is obviously one of the modern sources for the integral movement as a whole, and it also deserves mention – and study.

In my next post, I'll lay some of my own cards on the table.

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Thanks Balder for starting this thread.

I think it's a bit too wide for the moment, but I'm confident it'll focus soon.

One of my concern with the idea of “Integrality” is how to follow a “heart path” in a post-religious context. I-I is a very intellectual approach and although they try to put in some heart practice, like Big-mind and Big-heart, a few of us have voiced their doubts about this path and the way it is portrayed.

Heart practices (devotionnal, dualist) have been included in religions and were very effective. They are not, I belive, in contradiction with knowledge practices. But they centered around personalities and often brought to separation more than to union.

I believe New Age is a heart practice! We can focus on it's naiveness on the cognitive aspects, but I think that it is judging the patient only on it's weak aspects. Let us not forget that New Age's emphasis is love and compassion not limited to a person, but which encompasses the Whole.
New Age is mostly pre-rationnal on the cognitive aspects, and that is no mystery. But thoughts and intention have powers that we certainly don't know yet. Let's keep it open.

The real challenge seems, as I see it: can we, offer a heart practice in a spiritual model that is cognitively up to date (meaning not pre-rationnal).
Can we integrate the heart practice in an non sectarian and integral model?

Or to say it differently: I think New Age has a lot of followers because it offers a heart practice and universality. I'm not sure, as Julian says it , that the motivation of New agers is just  the validation of their narcissistic needs.

Now, we can attack NAgers… but we'll only antagonise them!

KW's model is very much centered around intellectuality and it should be noted that not everyone will enjoy reading him!

Most of the heart practices are still embedded in some tradition. Is it possible to go further than that?

Patrick

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Thank you, Patrick.  I agree that I probably started off with too broad a perspective, but I hope too that we can focus in on those things that are of most concern to us with regard to “integral spirituality.”

I was thinking the other day about heart practices.  I think there are beautiful practices preserved within many different traditional religions, including non-dual teachings such as Buddhism or some strands of Sufism and Hinduism.  The practice of metta, or lovingkindness, is popular in many modern Buddhist circles in the West, and I'm a little surprised it hasn't been mentioned in any of Wilber's works (that I'm aware of).  It certainly works with perspectives in a direct way, opening them ever more expansively in connection with the heart center.  In terms of interior practices, I have learned and benefitted from metta, guruyoga, tonglen, chod, and several other Buddhist meditations.   I think they are powerful, and the principles of at least some of them could be practiced beneficially outside a traditional Buddhist context (in my opinion).

Heart-practice wouldn't necessarily be the “whole” of an Integral spirituality, but I agree that it certainly could stand to be emphasized more in Wilber's version of it.  (He is starting to do that, perhaps, with his new emphasis on 2nd-person perspectives and “the miracle of We.”)

You wrote:  “New Age is mostly pre-rational on the cognitive aspects, and that is no mystery. But thoughts and intention have powers that we certainly don't know yet. Let's keep it open.”

One reason I started this thread was because I sensed that even though we've all been talking about “integral spirituality” on this forum, we don't all mean the same things by it, and we don't all want to include the same things in it.  In recent discussion with Julian, it appears he thinks belief in extrasensory perception and other non-ordinary forms of knowing is regressive, unreasonable, and a step away from New Age narcissism.

In my reading of Wilber, I think he not only accepts these things as reasonable, he clearly puts them on his developmental map as natural manifestations of particular levels of development (or state access).  In my view, mature Integral Spirituality will not uncritically, prerationally incorporate particular ideas just because they are satisfying to us or our need to feel special.  But I do think there is room for non-ordinary modes of knowing and interaction in 21st Century spirituality, and that this does not stem from an abdication of critical reasoning.

I'm curious what others here think.

Integral Spirituality is not defined by “belief in the existence of non-ordinary modes of knowing” (or other paranormal thingamabobs), just as it is not defined (exclusively) by robust heart practices or cognitive teachings, but it may include them in a coherent and reasonable way, in my opinion.  (And, in Wilber's model, it already does).

Best wishes,

Balder 

P.S. If enough people respond to this thread, then at the end of it, I will attempt a summary of all of the perspectives shared here.

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

“How did we get here, I mean really!?” I have personally been puzzling this question since the moment I can remember thinking. I may have been born puzzling this. It is EXTRA-ORDINARY that we are here! There is no denying that all manner of events were misconstrued in the pre-rational era, attributing powers to kings and gods that now can be firmly appropriated and recognized within the rational, scientific paradigm. But nothing, so far, nothing, has begun to shine a light on the EXTRA-ORDINARY reality of you and me and all of this. From the perspective of my rational mind, I am embedded in this ‘impossible’ phenomenon. The formula for this occurrence plays on me. I ponder the shape of the universe, all of it– not just the stars and the planets, and all of the manifestations of matter, but the shape of the universe that includes our thoughts and our imaginations– all those so called ‘spiritual’ dimensions that send us beyond our capacity to rationally understand– the maths of the absolutes, of zeros, of infinity and eternity, indeed the places in our rational mind where warning signs are posted: “Don’t proceed further, Abyss ahead”. It must have been the same for the early explorers of the world when the world was flat, and one might drop of the edge into something else, back in the days when it was turtles all the way down.

“who are we, I mean really?”

“Where does ‘intention’ come from?” and by intention I mean it really simply, like the intention to move my fingers or walk across the room

So for a 21st century spirituality, we need to put the questions out there and stay wide open to the answers. It would appear to me, that far from being satisfied and complacent with the answers presented by my rational mind, the impossible is happening every minute of the day….and forget about quaffing stuff out of thin air…..but really, it does seem that we quaffed out of thin air, very thin indeed! Go figure. This figuring is what I imagine a 21st Century spirituality is all about.

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

well this is a subject close to my heart!

i think that 21st century spirituality is in need of three major shots in the arm to make it healthier, more effective, more genuinely transformational, less prone to the serious problems of old world religion and the new age.

as such it is helpful for the architects of a 21st century spirituality (integral or otherwise) to be really honest about some of those problems - not as a way to antagonize religious believers or new age adherents (how we interact with them is a separate conversation) but in the spirit of healthy critique and honest dialog amongst ourselves - which leads me to my first point:

1) shadow work

i ain't talking about the cutesy 321 shadow process here. i mean a slightly deeper cut on shadow work.

conventional religion and spirituality have a massive avoidance of the shadow - this is almost their raison de etre. as such they have always been doomed to boomerang back on themselves in self and other destructive ways..

spreading cognitive awareness of jung's ideas about the shadow and the unconscious, as well as body, mind and heart practices and processes for digging into some serious shadow work/emotional process that emphasizes the importance of turning to face and work diligently with the shadow should be one serious aspect of 21CS.

let me clarify here by defining shadow as that which has been disowned or repressed by the prevailing familial, social, spiritual doctrine. this would include psychodynamic awareness of trauma, developmental disturbance, familial dysfunction, socio-political oppression, religious repression, spiritual dualisms that perpetuate dissociative/transcendentalist defenses that locate spirit somewhere other than in this messy human experience.

it would also include debunking the faux-empowering belief systems that actually perpetuate shadow repression and amount to the same social conditioning and religious psyche fragmentation in drag…so as to initiate a awakening of grounded real world spirituality that recognizes the sacred nature of body, mind and heart and finds “spirit” in the deepening relationship to those dimensions of being.

good places to start:

books

connie zweig                                            romancing the shadow
                                                                    meeting the shadow,
stan and christina grof                            the stormy search for the self
alice miller                                                the drama of the gifted child
donald kalsched                                      the inner world of trauma
peter levine                                               waking the tiger
alexander lowen                                      bioenergetics
arthur janov                                              primal therapy
stephen mitchell                                      relational concepts in psychoanalysis
jack kornfield                                           a path with heart
pema chodron                                         start where you are
                                                                   when things fall apart
                                                                   the wisdom of no escape
                                                                   the places that scare you
stephen batchelor                                  living with the devil

practices

holotropic breathwork
vipassana meditation (kornfield style)
tonglen meditation (chodron style)
psychodynamic therapy
physical exercise, dance or yoga with an intention of working with and going into the emotional energy that emerges instead of trying to rise above it….
somatic experiencing (levine style)


2) inquiry-based spiritual practice

this basically has to do with relinquishing conventional metaphysical beliefs in favor of a kind of 3 strands of science approach to awareness practices and spiritual philosophy.

strip it down, question the beliefs, fantasies and concepts about what spirituality is, rebuild it from the ground up based in inquiry and experience, examine the difference between experience and interpretation, and look at what interpretations based in faith or leaps of reasoning  might be supporting and/or protecting you from.

the central premise of inquiry based spirituality is that if the spiritual idea can survive serious inquiry it is probably more likely to be true. if it cannot then why hold onto it?

central to this process is the assertion that truth matters more than consolation - that it is truth that sets you free not consolation, not fantasy, not unrealistic defenses against existential difficulty.

this is hard work, but it creates more of a tolerance for reality such that we ca see it more clearly, which should be the function of any real spirituality. it will definitely be in tandem relationship with shadow work, as this deconstruction starts to get directly at the deep shadow material - we are afraid of death, suffering, aloneness, chaos and as we deconstruct the defensive beliefs that material surfaces it's why we are so araid to let the defenses go - so we need a lot of support in this process.
.
as such this is a existential initiation - which i think is a prerequisite to genuine transrational mystic awe.

another central premise is that if there is such a thing as spirituality it requires no faith and it can withstand rigorous analysis, if it can't then it is not worth much and one is better off without it.

also: there is enough magic, mystery ad miracle in life as it is without having to postulate other realms, supernatural powers, deities, angels, aliens etc in the name of spirituality - it makes more sense to re-sensitize ourselves to the sacred in our humanity rather than imagine it elsewhere in ever more improbable ways…

mostly this is my own approach, but it shares a lot in common with both western existentialism and some eastern meditative disciplines like zen.


books

stephen batchelor                            buddhism without beliefs
jennifer hecht's masterpiece          doubt: a history, is wonderful food for the journey
because their blistering attacks on the consequences of irrational belief are so good:
sam harris                                        the end of faith
richard dawkins                              the god delusion

practices

vipassana meditation
concentration (apana) meditation
psychotherapy
yoga, dance and other exercise engaged with a sense of “bare attention” inquiry into the present moment


3) cognitive development/critical thinking

it is essential that we keep developing the cognitive line. conventional religion is mostly organized around literalizations of symbolic material that is better understood symbolically. the new age does the same thing but regresses to magic so as to seem cooler than mythic material and mixes in some very confused junk science and badly thought out philosophy.

most lacking is basic critical thinking, reason, and their higher order developments; symbolic thinking, metaphor, poetic hermeneutics etc…

armed with a healthy integration of reason and the ability to accurately interpret symbols and understand poetic metaphor in a sophisticated way, the treasure chest of myth, ritual, altered states etc can be revealed in their true glory and be better interpreted and integrated with with grounded-in-reality cognition.

too often spirituality and religion are seen as existing separate from reason and as being immune to it - both reason and spirituality suffer in this dualistic and fragmenting misunderstanding, but spirituality most of all, because it is kept immature and fanciful.

i think that encouraging critical thinking skills and developing texts and practices that weave concrete operations, formal operations, vision logic into stronger and stronger synergistic cognitive functioning would be a god start.

to that end reading the opinion pages of major newspapers, following current events, picking  difficult moral and intellectual dilemmas to have honest conversations about with friends, becoming familiar with the serious theories of our inner and outer worlds that have developed over the last couple hundred years see important.

creating a spiritual culture that values cog dev and critical thinking as important aspects of spiritual life - not everyone ca be super smart, but the anti-intellectualism has got to go!

books

the work of ken wilber (duh)
joseph campbell's work
poetry, especially academic books that interpret poetry and set it in it's social and literary context
serious philosophy - the big questions have been explored in-depth by brilliant minds, and exploring their insights is less sexy and buoyant than the patty-cake new age fare, but so much richer and deeper…there are basic primers on this stuff that are awesome and accessible and should be packaged in as sexy ways as the junk that makes millions while peddling nonsense.
serious  psychology (freud, jung, the object relations theorists)

practices

socratic method
deductive reasoning
healthy debate
contemplative meditation
commitment to the 3 strands
study


i might add a fourth ingredient which is the initiation into serious energetic practice (free from any superstitious dogma or authority structure)  that enhances and deepens shadow work and spiritual practice and creates a tantric reference point for the ecstatic possibilities of this life!

all of this is on my opinion an essential pre-requisite to any kind of non-dual practice or philosophy, witnessing practice etc. it has been my experience that most satsang junkies would be much better off attending to what i have described above than obsessing on the red herring of  enlightenment….

that way when non-dual insights arise thay can be integrated with healthy expressions of body heart and mind rather than be used as yet another defensive (and often quite pretentious) strategy.

in some ways this is the standard transpersonal observation that one has to be someone before one can be no-one…

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Nice post Julian.

We are probably going to re-do what KW did, but that can be interesting.

Integral S needs a map and I think that KW's ideas are, to my knowing the best in this area for the moment. As for the techniques his Institute provides, I find them a bit weak (321 process, Big Mind) or maybe it would be more accurate to say that I-I tends to vehiculate a sort of rapid enlightenment or evolution, which the techniques in themselves do not really deliver. They may have fallen in the pitfall of the zeitgeist of Fast/effective evolution. I think we all know here that the path is long, painfull, uneven, but beautifull and sometimes rewarding! But certainly not quick nor easy.

Shadow work: Julian, the unconscious is not made only of repressed material (that came to consciousness and got repressed), but also of material that has never emerged to consciousness (Freud's view, quote by heart). KW makes in Atman Project a distinction of 4 kinds of unconscious, which I think is quite interesting ( will put the reference in a further post).
Anyway, shadow work is to be done on different developmental lines. Shadow work of the body, shadow work of cognitive devlopment, emotionnal shadow work.

The idea of a psychograph (for individuals and for groups) is a central one as I see it. Tools are needed to evaluate the development of the holons on each of these lines.

Then , we should carefully define which development line the different techniques adress, and what kind of unconscious they target.

For example, Julian cites holotropic breathwork. What does it target? We should be clear with that to come to a rationnal and scientific  study(which does not exclude a trans-rationnal approach).
Holotropic breathwork, having tried it myself, seems to target bodily and emotionnal shadow material, repressed and not yet emereged.

Basically I think work should be done to clarifiy the existence and levels of developmental lines. Then, techniques should be classified according to their center of action.

I have to run…will come back later. Clearer I hope.

Patrick

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Jane,

I agree with you. An understanding of our experience is needed. As to “what is intention” that seems to be a most important question.
In magical thinking, intention is just in thought, and it bypasses the emotionnal body, as well as the physical. What can happen when intention flows in the three body?

Patrick

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

I'm not going to aim for a comprehensve list; I'll just add a few things; I like what I've read so far, particularly in Julian's post. 

1) An integral spirtuality would have to integrate the idea of evolution in a very real way, a way that had a serious impact on the way a person lived his or her life and practiced spirituality: to be one with God, one has to be at one with evolution.

2) Developing the deeper psychic/psychic being/authentic self would have to be a central consideration for people who have reached a certain stage, turquoise or higher. I don't see how this could be done without faith element.

3) An element of service and self sacrifice, the idea of devoting one's life to a higher purpose, would also have to be a central tenet.

4) The interpersonal would also have to be developed in ever new and deepening ways–new types of communication.

5) The sexual/romantic impulse would have to be examined very closely and integrated in a particular way as few things can be so distracting and derailing for a spiritual life.

That's it for now!

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Thanks Julian for outlining your practices and directions for inquiry. Thanks for the reference books.

Just one question, wouldn't it be more informative to help “enlighten” people of the more real, more true understandings of certain belief systems, systems that Dawkins and his kind like to shoot holes in. It is never easy to convey deep symbolism and people tend to fall into superficial understanding. Isn't it then much more important and fruitful to untangle the misunderstanding and throw light upon the meaning of, for example, Christ? Then we will not nullify or dismiss age-old traditions but to help to reform them and up-date their inherent living message. There are people out there that are doing this, within the Church, and it is beautiful to behold. Open minded enquiry and deep exploration brought to the table will help both people within a religious order as well as independant free-thinkers. Then and only then will we also be able to distinguish between different levels and depths of spiritual/religious traditions.

I love what you have to say and find what you say so refreshing in todays spiritual world.

For myself, I try to stay away from the superficial academic reasoning condemming things they have no understanding of. Yes they do point to certain facts in regards to religious dogma, which is in itself unavoidable since human nature is far from perfect (yet). But they are left clueless about the deeper truths and lack any kind of real alternative. They do not themselves understand the inner core of the teachings they discard, and therefore come out sounding like real blind fools.

They make prime time television, make a million and feel great about themselves, saving the world from ignorance. Hello…

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

i hear you bjorn - hence the inclusion of joseph campbell, the unparalleled master of interpreting mythic symbols in intelligent spiritual ways. hence the inclusion of mystic poetry etc…hence the importance of serious inquiry.

yes! people are caught in literal thinking about religion - hence the emphasis on learning symbolic thinking and integrating it with healthy rational as a way to keep the archetypal material in it's healthy role - one which informs real life!

dawkins and harris are speaking truth in my opinion and the state of the world as a result of the irrationality they decry is undeniable - but integral approaches can add to that truth in ways that they are not doing (or claiming to do).

we know dawkins is a nature mystic at heart.

we know harris is a meditator.

they just are very clear about the real world problems of superficial religion. they are not to blame that the majority of the world are literalist believers in irrational ideas, are they? this is what they are (along with you) pointing out - what is left standing (for those ready to be awakened by it) after their rational critique is authentic spiritual practice and mystic awe of the kind that is not susceptible to fundamnetalist insanity of various stripes that still dominates the world. i am not advocating that integral be as aggressive as they are but that within our own practices and thinking we fearlessly embrace the truth they are pointing out and keep skillfully creating alternatives to religious and new age worldviews.

i am thrilled that there are theologians exploring this possibility too - hopefully they can encourage religious people everywhere to have the courage to drop superstitions and keep discovering a mature, contemporary relationship to “spirit!”

 you have mentioned jesus twice now - an interesting archetype. is your reference primarily to do with compassion? how valuable! unfortunately he represents supernatural notions of virgin brith, rising from the dead, literally being the “son of god” etc to millions of people (a small handful of intellectuals and theologians aside) and still carries an unfortunate psychic  hang-over from the primitive dualistic magic constructs around blood sacrifice that he was forged in… this can beunderstood as one way of trying to deal with the shadow - it's effect is written in the history books and is something i think best left behind.

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

nice patrick. more later i hope…

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Thanks for the reply Julian,

Yes I understand your choices, but would myself leave out the nature mystics (unless they also demonstrated a deeper understanding of that which is before nature). We all love nature and find inspiration from it, but that hardly qualifies them to dismantle religion only because they don't happen to like it. There is so much hypocracy in religion as well as outside of it. Maybe Dawkins could stay within his range of expertise? If he would be an expert, or knowledgable about the deeper meaning of Christianity then he most likely would become a reformer, because the message of Christ is true and his Church is an inherent part of his evolving manifestation.

About Jesus, yes much confusion around him, but also much light and beauty.
His mysteries, that is, his life, death and resurrection are profound and can be realized, understood and serve as deep unlocking tools for our psyche. His body and blood, the bread and wine, are also deeply profound and shed light on his sacrifice. For many years I could not understand these mysteries but after deep experiental revelations in my own body I was given insight into these most mysterious events. That the world would never truly grasp this has been evident throuhout history but this very same doctrine has topped the charts since it took of in the western world.
I think this dilemma is almost unavoidable. The deeper anyone has gone the more profound will their teachings be. And it will not be understood by most. But these very difficult doctrines can't be simplyfied since their very nature is so profound. But we as individuals can go to the bottom of these mysteries and then explain them to the people in helpful ways.

Resurrection, Julian, is quite extraordinary. I have no doubt you will agree with me. And like you said, this is not an easy way. There is sacrifice involved, and if at least a few are willing to go that extra mile, they will be able to bring back water to the thirsty, as you so well know by teaching your students.

Much love,
Bjorn

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

This is a small note, but what I would love to see in this thread is an answer to the question “What do you want an Integral spirituality to offer”? Balder brought this up initially but I haven't seen much response; there's been no small amount of attention paid to how this proposed approach will help enlighten a generalized other, and to what “people need,” but frankly I'm more curious about what each of you, personally, would like such a spiritual practice to deliver.

I know Balder promised a bit on this, and I'm completely willing to be patient, but it is something I'm wondering about. What do you want such a spirituality to provide? Enlightenment? Peace? Community? Better tools to persuade of the rest of humanity of the value of the AQAL worldview? ;)

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Hi Siona,

I think that simply coming to the end our own personal struggle, becoming an active part in life, and then sharing your experience with others that are also growing up. We learn to become humans in order to teach our children to become humans too. To a larger or smaller extent we might be a part of the advancement of all things good. I think Julian outlined how we might approach it, -with sanity.

Cheers,

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Siona,

I appreciate your urge to return to that question of Balder's “What do we want the Integral to do, deliver, encourage?”  My vision is of a world that has lost its thirst for stuff, class distinction, dirty sex, drugs and celebrity.  Jesus, hugely maligned, misinterpreted, co-opted, and abused, had such a simple message - ever, the real truth is so simple, it is our own mind, driven by the differentiating ego, that buys into the complications, the lies and the illusions.  To me, his entire message boils down to this:  “Love thine enemy, The Kingdom of heaven lies within, Let no man stand between you and the Lord.”  The whole blood sacrifice piece, along with resurrection and the virgin birth is not what he was about.  That has all been assigned to him by the co-opters.

The adage,  “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.” did not just refer to an obsession with material wealth, but, more specifically, it refers to “spiritual richness” or a sense of the self as full of all the answers, rationales, techniques, philosophies, psychological explanations, and other complex understandings - these are richness too and can become just as obstructing to the experience of Christ Consciousness/the Buddha/Shiva-Shakti or mystical natural awareness.

At some point in our development of expanding awareness, we must learn to empty ourselves of the wealth of knowledge and learn to live in the heart of it.

Its like golf.  First you study, then you practice, then you play.  If you mix 'em up, you'll hook it for sure.

best,
Michael

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Yes Michael I agree, it is about loving your enemy, but I think there is also really something to be understood by the resurrection. No need to dismiss one over the other. There are so many mysteries and I personally like to understand them all, and meanwhile also learn to love my enemy.

All the best,

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Bjorn,

I am looking here, for what might be integal about the story of Jesus, the Christ of his time.  To me, his fundamental, irreducible message was as I stated above.  Nothing else really matters to me, not the blood sacrifice of the crucifixion, not virgin birth, not the resurrection.  There is a great deal of sensitive debate as to what actually happened back then.  Significant, eyewitness testimony has been systematically edited from the “story” whatever that was.  The political climate at the time was ferocious.  The Essenes were a radical, “leftist” insurgency that sought to return Judaism to its mystical roots.  Jesus had to fully aware of the messiah prophecies.  His most beloved disciple was Judas.  Alternative views of this time hold that Judas had to be virtually coerced by Jesus to complete the betrayal role in the prophecy.  Alternative views hold that Jesus, by virtue of strenous efforts from the initiated Magdalene, a covert priestess of the remnants of the Goddess cult, actually survived the crucifixion and went on to father a child or children with her.  Who is to know what really happened?  But one thing is abundantly clear, the real father of the Church, the one who, via his letters began the misappropriation of the message that ultimately led to the “Christian” armies marching forth from then to now in retribution for the blood sacrifice, was Paul, a pagan converted on the road to Damascus after fleeing the confusion in Jerusalem after the “crucifixion.”  He was a friggin' tax collector with blood all over himself.  He reversed course and returned to Jerusalem to argue with the Essenes and the rest of the Judaic scholarship over what had really taken place.

The general uproar that emmanated from the life and “death” of Jesus was rich political ground for cooptation and exactly that ensued.  In my opinion, Saul/Paul remains an archcriminal and the hopelessness of fundamentalism, both Islamic and Christian is a direct result of his perfidy.

Integral spirituality, however evolved, cannot hope to solve this debacle.  It can however, intend to consider what the essence of any religious doctrine might be.  From Jesus's point of view, that doctrine or message is simple and clear.  Explanations of it, and further adornments are beside the point and do not need integral consideration.  Let historians of religion take care of those speculations.  They are not pertinent to the Integral.  I think.

best,

Michael

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Siona: “I'm more curious about what each of you, personally, would like such a spiritual practice to deliver.”

Deliver me, from my me-ness.  This doesn't seem to have anything to do with 21st Century, but because that is where “I” am, all the tools available (in all quadrants) are at my greater disposal.  And to the extent that I am response-able, perhaps I may be of some assistance to other mes if so asked.

Keith

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Nice letters, folks!  (This was written before several of the latest letters were posted, which I also appreciate…)  I expect we'll agree on a lot here, and we will probably end up reiterating a lot of what Wilber has already done, but I think there are also some significant areas where we'll differ – particularly in how the rubber meets the road, or what the implications of certain of these general principles are.  Which is fine.  I don't see a need for uniformity here.

Jane, yes, at the root of all of this is a basic existential wonder:  Emaho!  How wonderful!  That all of this richness is unfolding at all – that vast space flowers in such stunning profusion… This is not something that can be “put on” like a practice, in my experience, but rather it grows naturally just through being curious and paying attention to what is.  Living with the great questions.

Patrick and Julian, I appreciate what both of you are writing.  Yes, “shadow work” is multifaceted and difficult, and it doesn't seem likely to me that the 3-2-1 process will do more than begin to scratch the surface.  (Perhaps I-I is putting out a lot of introductory practices, which will give people enough of a taste of these processes that they will be inspired to go deeper with professionals or with more robust practices.)

I think many of us here would agree on the importance of giving careful and loving attention to the opening and growth of the multiple dimensions of human being, or our being-in-the-world.  In my next post, per Siona's request, I will say something about what I am personally interested in and looking for in my own spiritual life.

To the extent that this thread is inspired by Julian's particular take on “modern adult spirituality” – and it is, in part – I have questions for Julian about some of his claims about what qualifies as truly adult, non-regressive spirituality…

Julian, in previous discussions, in which I or Pelle or others described various experiences in which non-ordinary forms of knowledge appeared to evidence themselves, you commented that you agreed that there were “mysteries” about the ways that we are interconnected that we do not yet understand.  Then, in relation to my coffee shop story, you commented that rational adults would not place credence in supposed instances of extra-sensory perception, and that to do so borders on prerationality and narcissism.  This does not seem consistent with your earlier comments, so I would love it if you could spell out your position on this.  Should adult Integral spirituality deny a place to non-ordinary, possibly transrational modes of knowing – prescience, extra-sensory perception, and so on?  As far as I know, scientific research projects are still ongoing in this field (some with significant positive results, such as Sheldrake's work), so I think it is too early to declare that such things are pure fantasy and prerational projection.

As I'm sure you know, and as I pointed out in my letter to Patrick up above, Wilber does not dismiss non-ordinary modes of knowing – he has a place for them on his map, many tied specifically to spiritual development.

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

beyond this we may just have to agree to disagree my friend. my point is not that all paranormal/psychic stuff will always prove to be complete bunk, it's that the vast majority of it is either just silly /naive or malevolent/manipulative and that ultimately it serves as a major disraction form doing the other more important work that i outlined above. do you agree with this at least? how about if i say this : i am wide open to paranormal/psi phenomena being plausibly proven and repeatable - that will be a fascinating and exciting day! do you then accept my assetions above?

how do i differentiate? well if it sounds like magic or literalized myth it probably is.

in his 20+ books on the deal with everything, wilber has mentioned this kinda stuff a mere handful of times, i don't believe he has ever gone into specific detail on it. he has also slammed the new age and deconstructed religious metaphsyics in places more vehemently and certainly more eloquently than i could hope to do.

the problem you pose is a tricky one and it goes directly to the application of the dreaded  PTF.

i think there is aso a lot of confusion about what exactly wilber means in his references to psychic phenomena and this opens up doors for a lot of wishful-thinking interpretations in a spiritual community that so wants magic to be real.

i see no references to being able to mentally transmit his coffee order to barristas in his one taste journals, so i can only assume that his meditation-honed ability to enter alpha and delta states at will does not give him access to psychic abilities and that he does not find it particularly important.

although hiswork is quite intentionally distinct from the new age morass of metaphysical mumbo jumbo, i think also that wilber (by is own admission) at times errs on the side of being too inclusive out of the desire to make a really big map of orienting generalizations. i think he has also had an at times willful naivette about eastern traditions, which he has started to correct with wilber v.

(i think by the way that grof has made the same mistake, and that this is a boomer naivette that our generation can sidestep…)

my position - as far as i can tell every single story of the paranormal i have heard thus far has a plausible explanation within the laws of physics or psychodynamic theory, or is subject to random causality or trickery.  *

the two best examples of this for me are 1) sai baba - who is estimated at having 6 million followers world wide based to a certan extent on paranormal abilities that have been shown to be completely fraudulent. there is also this naive tendency to equate suposed siddhis with high development in moral and cognitive lines ( a la the i hope soon to be outdated concept of “enlightenment”) when in this and so many other cases has it has proven to be distinctly otherwise. 2) james randi who has done experiments with people who claimed to be psychic or have paranormal abilities for decades now without one positive result - even with a now $1 M prize attached!

be sure and email me immediately when you have plausible evidence to the contrary that follows the three strands and is repeatable. i am very open to learning about that and i think it has a place in a 21st century worldview if it meets the requirments of the 3 strands. i don't find it particularly compelling with regard to spirituality though, because i think that has to do with something else altogether as described above…

do you agree  that (highly evolved turquoise forum members who have done a lot of personal work  aside) within the curent spiritual zeitgeist (out there in the world where the secret is pulling in millions of dollars) the fascination with paranormal phenomena and metaphysical oversimplifictations like the so called LoA fall into the exact traps that i have been describing for a good four months now?

so far there does seem to be some interesting cutting edge theory and research (not that you will find it in nonsense like WTB or the secret) that has some tentative evidence within very specific domains for certain kinds of psi - how exciting! i wold love it if you started a thread that linked us to the best cases of this and any good peer reviewed articles on it.

as far as ai can tell, this in no way opens the floodgates in the kinds of stuff many people want so desperately to believe in the name of “spirituality.”

i myself have many experiences over the years that equal the ubiquitous anecdotal “evidence” for the paranormal - i just don't find them particularly interesting any more because i no longer buy the underlying belief system they are trying to prove - ie manifestation, the spirit world, life after death, disembodied beings, divine intervention, universal synchronicity etc. for me this stuff has all become spirituality-kitsch.

at ths point i don't think there is much else i can say about this subject that seems to follow us through multiple threads. why is the possiility of the paranormal so important to you balder?

* note: bear in mind the burden of proof is not on anyone to disprove anecdotal uncontrolled accounts of seemingly unexplainable phenomena being explained by psi - the burden of proof is on the person who believes the extraordinary explanation to prove it. the general argument for psi is  - well how else do you explain it?  and that is great as far as it goes - but highly fallible, no?  i find yours and pelles stories cool but they still fall into this category - all that they suggest is that further research should be arranged using more controlled variables.

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Julian,

You said, as an addendum to your response to Balder, ”* note: bear in mind the burden of proof is not on anyone to disprove anecdotal uncontrolled accounts of seemingly unexplainable phenomena being explained by psi - the burden of proof is on the person who believes the extraordinary explanation to prove it. the general argument for psi is  - well how else do you explain it?  and that is great as far as it goes - but highly fallible, no?  i find yours and pelles stories cool but they still fall into this category - all that they suggest is that further research should be arranged using more controlled variables.

A couple of questions:  you assign responsibility to the experiencer of paranormality to prove scientifically the rationale for said event.  How would you propose they do that?  By applying the strictures of orange science with at best a green sensibility?  It has been established that the mindset of the conductor of the experiment can influence the outcome of the experiment in ways that are still not “understood.”  The experiencer of paranormality is almost always totally mystified by what has happened.  All they are typically capable of doing is admit their mystification.  But, and I ask you this again, could there be a de facto statistical proof for the existence of such phenomena?  Millions of people have reported such phenomena, millions more just live with it without reporting.  Are you suggesting that NONE of these experiences can be True, not in the orange limitation, but in the transrational?  None?  Your entire argument relies on it.  Screw future “research” into the “if” I say, its time to explore the “how.”  “How” research would necessarily be conducted from a turqoise perspective that honored the individuals perspective on their “experience” as inherently sacred - no matter how that perspective may be suspect to magical thinking.  Magical thinking may be totally absent from the minds of some experiencers.  Who are you to be the judge of the integrity or state of all those people?

best,
Michael

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Julian,

Having lived in Sedona for a number of years, where half the population (it seems) is either a self-styled channeler, shaman, healer, or a walk-in, I've been exposed to a lot of silliness in the name of spirituality.  I've heard many far out claims, many of which struck me as just the sort of thing you are describing:  wishful thinking, magical thinking, and narcissistic projection.  But I have also encountered and experienced things which are not so obviously dismissable, and which suggest (to me, a fairly thoughtful and reflective person), that something truly significant had taken place, which pointed past scientific presuppositions about what is possible.

I do not seek paranormal experiences, and paranormal experience is NOT central to my spiritual path – it is not a goal, and it is not the reason why I set foot on the path – but it has become important to me in my discussions with you because you have been accusing a number of us here of indulging in the pre-trans fallacy (or being narcissistic and prerational) for giving credence to any such things, as if we are incapable of differentiating between magical thinking, psychological projection, and “realistic interpretations” of experience.  Or as if we are incapable or unwilling to make “rational distinctions” because we retain an openness to the existence of certain non-ordinary phenomena.

This keeps coming up as a topic, I think, because you seem to be a defender, primarily, of a rationalist-level worldview, and several of us suspect that you may in fact be engaging in the opposite version of the pre/trans fallacy:  dismissing everything that is not currently rationally explainable (according to mainstream science) as magical thinking and projection.  This may not be the case, and I'm glad to hear you are open to considering evidence in this area.

Concerning evidence, are you familiar with Rupert Sheldrake's work?  He's actively conducting research in this area and has created several experiments which have yielded repeated and repeatable positive results (greater than chance).  Wilber is also drawing on some of his theories in the latest iteration of his model.

In my view, while it is reasonable to ask for evidence in this area, and I support ongoing research, I do not think it shows a lack of critical thinking skills or discernment to give credence to the existence of certain non-ordinary phenomena.  If you state, from the outset, and in the blanket ways that you often communicate (“no reasonable adult would believe in …”), that demonstrates to me a dogmatic position, based on a particular worldview, rather than the critical openness that I think is warranted.

Not all philosophical perspectives and worldviews which would lend support to the possibility of such phenomena are the uncritical, prerational caricatures that you make them out to be. 

I agree with you that Wilber – in good Zen spirit, which advises meditators to treat emerging paranormal experiences and capacities as distractions – does not make a big deal out of these things.  But at a meeting with him, I found him to be a bit more forthcoming about his personal experiences than he is in his books, and he also appears to have experienced a number of these things.

Best wishes,

Balder

P.S.  You mentioned that you have not heard any account of non-ordinary knowing that you would not consider to be fully explainable according to “the laws of physics or psychodynamic theory, or … random causality or trickery.”  What interpretation would you offer for the experience I described in which I was overtaken with particular images and feelings, about which I wrote a poem, only to find out later that I was essentially describing, in very accurate detail, the “dying scene” of my relative who attempted suicide that very weekend?

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Just another postscript to my post:

Regarding Michael Murphy's The Future of the Body, which is a natural history of human metanormal capacities and experiences, this is what Wilber has to say:

“The 'natural history' Murphy gives is not the simple objectivist account he imagines, but a view seen only from turquoise or higher, by an educated-Western-white male, whose own para-normal and meta-normal and transpersonal states and stages enact and bring forth a perceptual capacity that can disclose phenomena that reside in those specific worldspaces – and then, and only then, can Murphy's data be seen.  And that data, those facts, are definitely real.  But they aren't justlying around out there waiting for a universal, objective, natural historian to stumble on them and objectively report them….
 

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

michael and balder, let me just cut and paste the beginning of my last post:

”

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Hi, Julian,

Yes, thank you, I am aware of the different characteristics of these memes, but I'm not sure why you're posting them here, since I for one certainly have not been saying that worldviews or beliefs should be immune from critical evaluation, nor do I believe there are no valid ways to weigh the merits and deficits of various worldviews. 

Do you have the impression that I've been saying otherwise?

Best wishes,

Balder

P.S.  Nice job on your conversation with Wilber.  I really enjoyed it!

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Balder,

To get it out of the way, let me state at the outset that I am in nearly complete agreement with Julian on this topic. I'm very conscious of the fact that I might be operating from a rationalist Orange worldview and committing a reverse PTF as you describe, but the road rules for this forum are to speak from your highest level of truth, and I know that's what I'm doing. It's equally plausible that you and others may be speaking from an excessively Green perspective, trying to rescue a bit of narcissism with a PTF, etc. Whatever the final truth is, I believe that you too are speaking from the highest truth as you see it.

At this moment, I think there are a number of things we can agree on without having to resolve who between us is the deluded one. First, I believe that there is significance to the story of your suicidal relative – and the many other experiences like it that people have experienced. But whenever someone tries to systematize these experiences, they always seem designed to be self-serving and narcissistic, as you readily admit, and the fact that your story is free of these problems is good reason to take it more seriously. It occurs to me to suggest that even we do accept these experiences as real, it doesn't necessarily imply that they are a skill that can be developed using a series of practices. For example, we don't find that individuals spontaneously demonstrate the ability to play the piano. I'm sure you've heard that awakening is an accident, and that meditation makes you accident prone. If non-ordinary experiences are also accidents of spiritual importance, then it seems reasonable to say that any practice that purports to develop them through force of will alone and without any authentic spiritual practice is completely absorbed in wishful thinking.

Secondly, supposing that there is some validity to these non-ordinary experiences, how do we distinguish between authentic non-ordinary experiences and mere wishful thinking? As I alluded to, a shadow of egocentrism and narcissism might give it away, but what if authentic experiences can only be positively identified by the experiencer? That can only mean that a practice that promises access to them must be fraudulent, since no legitimate teacher could make such a guarrantee.

Finally, and on a more practical level: to me, we must set the bar higher than to simply ask whether a theory contains a kernel of integral truth – considering that “everyone is right”, it would be hard to set the bar much lower. Nearly every theory can be rescued by an integral thinker who tries hard enough, but its also true that contact with the integral perspective can poke so many holes in a theory, that it can't barely stand up on its own. When a theory only survives by attaching an integral life support system, I have to wonder if we shouldn't let it die a peaceful death and turn our attentions to its more lively cousins.

Fortunately, Ken is scheduled to speak on this topic next Monday, so maybe this will all be cleared up. If it is, and Ken pronounces the Secret 100% integrally certified, I would like to be the first to claim that it was my intention-manifestation that brought it all about! :D

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Mr. Teacup,

Thank you for weighing in on this subject.  I haven't seen you much on Zaadz, but I always appreciated the clarity, intelligence, and balanced tone of your posts on the Integral Multiplex.

At the outset, I want to say that I am not a defender of The Secret, so I am not waiting with baited breath for Wilber to acknowledge it or defend it.  I have argued, on other threads, that there may be something akin to a “law of attraction” at work in the Kosmos, one which may work at levels beyond those we currently understand, and I believe I can make this assertion without at the same time validating, or speaking from, a magical, prerational, narcissistic perspective.  (If Wilber admits a kernel of truth in The Secret, I will be interested to hear which part it is.  I do not expect him to accept the “package” wholesale, and would be very disappointed if he did.)

To return closer to the topic of this thread:  My position is that an Integral spiritual perspective should remain open to the possibility that non-ordinary human capacities exist and are cultivatable insofar as incidents of this nature continue manifest themselves which are not reducible to Julian's preferred explanations: magical thinking and narcissistic need; and as long as reliable experts in various contemplative traditions of state and stage training attest to them.  It may be that these capacities do not exist, and that they all are products of wishful thinking and bad interpretations, but at this point in my own understanding (based on personal experience and study), I believe that it is improbable that these phenomena are entirely the product of human childishness and delusion.  But my preferences aside, I believe the reasonable position to take is at least one of agnosticism or philosophical openness – not unreasonable faith, not unreasonable doubt. 

To say that giving any credence to these things whatsoever is unreasonable and childish is, in my mind, too extreme a position – one which, to me, smacks of dogmatism.

On the question of narcissism:  What, in particular, is narcissistic about believing that we may be connected with other beings in ways that run deeper than we currently understand?  What is particularly narcissistic about being open to the possibility that we may, under certain as yet unknown circumstances, be able to perceive in ways that violate the usual limits of our senses?  If we tell a 12th Century man that we can see cells, and in fact can do things to affect them that will alter his health, is he right in assuming we are narcissistic because we claim to be able to see things and effect things about which he has no knowledge and over which he has no power?  We can relate to this knowledge and this capacity narcissistically, as we can relate selfishly to almost anything, but I do not think you can present a tenable argument that being open to the existence of certain unusual human capacities or dimensions of experience is inherently narcissistic or the product of magical thinking.

Just as an aside, you mentioned that people aren't able to spontaneously play the piano.  But some people do.  Idiot savants have been known to exhibit extraordinary skills without any training.  One plays the piano in extraordinary ways.  One “sees” numbers and can perform calculations faster than professors with calculators based on what he sees.  One can take a single look at a complex cityscape and then reproduce it in exacting detail, down to the number of windows on a skyscraper and the correct number of little alleyways and street signs, all from memory.  Clearly, the human mind has capacities and treasures we have not yet begun to tap.

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Julian and Mr. Teacup, I welcome (and look forward to) your responses to my posts on this thread, but I do not want to focus excessively on this one aspect of “spirituality” in this discussion, so I have created a (somewhat experimental) thread for exploring the issue in more depth, if either of you are interested in taking it beyond our exchanges here:

Non-Ordinary Experience: An Experiment in Group Inquiry.

Best wishes,

B.

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Balder –

Thanks (as always) for this thread. Interestingly, I have been kind of putting together ideas for a blog-post on Integral Christianity (and Christianity as a transformative path), which I do think is starting to emerge now, and whose “teachings” I think are skillfully embedded in the ideas and writings of several contemporary Christians. By “skillfully embedded,” I mean compassionately conveyed though language that incorporates Christian symbolism, ritual, and devotional practices, Jesus's story as told through the gospels, notions of Trinity, sin, the “Kingdom of God,” resurrection, etc. Thus the teachings can be read at multiple levels: the use of explicitly Christian language and symbols can serve as an invitation to first-tier and institutionally-rooted Christians to explore their tradition more deeply and to examine a wider variety of Christian “translations.” But at the second-tier level, the use of Christian language points to something beyond itself, to the Spirit that cannot be contained within any one tradition, to a Jesus-stained path that both includes and transcends Christianity …

But I'm now beset with an editorial deadline, among other things, and don't have much time to muse online lately … yet I shall return.

Bjorn, you wrote: Isn't it then much more important and fruitful to untangle the misunderstanding and throw light upon the meaning of, for example, Christ? Then we will not nullify or dismiss age-old traditions but to help to reform them and up-date their inherent living message. There are people out there that are doing this, within the Church, and it is beautiful to behold.

I've come across some of these people, Bjorn, and yes, they really are a joy to behold. And there's been discussion on this in some threads at the I-I Multiplex, including:

Integral Contemplative Christianity
Is Integral Christianity Still Christian, Part II
(the amazing “Part I” of that thread, started by Balder on the first Integral Naked forum, is inaccessible at the moment, I'm sorry to say …)

Peace,
Mary

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Balder and Julian:

this thing will not be settled, so it seems. This new thread holds the possibility to get out of this dead end road and open up. I fear you are both slowly going back to the same discussion than in the Pavlina thread. It's a bit pretentious from me to say so, 'cause you have both brought a lot and I haven't. But still… I say it.

One interesting concept of Wilber is the notion of “Kosmic adress” (IS, chapter Integral Post-Metaphysics).

Julian, you say that synchronicity needs to stand the test of methods you endorse: science or psychodynamic therapy. Synchronicity is an UL phenomenon. How can science, an UR tool, judge an UL phenomenon? This can only lead to a kind of reductionism. The fair answer of an UR tool observing a phenomenon on the UL would be “we don't see it… it does not mean it doesn't exist…”. A kind of scientific approach to UL phenomenon can certainly, and needs, to be adopted. But there has never been as yet any proof in the sense of “real”. Example: we think, but thought has not yet been seen in scientific tools. The only thing that has been seen by scientific tools is some regions of the brain that are activated or not! But no one has ever seen a thought!!!

Psychodynamic is an UL tool. But it is not a unified corpus. Jung, which, Julian, you mention as an authority in shadow work, is not anymore an authority when it comes to synchronicity. Double standard?

The important notions here for me seem to be: do we dare to use KW's map or not?
The notions of
-Kosmic adress (in which quadrant, which line of development and which stage..quote by heart)
- and then: Using the 4 quadrants, is it a view through or a view from (IS, p.34, end note)

KW has laid a map for us, and I believe work could be done in that direction:

1) to classify the kosmic adress of each phenomenon
2) to classify the tools we possess and which Kosmic adress they target - be it a therapeutic tool, or a scientific tool, or a cultural tool

The use of these notions can be interesting in understanding the dicussion about new age:
Julian wants an UR proof of an UL phenomenon. Nobody's able to deliver, but although most do not endorse new age, they all have a sense of what synchonicity is. So Julian, please create the tool, and then observe. What is you UR tool?

As for psychodynamic, as it does not agree on these notions and on the tools it cannnot become an UR tool (proof of reality). Psychodynamic is full of fraud and pseudo scientific explanation. (see for example Freud's book on Da Vinci were he made a complete “scientific” interpretation, but then it appeared that he mis-translated a latin word. So the whole thing was just bullshit!).

Don't get me wrong, I don't say that psychodynamic is not good. But the credit we lend it rests upon UL enquiry, which deals with “beautifull” or “harmonious”, but certainly not “real”.

Now 21st century Integral Spirituality, for me, should use the fabulous map of Wilber as a diagnostic tool ( imagine this instead of DSM-IV!!!):
1) we make a diagnostic of the kosmic adress of a phenomenon
2) then we apllie to it certain techniques that humanity has developped in it's entire history, based upon the knowledge of the Kosmic adress of the tool itself (what it can target and what it will never be able to).

Patrick

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

As a little adedendum - sorry..

The placebo effect!

That's a f…. proof of the power of thought. All people working in the medical world, all pharmaceutical companies knows this awfull phenomenon: the damned placebo effect!

Now I don't know what is the LoA, but this is certainly a law of compliance to science…People get cured of depression eating drugs which are not! Argh!

How does it work? Can we prove it? The only thing we know is that it is a fact and a really bothering fact for some!!


Patrick

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Whoah!  This thread's grown faster than a Monsanto corn field!  So, it's come to the formidable discussion of human potential.  And James Randi has even been invoked…I had a physics professor named Don Middendorf, who's a very rational “adult” and very much interested in investigations of paranormal phenomena.  He told us a story about asking Randi a question after one of his talks about whether Randi had ever considered dream studies or even studying dream participants himself for paranormal phenomena, such as shared dreams or clairvoyant events performed by lucid dreamers (for lack of a less loaded word, OBEs) and the like.  He asked Randi if he'd ever heard of Robert Van de Castle, who Don knew personally and knew had studied dream phenomena (not just so-called paranormal, but primarily respectable, straight-laced physiological/psychological research).  Randi actually got angry and personally insulted Don and Robert Van de Castle, launching into ad hominem attacks and self-assured denigrations of such childish, misguided notions and the “scoundrels or semi-insane” individuals who would engage in such delusional behavior as paranormal research of any sort.  And refused to answer any more questions from Don, never actually answering Don in the first place.

This obviously is an anecdotal story although similar stories from scientists about the magnificent Randi abound (Gary Schwartz is one, who actually was brave enough to debate a bit with Randi).  I guess I bring this up, not as any sort of proof, nor to defend paranormal phenomena or investigations, which I agree with Julian are generally either misunderstood organic/physical/psychological phenomena or manipulative engagements of varying levels of greed.  Or just outright hoodwinking.  And honestly, if someone really had a non-ordinary ability as a stable structure, you'd really think they could just walk into Randi's office and seal the deal without a hitch.  Then again, that's a naive notion, considering all the factors, conditions, and relationships that are involved with seemingly all phenomena.

What I'm bringing up is, I suppose, similar to Michael's point about inflation of perspective (“orange strictures” passing judgment on what may require a different perspective for accurate judgment–hopefully that's not a misrepresentation of Michael!).  This kind of debate just doesn't seem to go away for the main reason that there are phenomena that are as yet unexplained.  And something is happening in the researches of Dean Radin, or Gary Schwartz, or Charles Tart, the unexplainable-by-current-scientific-models nature of which is becoming more conspicuous, not less, with corrections and rigor in experimental design and employment of more advanced technology.  Pelle gave a link to graphs and statistical analyses related to the 9-11 random-number generator experiments. 

Not only that, but this brings up the sticky issue of development.  When you're five, there are natural, normal phenomena that are essentially paranormal to you, like working through calculus problems, the societal effects of historical analysis (then again, we don't even learn from history, etc.), or making slow, intimate love.  Maybe there is an anomalous 5-year-old out there who can experience these types of phenomena.  And then there are cases of the controversial disorder, multiple personality disorder, where health issues such as diabetes are observed in the patient's body in one personality, but vanish in another (here's an article about this).   The point is we may very well have developmental potentials, as such individuals as Joseph Chilton Pearce and Michael Murphy have pointed out, that don't unfold naturally as stable structures or enduring traits in us.  Who knows why, maybe it's just a natural part of the larger evolutionary unfolding?  Maybe just “junk attributes” like junk DNA?

Another point to make here is one that Ken Wilber makes in SES.  I don't remember the exact page, thus I can't quote the passage verbatim.  But, he points out that prerational cultures, despite their narrow, tribal, mythical, often brutal perspectives, at least acknowledged the potential of higher or different modes of being–though these modes were still translated in skewed, reductionist, and limited fashion.  However, reduction isn't just a river in Egypt–and the now-seemingly-trite complaint about the stranglehold materialistic reductionism has on our western sensibilities still holds water, as far as I can tell.  Yes, rationality is totally indispensable and is a vital component in a truly integrally unfolding spiritual system/practice/life.  Just as Balder and John Horgan and others, I've been in spiritual groups and around individuals where childish neediness, wishful grasping and fantasy glorification, and petty juvenile power desires and outright deception (benign and otherwise) have taken place–from starseeds to indigo children to reincarnated Atlantean janitors, you name it.  And all based on non-existent, non-experiential (for second or third parties), non-verifiable proof.  And I've had some experiences that have profoundly shaken my view of reality that I have tried to explain in terms of psycho-physical causes, or other natural science routes.  And I've known others who I naively trust are telling the truth who've had profound experiences of a non-ordinary sort that seem to suggest the universe is not as conscious-free and lifeless as we think.

But, that's for some other thread.  To bring this back to the topic at hand, what it is that I see as importantt to consider about what we'll have to call paranormal phenomena for now, is that it seems wise to at the very least hold oneself open to the unknown.  This isn't a polarity, or dualist notion–we can and do have healthy rational perspectives while simultaneously holding ourselves open to the unknown aspects of life.  The time and nature of our death is completely unknown.  Maybe next week, Ray Kurzweil will have developed and marketed some kind of DeathWatchers program for making the body immortal in 30 days or less, rendering that Mystery solved.  Nevertheless, it could be useful to have some assistance with those who have experienced so-called paranormal states, since these experiences do occur and can be very upsetting or difficult to integrate into an individual's life.  Regardless of their non-repeatability.  As far as I can tell, I think the traditional admonishments are trustworthy, that siddhis or unusual abilities or experiences are distractions at best.  But it is good to have more than one map at our disposal–especially if we're trying to figure out contours of the landscape and all we have is a road atlas.

Damn, this was mostly off-topic.  Nevertheless, if I'm not banned for excessive ranting, I'll tie this back into the thread later.

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Just a short reply to Julian and Michael,

Julian. they just are very clear about the real world problems of superficial religion. they are not to blame that the majority of the world are literalist believers in irrational ideas, are they?
That is true, but it's like Christians taking the moral high ground stating obvious truths about the secularized world. It's not news to anyone. And all already “converted” will nod in approval. But then, if it rattles a few bones… ok great.

Much better is to clean your own house first. Try to tell a Palestinian to listen to an Israeli, or try to tell an Israeli to listen to a Palestinian. Fat chance.

Michael, no offense but I don't think you heard me? I only suggested that here might be something to be understood by the resurrection (and the other mysteries as well) and promoted healthy enquiry of it if there would be any interest in it. If you are not interested in it, no problem, fair enough, but then you can hardly speak as if you understand it and dismiss it accordingly.

I have found that when many people have difficult time to grasp the mysteries of Christ, instead of following the enquiry all the way, dissolving any confusion or questions pertaining to it, they many times add to the confusion by adding all these other theories on top of what is already a very large body of texts that the Bible is.

My mother would tell me to finish what I got on my plate before asking for more.

No offence meant.

love

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Bjorn,

And I do not mean to offend by saying that the “other mysteries” are of no interest to me.  What I am saying is that, in my opinion, those mysteries have been hyped into being by institutional Catholicism's relentless pursuit of complicating the basic message to the point where the faithful were no longer capable of understanding the simplicity and would therefore be susceptible to the “C'mon, you'll just have to take it on “faith” (or else) routine.”

Even the most superficial examination of the process of the early Church will reveal a blood war at work behind the scenes.  It was established early on that any evidence suggesting any other outcome than what is in the Bible today (either one) was to be seized and burned and its proponents tortured to death.  The Institution, (not I attest, the true Faith which is boundless in joy) is, and has been corrupt since Paul took to writing his epistles.  Abundant multi-perspective evidence corroborates this.  I trust, (have faith in) NOTHING beyond the core message.  I do believe that Jesus left a meditative tradition behind.  Allusions to it are rife in the abandoned, contrary, and alternative literature.  His single comment, that the Kingdom of Heaven lies within, is the ballgame for me.  If he believed and professed that, then he had to have referenced over and over again in unrecorded conversations EXACTLY what he meant by that, as well as how to explore it.  We have become far too reliant on the de facto inerrancy of the gospels which address none of this.  Why?  Because the early blood warriors of the Church Triumphant recognized the value of their property.  If people were taught that all lay within and that all you had to do was meditate, what would there be to exploit?

I apologize for the fierceness here.  I grew up Catholic, altar-boying in the Archdiocesean HQ for the Pacific Northwest.  I was still on the altar as a senior in HS and saw more bullshit behind the scenes than you might imagine. 

Ah well, keep the true Faith Bjorn, it serves us all with distinction.  Please don't take my ranting personally.  It is utterly not intended so.  I treasure Mary and her approach to spirituality.  I totally get her direction and support it.

best,
Michael

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Blue, I feel the same way about Randi. I think he is excessively dogmatic and condescending in his approach. And just as the proponents of paranormal phenomena might be guilty of green/magenta magical thinking, its critics might be guilty of orange dogmatism. The former is often found in spiritual circles, the latter in mainstream society. These facts are not in dispute, and rather than try to convince others of what I can't be sure they are guilty of, I'm going try to stick to presenting my point of view as honestly as I can.

One thing that creates resistance in my mind is a kind of unfairness when treating scientific evidence and the rational worldview. The conversation seems to something like this: “We don't understand these phenomena, they are deeply mysterious and cannot be understood by the rational mind. Here's how I believe they work...” Followed by an explanation from quantum mechanics, junk DNA, undetectable energy, etc. This mystifies me – isn't that an orange, scientific statement that we just agreed is invalid for these types of phenomena? I'm all in favor of transcending orange – when do we start?

I don't mean to take you to task personally, since I don't think you've done anything wrong. I'm mainly riffing on things you said that sparked this idea in my head, and I think its important to not confuse pseudo-science with transrational thinking. I've noticed that many people hold quite tightly to very detailed explanations about the source and exact nature of these non-ordinary phenomena, solely on the basis of, “Well, we just don't know!” For something we don't know or understand, that level of certainty seems unjustified and well, just not very open-minded.

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

There is more than enough serious lab research on Psi to statistically show that it exists. For those interested in challenging that research I suggest this thread, which is dedicated to discussing natural science beyond orange.

Please let us try not to contaminate every thread in “Chapel Perspicacious” with the same PTF discussion over and over and over again. We can do better than that my friends. For those who still want to pursue that discussion we already have several threads dedicated to that purpose. For example here and here and here.

In that spirit I will wrestle this thread back on track in my next post, and honor the original intention of the thread-starter.

Best,

Pelle

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

“Please let us try not to contaminate every thread in “Chapel Perspicacious” with the same PTF discussion over and over and over again”

This Pelle is one of the main reasons why I find it difficult throwing in my two cents, so to speak.  Thanks for pointing it out.

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

At the moment I want to share two points that I believe are important to incorporate in an Integral Spirituality for the 21st century.

1) Spiritual practice, ILP, deep personal work or whatever we choose to call it is obviously supremely important. But even more important than practising is bringing it into our everyday lives. We need to make our spiritual path a heart-centered one that glows with compassion for the world around us; I very much agree with Patrick on this.
Sitting on a mat meditating in order to transcend the ego and destroy egotism can certainly be part of our practice, but only doing this to the exclusion of engaging with family, friends and community seems… egotistical. There is a real life relative realm out there and it needs love, compassion and commitment from spiritual practitioners.

2) This is the 21st century, so it's time to open our practice to recent western discoveries as well. Not in order to push away the eastern traditions and lineages, we obviously still need those, but as valuable complements. If you are doing Qi Gong or Yoga, try the Alexander Technique as a complement. If you're doing traditional meditation see what a tool such a Holosync will do for you. The mind and shadow modules of an ILP typically already contain modern insights and discoveries, why not open up the spiritual and body modules as well?


peace

Pelle

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Nicely said, pelle, and thank you for bringing the thread's theme back into focus.  And that's coming from someone who feels pretty humbled at having aided in the sidetracking.

Mr. Teacup, I'll reserve a more detailed response for another thread, if there is interest.  I really appreciate your comments, and agree that there are many contradictions and hypocritical criticisms of more orange, rational worldviews from some proponents of psi research and the like–one specific example being Captain Quantum himself, Fred Alan Wolf.  Nevertheless, I do disagree with you regarding paranormal investigations IN GENERAL as being pseudoscience or steeped in magenta/purple, magico-mythic thinking, or being close-minded.  Of course, there are going to be detailed hypotheses that utilize rationalist-orange explanatory tools–these are individuals, scientists, who are immersed at least professionally in the orange-rationalist worldview–even if they are also acknowledging that they don't really know how to explain what these phenomena are from that view.  You can dive into the silence of not-knowing until an answer comes, but in science you generally keep making noise, keep generating hypotheses and figuring out ways that the evidence might corroborate these hypotheses, and then develop and run new experiments to keep the process going.  I know that's not really the way science is supposed to work, but that's been one of my observations at least.
Anyway, that's all I'm going to say in this thread, and now will get back to the topic in my next post.

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Wow, there's so much great input around here, it's a little overwhelming!  I think Balder's starter-post pretty much brought up the approaches that I think offer relevant potential ingredients for an integral spirituality, at least TSK and the Diamond Approach.  Krishnamurti is interesting, and actually his approach of radical, deep, uncompromising inquiry certainly is powerful–at least it was in my own life and led to the one experience that got me started on taking spiritual possibilities seriously.  Unfortunately, K doesn't mention much with regard to how to integrate into your life what you might find through such inquiry.  As for what a 21st century integral spirituality might look like, I think as far as for integral spiritual practice and living, it might be useful to use major features of traditional spiritual paths.  Here are some features that I haven't seen too much specifically talked about in Wilber's models:

1) Nutrition and diet are obviously very important to include.  But, developing a diet that is conducive to deeper spiritual practice or helpful in balancing in today's world would mean utilizing knowledge both modern and traditional.  I don't know exactly what this would really look like, except that just getting a clearer idea of how specifically certain nutritional programs, in conjunction with other dimensions like exercise, beliefs, practice technique(s), affect spiritual practice.  I also think of how nutrition regimens can serve remedial purposes too, and can help in restoring psychological and physical balance.  For a pretty simplistic example (but the first one off the top of my head), there's the story in A Path with Heart where Jack Kornfield and associates gave an aggro meditator having some kind of spiritual emergency red meat for its supposed grounding effects (among many other remedial measures).

2) It's been mentioned before, but devotional or bhakti or heart practices seem very little discussed in Wilber's work, although other integral thinkers have given them more notice.  Purifying the emotional nature in a way that is in harmony with the other activities of our being, and contributes to an optimal developmental unfolding, seems pretty important.  I guess others have already mentioned this here, and with more detail and concision.  Essentially, I guess, a devotion that somehow is friends with our rational, critical faculties.  Metta and transference of merit in Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism are two interesting models for formal, focused practice, as are aspects of Arnold Mindell's Process Oriented Psychology and Gabrielle Roth's 5 Rhythms.  Also, Aurobindo gives some very nice comments on the possibilities of an integral devotion here.

Hmm, that's about all I can come up with at the moment.

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

The night before last, when it quieted down in the emergency, I started reading Thomas Berry’s Evening Thoughts, (http://www.amazon.com/Evening-Thoughts-Reflecting-Sacred-Community). In the first few essays, I was immediately jolted back to my center, to what really matters, what the real challenges are in the 21st Century. (Even Julian, I can’t help but believe that you would be delighted–no New Age wishful thinking what-so-ever, I promise!). Thomas Berry is a beautiful, beautiful treasure, and perhaps my most respected elder.
I feel like typing out the whole book on this thread, essay after essay.
Thomas is writing exactly what an integral spirituality entails for the 21st Century…….In his first essay entitled ‘Our Way into the Future’, he writes:
“Hope for such a renewal of the creative forces of the planet lies in a realization that the Earth is primary and that humans are derivative. That this dependence of the human on the integral functioning of the planet should be so obvious and yet so consistently denied and so extensively violated is beyond comprehension. The primacy of the earth community applies to every mode of human activity: economics, education, law medicine, and religion. The human is a subsystem of the Earth system. Thus the primary of humans must be to preserve the integrity of the Earth system. Only then can the human subsystem function with any efficacy. Yet no phase of human activity is so directly violated as this relation of the human to the Earth.”

We are in a time of incredible crisis, the end of the Cenozoic era, in the midst of a catastrophic dying off of life forms that have evolved over millions of years. And, AND, our present mode of function as human beings as a species is the DIRECT cause of this. As we have been unlocking the wonders of technology and science, we have been castastrophically altering the millieu in which we live. Being ‘pre-rational’ before, really did not matter, because we were relatively harmless in the big picture scheme. Being ‘pre-rational’ now is devastating the planet. Any rant on pre-rationality is well deserved and totally understandable, although ranting may not be in any way effective……. Thomas rants too: “we are turning our WonderWorld into a WasteWorld.” At the basis of this outrageous behaviour Thomas writes is that via Descarte, we began to view the world as a ‘collections of objects’. “We are not a collection of objects. We are a communion of subjects.” We might wonder ‘how’ exactly we commune, rationally– only via ‘cause and effect’ communications or unexplainable ‘non-locally’ resonance or whatever until we are blue in the face, but it really does not matter in the long run. The bottom line is we are a communion of subjects….and this is a fact…We share the same molecules, passing them around and exchanging them with each other through the food we eat and the air we breathe. We share knowledge and ideas the same way. Really who needs telepathy when we have satellites and cell phones! And in fact, so what if incredulous synchronicities, appearing as astounding coincidences, are really just random occurrence being interpreted by a flailing human mind as ‘deeply meaningful’. If any of these bizarre happening are what-so-ever in the least bit of importance, they will come around again to be revealed. And god knows, the present state of the human endeavor, flavoured as it is by infantile, immediate narcissistic gratification at the expense of the life of the planet, certainly does not need more power in the form of learning how to quaff more junk out of the ailing environment. Right now, the human-earth relationship is in need of waking up and becoming present to the leading edge science of our day. Fifty years ago, a friend of mine who studied engineering, was taught, “the solution to pollution is dilution.” Well, we are in a new phase! with new information now. We need to wake up. Everything we do—how we live, what our homes look like, how we travel, what we eat, how we love, how we communicate, how we celebrate, what we consumme, all of it needs an overhaul that puts at its center the balancing of the earth-human relationship. “We must reinvent ourselves on the species level in such a way that we live in a MUTUALLY ENHANCING RELATIONSHIP with the earth community.” Whether we ever get to a ‘transrational’ mode of function on this earth or not, depends on waking up to ‘rational’ connectivity that we most surely can all agree upon.

I hope everyone goes directly to their bookstore, or Amazon.com and orders Thomas’s book “Evening thoughts”. And again, I can’t stress enough the wonderful multimedia offering of the Brian Swimme series posted on this site already….

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Hi Balder,

I started a pod related to this topic a while back.  It's not very active but some of what's archived there may be of interest. 

http://pods.zaadz.com/integral_spirituality

I think an integral spirituality in the 21st Century very simply should apply to all of one's life whether at work, at school, with kids, in relationship, at the grocery store, walking down the street, riding the bus, or communicating on an internet forum:)

I think another primary element that is necessary given the increased complexity and inter-mixing of different cultures and worldviews is a spiritual framework that goes beyond ethnocentric languaging to more world/cosmo-kosmo-centric languaging. 

Best wishes,
Kelly

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

I don't have a singular vision for “spirituality in the 20th century.”  Meaning, I don't have a single ideal that I would like to see all religions practicing, or even a particular way I'd like to see “integral religion” manifest.  There is more than one way to be integral – to be sensitive and responsive to the great vertical and horizontal complexities of our world. 

I do appreciate and share almost every concern and point of focus people have described so far: deep heart practice; intellectual rigor; ecological and social awareness (and activism); inquiry-centered practice; shadow work and a wedding (or cooperative use) of psychological and spiritual insights and techniques; spiritually and psychologically informed attention to nutrition and physical health; and so on.  Really, what we're talking about an “Integral lifestyle,” which includes a spiritual focus or orientation.

Thinking about one of my original questions, which Siona highlighted, I realize I haven't really been looking for an “Integral religion” (in terms of a particular brand name or conformity to a particular ideological template), but for a long time I have been looking for a tradition which is not so self-insulating – which is open to the abundance of perspectives and practices that are available in our age, and which doesn't have to be “bracketed off” from other aspects of my life because of incommensurability (or internal resistance within the tradition to “change” or new insight or competing perspectives). 

An important dimension of this self-insulating trend is, of course, the particular center of gravity of practitioners within the given tradition.  Even if a tradition is not theoretically or doctrinally opposed to certain alternative perspectives, often the members of the tradition are.  

And so, for me, Integral spirituality means, also, integral sangha, integral fellowship – communicating, practicing, and celebrating with a community of souls with whom I can deeply relate, without having to bracket off parts of myself or whole areas of my passion and concern.  Right now, I find this more readily online than out there in the world, which is one reason I spend (possibly unreasonable!) amounts of time in forums like this.

I have a few more thoughts I want to share, but they're on a slightly different subject, so I'll save them for another post.

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Interestingly, but really not at all surprisingly, the Integral Training Center offers training in something they call Integral Spirituality Experience, which uses language much like we've been using here, and which emphasizes many of the same things.  (Rollie, an I-I employee and a member of I-I Zaadz, is one of the teachers.)  Here's an excerpt from the program description:

“What does it mean to be spiritual in the 21st century? At a time when we can experience almost any path we want-practice Zen meditation, try a Native American sweat lodge, rediscover our Christian roots, check out Kabbalah-how do we find a path that includes the truths and practices of our global traditions, but is right for us here and now, in our hyper-speed world?

We believe that an Integral spirituality makes room for the most possibilities. We believe that spiritual depth can be broadly inclusive while keeping up with the times. We believe that spirituality can-and must-point the way forward. Come join I-I's premier teaching team for a 3-day Integral Spirituality Experience where we'll explore the maps, questions, and practices of Integral Spirituality-a path of enlightenment for the 21st century.

Integral Spirituality Experience

Would you describe yourself as spiritual but not religious? Do you feel a connection to the sacred, but are looking for new ways to express it? Or do you feel that your religious path-whether Christian or Buddhist, Jewish or New Age-could benefit from an updated map of reality, one that could frame its essential truths more skillfully, for the benefit of the modern and postmodern world? If so, then Integral Spirituality might be for you.

Our 3-day Integral Spiritual Experience will initiate you into the new world of Integral Spiritual Practice. Think of ISP as a kind of spiritual cross-training, where we synthesize the most essential truths and practices from the world's traditions, combined with the insights of modern science, social theory, and developmental psychology, to produce a path of enlightenment that's as compatible with deep meditation or prayer as it is with going to the gym, owning a business, having a family, enjoying movies, or any other aspect of life.

It's worth emphasizing, Integral Spiritual Practice is not just a way of 'seeing everything as spiritual,' but is an actual transformative path that will reveal the presence of Spirit in your life in ever deeper ways. You will get what can only be called an Integral Satori. It's a practice of informed wisdom and intelligent compassion that can help you more effectively love and serve others, because you can better understand their needs within a big picture view.”

~*~

I'm interested – what are your thoughts on this?   Do you know anything about it?

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Integral Satori – is that with or without fries?

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Are you kidding?  This is America.  Of course there are fries - supersize!

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Balder wrote in response to the announcement of Integral Spirituality Experience: I'm interested - what are your thoughts on this?

–I'm interested too, although I have to admit that three days sounds a bit … short?  But I bet there would be some worthwhile introductory material – and also a great way to connect with others with a similar spiritual bent in the real (non-cyber) world …

Mary

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

You know, all this sounds like the spiritual equivalent of the experience of Third Culture Kids (some of you, I'm sure, might relate), with the same sort of attendant upsides and drawbacks.

There's another interesting article here. I'd be very curious to see whether people feel there might be any analogies to be drawn between culture and spirituality.


And integral satori? In three days? I have no doubt that this would be a wonderful experience, but I still can't help but marvel at the brashness. Something about the notion of distilling truths from across cultures seems problematic to me … jack-of-all-paths, master-of-none comes to mind. :)

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Hi, Siona,

I have wondered the same thing.  While I do not doubt that it is possible to be enriched by the fruits and practices of multiple traditions – I certainly have been – I wonder if this “pick and choose,” modular approach may involve some of the same problems that TCK's experience: always moving on, not sinking deeply into any one “logos” or lineage of teachings, not having the roots necessary to weather the storms that will inevitably arise.  There is something to be said, obviously, for having a wide, integral experience, and a 3-D understanding of multiple faith traditions; but there is also something to be said for diving deep within a singular tradition, once one has surveyed the horizon and found a path that is most suitable.  This was Thomas Merton's advice, and I believe there is wisdom in it.

I am not opposed to “constructed religions” or “new visions” – TSK, Diamond Approach, and even Krishnamurti's teachings, are all new “streams” of spiritual insight in the world, and I've learned a great deal from each one – but even these new traditions take time to really get fleshed out, to have full AQAL presence in the world, with the power and support that that provides.  So, while I greatly respect Wilber (and trust and admire Rollie and Terry, two teachers of Integral Spirituality Experience), I am taking a “wait and see” attitude with regards to this new path. 

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Hey Siona,

I read these papers, the book and research sound interesting.  Have you read the book?

I think the “third culture” phenomena is likely very related to spirituality since most spirituality is based in culture and some theorists and researchers equate it with culture.  I don't think you can understand a spiritual tradition or perspective fully unless you understand the nature of the culture that it is practiced in.  If you look at different religious and spiritual movements over history they often change and morph depending on the nature of the culture that it exists in.  My own research has focused more on specific aspects of Buddhism but I think it holds true for other traditions and spiritual movements as well.  I see the whole notion of an “Integral Spirituality” as Wilber presents it foreshadowed by other movements earlier such as Theosophy.  I believe his early visions of an “integral spirituality” were largely influenced by Adi Da who I think he based some of his later frameworks and categorizations from.  Da would talk about the different spiritual traditions as The Great Tradition I believe if my memory serves me right and began to categorize different spiritual realizers in a similar way that Wilber would categorize famous spiritual figures according to nature, subtle, causal, and non dual realizers. 

“Culture” however you define it I think would be intimately intertwined with “spirituality” however you define it.  Did you mean that those living now in America are undergoing a similar phenomena spiritually as the third culture kids or something else?  Not sure.

Hope all is well in your world,
Kelly

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

I balk at this to some extent, the how to integral spiritual practice weekend…really because every single person’s life is an integral spiritual experience, the best most authentic practice that there can ever be. The volume may be turned down very low, muted even, or turned very high, on flat out bust, on how mindfully and consciously we understand this, but all the same, ISP-in-a-box, or weekend, seems like holding a candle to the sun. I love Pema Chodron’s book, Starting Where You Are…..it is about this very thing, and only costs 19.95 or so, and will come directly to your doorstep or mailbox.

It is the day to day grounding in our very communities, of whatever spiral flavour they are, that brings us into a direct relationship with this moment. It is my neighbour who has never read a single book on any of this who cheerful helps me clear my snow, or push out my car, or look out for the dog or the boys and will help me build my greenhouse.. When I travel around to different places, Vancouver a lot lately, I spend time looking longingly at the posters on the telephone poles, advertising the latest concert, local theatre workshop, or vegetarian cookery. I was at Banyan books the last time, looking at shelves of crystals, and shelves and shelves of books that I could hole up with for months, and interesting looking people looking at them, reading them……and yet even as this longing persists, when I come home to this place, I am delighted in a certain way and have a loyalty. I can see the possibilities of living consciously, getting off the economic and hydro grids, awakening to all the resources that are around me all the time, maybe looking disguised, or maybe I am blind to them, but I know they are there. And the challenges of this real rainbow spiralled world are upon us…..and openly demanding attention, sometimes resolution. I am glad to be anchored this millieu.

Yet even as I say this, I would be happy for more, integralites, around here. It is possible that Ken Wilber’s sole collection of books in Labrador is in my library……there might not be another book to be found anywhere in this great expanse….. Indeed, I think we only have about 10 people that would qualify as ‘new age’…… this can feel lonely.

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Jane,

Sorry you feel lonely out in your neck of the woods.  Sounds like an interesting living situation but totally understand how it could get lonely out there.  Especially if you feel interested in a certain subject or topic like Wilber's stuff or new age spirituality or ? where no one in your neighborhood shares such interests.  I definitely think that we as human beings are so wired to be social.  We emerge in this world in social-emotional relationships and many of us perpetually and continuously build and maintain such bonds throughout life. 

But then I hear of these monks who spend years and years in meditative retreat and think, my god how do they do it.  Whenever I'm on retreat I usually have lots of feelings of loneliness come up even though I'm on the retreat with many others.

I heard a story a little while ago about the Dalai Lama.  Someone asked him if he ever got lonely.  He responded that he didn't because he always felt connected to other sentient beings.

Be well,
Kelly

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

“And so, for me, Integral spirituality means, also, integral sangha, integral fellowship - communicating, practicing, and celebrating with a community of souls with whom I can deeply relate, without having to bracket off parts of myself or whole areas of my passion and concern.  Right now, I find this more readily online than out there in the world, which is one reason I spend (possibly unreasonable!) amounts of time in forums like this.”

Nicely wrapped Balder.  I too, though they are way too high on the glycemic index for my delicate constitution, will take mine with fries.

best,
Michael

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

It sounds good Balder.

Or do you feel that your religious path-whether Christian or Buddhist, Jewish or New Age-could benefit from an updated map of reality, one that could frame its essential truths more skillfully, for the benefit of the modern and postmodern world?

For sure! But maybe not frame its essential truths more skillfully which is saying it hasn't been. I would love to investigate and bring a fresh undertanding to these traditions. To throw light upon what the scriptures mean, to probe beneath the surface.

Spirituality and religion does affect society. It is reflected in our law system, our culture, art, etc.

I think the emphases is on seeking the truth. So in order to understand any religion or spiritual truth we have to unravel its origin and clarify its roots. Otherwise we are likely to miss the most important ingredient in any faith. And it is only from there we can be able to understand its growth into world movements. Never mind the crust that will inevitably accumulate over the core teachings. That is to be expected in any system. But rather seek for the few and true proponents of every faith.

This has to be paralleld with an intense willingness to come to a personal understanding of an Absolute Truth that will reveal to you your own inherent freedom from all things.From this independant vantage point we will be able to discriminate between limited views and all encompassing vistas. But it also give us a freedom to find out from a point of not already knowing. We can actually “dress” ourselves in different cloaks in order to experience their distinct flavors.

Then, when we've been around the block we can all fit it neatly into the four quadrant box of Wilber.

Can we do it all in a weekend?

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

I think one thing we have to take care not to forget in an integral spirituality is the second face of God, whether in the form of guru or something else. The Triple Gem in Buddhism includes dharma, buddha, and sangha. “Spirit in 2nd-person is the great devotional leveler, the great ego killer, that before which the ego is humbled into Emptiness.” [KW, IS: 160]

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Two - three hours soaking in this thread, learning, stretching & loving it all… & I am almost ready for some fries……..!

Balder, I love the notion of an Introduction to Integral Spirituality…  my path of three decades….. but if satori can be accomplished or anything near spiritual depth can be experienced in those 3 days, well, that must be part of the training in being beyond what humans currently can achieve……

Perhaps a tiny taste, maybe, but any lasting real acquaintance of Integration I seriously doubt.

I do not mean to dash this beautiful notion with pepper sauce… but….  Oh well back to my cushion:)

Huge thank you for this thread.

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

That was what I was referring too, by “heart practice”

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

From my experience I have been deeply enriched by the ISP, I never have however considered it as its' own path. From my reading and understanding the first person experience of the One is framed by factors in each quadrant including the lower left which include the paradigms of our respective spiritual paths. The experience whether Buddhist or Kabbalhalist is a first person phenomena. To that end Integral Spiritual Experience and ISP in general never really drastically changed my traditions lower left components now I can simply identify with the factors that still hold water at the spot of the conveyor belt that I am at.

As far as Satori in box, well the packaging has changed but I don't see it any different then satori on a pillow, in either case its not the intellectual knowledge that produces enlightenment it is the dwelling in enlightened experience, which can not be purchased.  If I am not mistaken one of the two famous schools of Zen teaching emphasize the point that enlightenment can take minutes or years, and can occur to the farmer or the monk despite either's hard work. Kabbalha emphasizes the same. Wilber in his books mentions that it can take as long as ten years to move up the consciousness scale with regular meditation even with his products so I do not think he is advertising a quick path, but instead a path that has had the components for enlightenment laid bare with as little phrasing from one specific tradition as possible. This allows any of us to articulate the experience universally while experiencing it within our own spiritual paradigms.

Namaste

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

What does the term “integral spirituality” mean to you?  Do you have a vision of what it should look like - how it will show up in terms of beliefs, areas of core concern, modes of discourse, practices, and institutions?  How would it differ from traditional religion?  From the New Age?

Hi Bruce (and every other beautiful, soulful contributor to this thread!)

I've been mulling over this since getting my online access back, and each time finding myself returning to the same sticking point: that what I'd like to put forward probably wouldn't be acceptable to/within W5.

A way forward for me would require being allowed an ”a priori form” (or maybe two) as a starting point. In Integral Spirituality (P. 234) Ken says: “…This is not to say that spiritual philosophy can do completely without any a priori forms (no philosophy can); but the fewer the better. And the a priori forms that are postulated had better be defensible with at least some reference to modern and postmodern forms of justification (and validity claims). Simply asserting that they exist will categorically not do.”

Those last two sentences could give me trouble … but then this dullard feels compelled to ask: does the very idea itself of the involution of Spirit into matter (from where? and what was before?) pass muster as far as those last two sentences are concerned? If not …. then at least I'd be in good company :)

So …. my starting point is with beginningless time. When I think of holons all the way up and holons all the way down I am only able (so far at least) to accept a beginning and an end in respect to this dimension we think of as our universe. I can speculate about the likelihood of other dimensions and universes existing contemporaneously, some “older”, some “younger” …. but for me what integral spirituality would require is an allowance of “something” outside of the limits of linear time, “something” simply beyond our concepts of what constitutes our relative existence.

I just love the idea of holons: their shape being spherical, the very nature of the curve with its absence of angles and corners suggesting expansiveness, a lack of restriction or confinement. Mahamudra means Great Symbol or Total Symbol … my starting point would be “something” that is symbolised (greatly!) by the sphere, a sphere containing totality, the totality of the potentiality of every and any possible thing/event/occasion/perspective/holon. So “it” would, paradoxically of course, transcend and include everything. “It” wouldn't have a limited boundary or edge, so would allow beginningless time. This is the a priori “given” that I'm asking to be allowed :)

This para/meta/super holon and its infinite contents would also of course be inseparable from primordial awareness, pristine awareness, pure gnosis, perfect wisdom, rigpa … whatever we choose to call it … giving us an inseparability of the stainless Ground and all-pervading pristine awareness. I am very content for this (also) to be called “Spirit”.

To give a little more context I'd like to quote briefly from some “Vajra songs of the Dzogchen lineage”, from Ani Jinba Palmo's translation of The Great Image: The Life Story of Vairochana the Translator:

“At that time there was a princess called Gomadevi, who was qualified and very inspired by the essential truth. She requested transmission of the essential meaning from the Oddiyana scholar Maharaja, who bestowed it in full and summarized the meaning in a song:

The nature of the single sphere is indivisible from the three times;

In that nature of self-liberation, there is no path to be travelled.

The nature of things is free from the limitations of words and can't be engaged in;

Realizing the unlimited, there is no other object of meditation.

Thus he sang. Princess Gomadevi understood perfectly what this meant and expressed her own realization as follows:

I am Gomadevi,
For whom the five elements are the five families of consorts
And the aggregates the five buddha families.
The constituents and sense bases are the male and female bodhisattvas,
The all-ground is Samantabhadri,
And mind is Samantabhadra.
Nondual union of these buddhas with their consorts is the accomplishment.

Thus she sang.”

(As an aside here, for those not familiar with the names, Samantabhadri is the female primordial Buddha and Samantabhadra is the male primordial Buddha — and of course they're from the beginningless beginning inseparable.)

This allows me an opportunity to bring up something that has been troubling me a little. It has been expressed on this forum that (and I'm not intending a direct quote here) Buddhism is great for state-training. I don't have any objection to this point of view in itself – but for me a distinction needs to be made between a nondual state and what I at least think of and refer to as the nondual state – otherwise the risk is run (potentially at least) of a kind of reductionism, and if I were to invent a fallacy to describe this kind of reductionism it would be an SSF (State-Spirit Fallacy). I accept gross, subtle, causal and nondual states as they're presented AQAL-ly. But just as gross, subtle and causal states are not automatically synonymous with Nirmanakaya, Sambhogakaya and Dharmakaya, so a nondual state is not automatically synonymous with “the inseparability of the stainless Ground and all-pervading pristine awareness”. I do think Ken's description of Buddhadharma in Integral Spirituality, in his endnote Ps. 110 - 111, (much too long for me to type here :))  is beautiful, cogent and inspiring, he puts it extremely well. However, his endnote on P. 112 “Emptiness itself is not created or co-created, but Form is, and emptiness is co-emergent with Form, therefore Nondual realisation is in part interpretive” I think is potentially misleading and requires further qualifying - I'm not certain exactly what he means by this. But it sounds to me like he's talking here about what he's referred to elsewhere, how our experience of nonduality is interpreted through whichever stage we're viewing things from. But, unless I'm misunderstanding what is meant by this, I disagree with this notion. As someone else (I think it might have been Holden/Rick) said on another thread recently, there are no perspectives in nondual awareness - what I take this to mean or at least what I mean by this is that nondual awareness doesn't have or isn't limited by any perspective. So if we have managed to relax into and deepen into what I call the nondual state, when we emerge from this into ‘ordinary' mind we can train in integrating whatever occasions/perspectives we happen to have tetra-arising into whatever capacity for nondual awareness we have ‘brought back' with us. I just don't see it that our experience of nondual awareness is interpreted through or by our world-view. But maybe this is a subject for another thread.

So for me the primary and essential ‘ingredient' of an integral spirituality is at least an allowance for this “inseparability of the stainless Ground and all-pervading pristine awareness”, or “sphere of totality” (tig.le chen.po).

Along with this I would say the call is for us to:

- train in going beyond our limits / not be constrained by limitations or limited points of view

- increase our various capacities (which would of course mean the number of perspectives we can take as well as line development)

- train in developing love and compassion for all sentient holons
- maintain/develop an awareness practice

- work with circumstances (as they tetra-arise!) with/in the presence of awareness

- adopt and work with any practice at all that might be useful for us individually to help our growth, and to develop our capacity to be with what is - here I would definitely place emphasis on working with the Shadow; another practice here, if it were useful/appropriate, could be working with Ayahuasca, for example

My ideas for an integral spirituality would also include an appreciation of another threesome besides the Beautiful, the Good and the True. I would include what in Vajrayana Buddhism are called “the three gates”, of body, speech (or voice) and mind. The Dzogchen teacher, Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche, has said: “They are called gates because gates are for entering. If you want to enter in the knowledge or understanding for discovering your real nature you should go through your gates - with body, speech and mind you can get in the knowledge.” So I would advocate adopting practises that integrate body, speech and mind. Body and mind we know well enough. As regards speech, Namkhai Norbu again: “Speech means the sound we speak. [This] sound is related to breath. Breath is related to our vital energy. In the Dzogchen Teaching sound is the root of all manifestations from emptiness.”

So if we were practising a form of yoga, such as trul.khor, we are working with the movement of our physical body; working with the breath and the prana is working with the voice aspect; working with maintaining presence of awareness, whatever capacity of nondual awareness we might have, is the mind aspect.

I would also include Qi Gong here.

And 5 Rhythms ecstatic dance (yumm!).

And, of course, fries.

Lol

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

“I just don't see it that our experience of nondual awareness is interpreted through or by our worldview.”

How else would it be interpreted? I suppose it's theoretically possible not to interpret it at all (though not likely ever to have happened), but the moment it is interpreted the only way would be through our worldview.

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Hi David,

Lol: “I just don't see it that our experience of nondual awareness is interpreted through or by our worldview.”
David: “How else would it be interpreted? I suppose it's theoretically possible not to interpret it at all (though not likely ever to have happened), but the moment it is interpreted the only way would be through our worldview.”

Sorry for not replying sooner and unfortunately I'm not able time-wise to reply as fully to your question, and comment, as I'd like.

It's possible we may be talking about two different things here. When I say “I just don't see it that our experience of nondual awareness is interpreted through or by our worldview” I'm talking about our present experience of being in the presence of, or present to, nondual awareness (whenever that might be, of course) — I'm not talking about the concept of nondual awareness, which of course can be defined, discussed etc.

My understanding, and experience, is that nondual awareness, nonduality and the nondual state are synonymous …and when one is in nondual presence of awareness, in that instant presence this (ones) presence of awareness is not conceptualising (about), defining, or interpreting itself - or anything else for that matter. Nor is it being interpreted through or by anything.

What say you? And best wishes

Lol

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

That sounds good to me. I thought you were talking about one's conceptualizations of the nondual experience.

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Hi, Lol,

This is such a great letter.  I'm sorry it hasn't gotten more response – including from me!  I really resonate with what you write, but wonder if I have anything worthwhile to add to what you've already said.

I personally think your minimal “a priori” forms would pass muster with Wilber-5, and as you already recognize, they aren't really very different from the metaphysical givens that Wilber also admits in his own model.  In my opinion, these givens aren't of the pre-rational, authority-based, “just because” variety that Wilber criticizes, anyway.

Although Wilber addresses the issue of timelessness or a dimension of Being transcending linear temporality in a few places, particularly in his earlier works, he doesn't often give it much emphasis.  With my own TSK interests, and of course my Buddhist/Bonpo background as well, I agree with you that it is important at some point in our unfolding to challenge conventional temporal presuppositions and to engage in practices which may open our perspectives to a deeper understanding of time.

In terms of Integral “practice,” I love the list you drew up and agree with your suggestion that body-speech-mind also be included among the big threes (Good, True, Beautiful; Self, Nature, Culture).  Body and mind get a lot of emphasis, as you point out, but not all traditions give equal attention to “energy.”  (I'm not sure if you've seen it, but Anne Klein, a student of Lopon Tenzin Namdak and Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche, recently published an article on including awareness of “energy” in psychotherapy, drawing in particular on Dzogchen and Tantric approaches to the five elements.  I'm in the middle of reading it now…).

I don't feel I've added much to what you wrote, and I'm late for lunch at the moment, but I'll get back to this after some more thought.

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Thanks for your kind words, Bruce. I'd be really interested in reading that article of Anne Klein's - do you know if I can I read it online somewhere?

I'm still really hopeful of getting other people's views/opinions (including yours!) on what Ken means when he talks about people coming out of a state experience and interpreting this experience through the structure they're in.

I'm asking in this instance for it to be kept specifically to nondual states, and for context I'm providing three quotes, the first from my letter above and the other two from “God's Playing a New Game”, his interview in WIE? by Andrew Cohen. I know he's referring to different types of state experiences in these latter two quotes, but for simplicity's sake and in relation to questions I have, I'm asking for this enquiry to be kept to nondual states.

Lol: “[Ken's] endnote on P. 112 “Emptiness itself is not created or co-created, but Form is, and emptiness is co-emergent with Form, therefore Nondual realisation is in part interpretive” I think is potentially misleading and requires further qualifying - I'm not certain exactly what he means by this. But it sounds to me like he's talking here about what he's referred to elsewhere, how our experience of nonduality is interpreted through whichever stage we're viewing things from.”

KW: “Now these stages, which we also call structures or levels, show up in all human beings, so we have to take them into account. One of the real problems is that you can have a spiritual experience - a profound taste of emptiness, or pure nonduality, or absolute oneness, or radiant, luminous absolute bliss/love - and when you come out of that experience or even while you're in it, you'll interpret it according to the level or stage you're at.”

KW: “Now one problem is that, as you were saying earlier, particularly if you study with Eastern teachers, they often have profound state experiences - they've tasted emptiness, they've tasted the timeless ground of being - but when they come out of those states, what structure do they interpret them through? Generally, the traditional/mythic/blue meme/amber altitude. That's a very fixed structure, so they interpret reality as absolutely unchanging. It doesn't evolve; it doesn't unfold. There is no development in this worldview, and that indeed is one of the problems with it. Their myth of the given has locked them into a low level of structural development.”

So in terms of nonduality, what exactly is being interpreted when one “comes out of” it? What do people think about this?

For example, if I am sitting gazing into space and am “in” what my teacher refers to as “instant presence” - if I am in this instant presence, by (his) definition this is nondual awareness or the nondual state. Is it generally agreed that nothing is being interpreted when “in” this nondual state? - from my point of view, this is the case. What do others think?

When this period of contemplation comes to an end it's natural for “ordinary” conditioned  mind to start to kick in again. But even so, I for one don't go about interpreting or trying to interpret the experience I've just had. And I don't have a sense that somehow this experience is somehow automatically being interpreted through whatever structure I'm “in”.

More to the point, what I will be doing, trying to train in, is integrating whatever is arising “for” me into whatever presence of awareness that's still there from my contemplation, because as we know, it's really always there if we can just be present to it. So I might well have thoughts, ideas, perspectives etc. that would place me at one altitude or another – but they or that structure are neither interpreting my presence of awareness, or, if it's not the same thing, this presence of awareness (and I'm not talking about basic mindfulness here) is not being interpreted through whatever structure it might be.

At least this is how it occurs for me. What do others, maybe talking from their own experience, think about this?

All best,

Lol

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Lol said:
“For example, if I am sitting gazing into space and am “in” what my teacher refers to as “instant presence” - if I am in this instant presence, by (his) definition this is nondual awareness or the nondual state. Is it generally agreed that nothing is being interpreted when “in” this nondual state? - from my point of view, this is the case. ”

My experience exactly, Lol. When nothing is being interpreted in thought, this is nondual awareness. And yet (bear with me here), I can also see that even this thought-free, immediate presence may be said to be an 'interpretation of What Is'. How so? We have to consider the fact that This pure Awareness is perceived through and with the sensory apparatus of a human being. So, in that sense, Ken might say even This is a perspective, albeit nondual and free of ideations.

Lol:
“When this period of contemplation comes to an end it's natural for “ordinary” conditioned  mind to start to kick in again. But even so, I for one don't go about interpreting or trying to interpret the experience I've just had. And I don't have a sense that somehow this experience is somehow automatically being interpreted through whatever structure I'm “in”.”

Maybe you don't interpret the nondual experience fully consciously, then? My observation is that every experience is interpreted in the sense of being categorized, at least as “okay, no danger”, or “dangerous” – some fundamental sorting is going on automatically for self-preservation etc.


Lol:
“More to the point, what I will be doing, trying to train in, is integrating whatever is arising “for” me into whatever presence of awareness that's still there from my contemplation, because as we know, it's really always there if we can just be present to it.”

Here, I stumble over the “trying to integrate” part. What is there to integrate when arisings are seen as essentially empty  comings and goings -  as it must be the case for you, a Dzogchen practitioner?

Oy, I hope this doesn't muddy the terrain even more…. :-)

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

My understanding of the interpretive component echoes what Mary said about Christian spiritual experiences and then how they are interpreted once they arise from these experiences. 

However you were specifically focusing on nondual experiences which I think is a bit trickier.

Lol said:  More to the point, what I will be doing, trying to train in, is integrating whatever is arising “for” me into whatever presence of awareness that's still there from my contemplation, because as we know, it's really always there if we can just be present to it. So I might well have thoughts, ideas, perspectives etc. that would place me at one altitude or another - but they or that structure are neither interpreting my presence of awareness, or, if it's not the same thing, this presence of awareness (and I'm not talking about basic mindfulness here) is not being interpreted through whatever structure it might be.

At least this is how it occurs for me. What do others, maybe talking from their own experience, think about this?

I know personally my experience I would say mirrors yours.  In meditation or in certain contemplative moments I will be more based in an open awareness that notices the different arisings of thoughts, emotions, perceptions as spontaneous arisings within open awareness.  I think in certain moments I will tend to get more identified with my emotional reactions, or thought streams based on my past conditioning and other causes and conditions.

In terms of Wilber's model, I think its shifted with regard to nondual states and stages.  Earlier I remember his model as primarily seeing the nondual stage as the final stage after very advanced stabilizations of nature, subtle, causal realizations, these being stacked on top of more traditional forms of development.  However now he subscribes to the Wilber-Combs matrices which sees nature, subtle, causal mysticism more as a type of metaphorical horizontal development where more traditional forms are seen as vertical development, so now there are state stages (horizontal development) and structure stages (vertical development).  However, his most present position, Wilber V, speaks about nondual awareness or the nondual stage as more as a type of ever present awareness that can be accessed (and stabilized?) at any time (based on my memory of my readings), without the prerequisite of state stage development.

What role does interpretation play here?

My sense is that he categorizes certain teachers as in amber-blue structure stages because of how they interpret emptiness and don't recognize evolution and development.  Also I believe he categorizes certain teachers as amber-blue because he sees them as subscribing to “the myth of the given” in which spiritual realities are merely discovered rather than co-created by AQAL, all quadrants, all lines, all states, all stages, and all types.

I think this interpretive turn he is taking is a little too strong, and although I see his point, I would question whether this way of interpreting these teachers is valid.  I see these teachers as more emphasizing the emptiness part of reality rather than the form part, but placing them at an amber-blue structure may be a little strong (especially when we haven't even considered what line he is specifying here).  

For any type of structure labelling to be valid we would have to do a much more thorough interviewing also, to get at how they construct reality, rather than merely looking at content which has serious problems and limitations.  This is one of my main problems with Wilber's work in general although overall I very much appreciate and support his general desire to create integrated systems of knowledge and reality which I think is sorely needed in our world and in academia.

Hope I didn't meander too much and hope it's of some benefit,
blessings,
Kelly

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Lol asked: I'm still really hopeful of getting other people's views/opinions (including yours!) on what Ken means when he talks about people coming out of a state experience and interpreting this experience through the structure they're in.

Here's a brief example using what I'm most familiar with: Christianity:

If a Christian has a state / mystical experience and they are at the amber stage level, they are likely to interpret their experience as an encounter with God / Jesus / Spirit as the exclusivist Christian God, as Jesus who is the one and only way to salvation, as the Spirit that seeks to convert non-believers (and judge / damn those who will not convert) … The experience could reinforce their “ethnocentric” belief that Christianity is the True Faith, and that all other ways pale in comparison or are false …

They would not interpret the experience as an encounter with the divine Source, the holy Emptiness, the heart of all faiths/ways, the All-in-all, or the ground of being as filtered through their particular life experiences and (Christian) cultural conditioning, as those at the green stage and beyond might.

Pax,
Mary

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Hi, Lol,

I had been thinking about taking up this discussion in a separate thread, but have been tardy about setting it up.  But I don't mind discussing it here either:  in my personal approach to “integral spirituality,” I am deeply interested in how teachings such as Dzogchen relate to a (post)post-modern, integral worldview.

I agree with you that instant presence is, in an important sense, “beyond” interpretation.  But is it also subject to interpretation, even in those traditions which seem best to understand it and which focus most on cultivating it?

The way I've approached this issue is to consider the range of questions that could be asked:  What is the significance of “instant presence” or rigpa?  Why do we cultivate it?  Why do we seek to integrate our multitudinous experiences with it?  What is the “place” of instant presence in the Kosmos?  Is it the activity of a spirit being in us?  Is it a biologically based brain-state frequency, which may have relative benefits if “tapped” but which does not have any cosmic significance, and which cannot be considered primordial on a cosmic scale?  Is the nondual state “the inseparability of the stainless Ground and all-pervading pristine awareness”?

I think the fact that these questions can, and in fact must, be asked about it, reveals that there is a conceptual component to it – if not to the state itself, at least to its import and its “place” within the context of spiritual life and practice.

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Balder, “What is the significance of “instant presence” or rigpa?”  

It is all there ultimately is.

Why do we cultivate it? 

We can't. It is what we are when it is seen that we are not.

Why do we seek to integrate our multitudinous experiences with it? 

Because we are deluded.

What is the “place” of instant presence in the Kosmos? 

It is everywhere and nowhere in particular. It is not in space nor is it out of space. It's location is non-locality. It is not an it.

Is it the activity of a spirit being in us? 

No, but if we must see things ontologically then that is at the ticket counter of the ballpark. We wont get to play on the field though.

Is it a biologically based brain-state frequency, which may have relative benefits if “tapped” but which does not have any cosmic significance, and which cannot be considered primordial on a cosmic scale? 

Viewing 'it' within a materialistic paradigm is looking for it under rocks. It is not primordial because it is not in time nor is it out of time.

Is the nondual state “the inseparability of the stainless Ground and all-pervading pristine awareness”?

Calling it a state is a misnomer. The quote is a good a descriptor as any other sans ontological referents.


P&L

e

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

e,

I appreciate your answers, but was really just making the point that “instant awareness” – even though “it” is nonconceptual – nevertheless is related to within a complex of meaning.  Your answers trace out the contours of a particular meaning-complex. 

Would you agree?

Best wishes,

B.

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

My answers were shit then. They always are.

With that in mind. If we have to continue to stay within words. Then 'Instant awareness' is not pre-verbal but post-verbal. *Until* 'it' is even glimpsed post-verbaly, then we will continue to swim in the dualistic meaning making partial truth fishbowl of our own AQAL excrement.

Balder please, freaking look at how “God” has been encapsulated into the church and then he is on 'our' side. Instant awareness cannot NEVER EVER NEVER EVER NEVER be reduced to anything meaningful or meaningless!!! It disolves all dualistic meaning.

Only then can we come back to meaning, playfully, knowing full well it is complete folly.

Our meaning is akin to writing in a fast flowing river with a stick.

p&l

e

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Pre-verbal and post-verbal are relative levels of development, based on the acquisition of particular structures (likely in conjunction with other capacities or forms of knowing).  By saying that nondual awareness must be apprehended post-verbally / post-rationally, in order to avoid the mistakes of the past (in which we have appropriated certain sacred presences as “objects” to be possessed and thus perpetuated dualistic fragmentation), then it appears you are agreeing with Wilber that the intersection of relative levels of development with nondual experience is an important aspect of spiritual realization – or the kind of spiritual realization we attain.

Would you agree?

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Balder, e & all sentient beings are in a enormous room. In this room everything comes in pairs dualistically. Most all the beings (99.9999999999999%) believe in the existence of the objects in the room. They are all under a force that propels them to look in one direction at the objects in the room. They have become habituated to this force (dont question it any longer) and are habituated to living in this room. If they could just turn around and see that there is an exit door to the room, the delusion of separateness and all the ills associated with it would vanish in an instant. Or so they have been told by others who claim to have walked out that door. Balder and e's conversation continues below….


Balder : Pre-verbal and post-verbal are relative levels of development, based on the acquisition of particular structures (likely in conjunction with other capacities or forms of knowing). 

Yes, we are compelled to look at objects in the room. We sort of sense that the exit door is behind us but we cannot turn around and find it. We are simply looking in the wrong direction. And so all of our practices, knowledge and development allow us to walk backwards. As we walk backwards, more of the room that we are in becomes apparent , we can see more objects and the relations between those objects and so our navigation in the room becomes easier. But we still dont see the exit door.


Balder : By saying that nondual awareness must be apprehended post-verbally / post-rationally,

What I was trying to import was the beings that are closer to the far wall of the room which we can easily see and talk about do not have speech. But because they do not have speech does not mean they are outside of the room. Since we have walked backwards some, speech has become an object we can see and use in the room. The way I was using trans-verbal was to hint at the exit door behind us. I agree that trans-verbal is relative to this room and does not exist outside of this room.


Balder : in order to avoid the mistakes of the past (in which we have appropriated certain sacred presences as “objects” to be possessed and thus perpetuated dualistic fragmentation),

Sacred and profane are distinctions of the room only. More often then not, people apply these terms to those that have walked farther backwards in the room. They then fight about these sacred objects in the same way they fight about the seemingly more gross objects in the room. Most dont even realize there is an exit door to the room.


Balder:  then it appears you are agreeing with Wilber that the intersection of relative levels of development with nondual experience is an important aspect of spiritual realization - or the kind of spiritual realization we attain.

Any being is free to turn around and walk out the exit door. Those that have walked pretty far backwards and can see the beings in front of them think those 'lesser' beings have to walk backwards to their position first and then turn around. This is simply not the case. All any being has to do is turn around and leave thru the door. This is something that is not attained. When you leave the room, “you” dont come back into the room.

peace & love

e

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

e,

In your metaphor, even the exit door is still part of the room, and still exists in relation to the room.

Do you think the 'meaning' of the exit door will vary according to the perspective of individuals in the room?

In a previous letter, and in this one, you have been careful to point out which perspectives are erroneous and which ones are more accurate.  In other words, you are saying there is a right way to understand, and to speak about, 'nonduality.'  Is this 'right understanding' interpretive in nature, or not?

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Balder: In your metaphor, even the exit door is still part of the room, and still exists in relation to the room.

Yes, the name on the door says 'gateless gate'.



Do you think the 'meaning' of the exit door will vary according to the perspective of individuals in the room?

Yes, there will be an infinite number of views to that door. However, meaning and meaningless are within the room only. In other words what perspective is not ultimately meaningless?

In a previous letter, and in this one, you have been careful to point out which perspectives are erroneous and which ones are more accurate.  In other words, you are saying there is a right way to understand, and to speak about, 'nonduality.'  Is this 'right understanding' interpretive in nature, or not?

Right understanding can only pertain to the contents of the room. Outside the room there is no perspective. So anything interpretive is in relation to the contents of the room. Words pointing to words…endlessly. So, there is no right understanding of non-duality. There can never be. Non-duality does not exist. There is only right understanding of our relation to duality. In other words, non-duality can never be captured in words. Words dont even point to 'it', they just point to the idea of 'it' i.e. the exit door.



Best wishes


You too Balder.

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Hi Mascha, Kelly, Mary, Balder,

Really great to get your responses. I'm not sure I can respond in turn to everything I might otherwise wish to, but from the top …

Mascha: “And yet (bear with me here), I can also see that even this thought-free, immediate presence may be said to be an 'interpretation of What Is'. How so? We have to consider the fact that This pure Awareness is perceived through and with the sensory apparatus of a human being. So, in that sense, Ken might say even This is a perspective, albeit nondual and free of ideations.”

If I say I disagree, then I also have to say that I don't have any original ideas about any of this, but I do find others' wisdom helpful. I find the distinction made in Dzogchen between mind (i.e. mental consciousness) and nature-of-mind (pure awareness) to be extremely pertinent here. There are many practices whose function is to separate this mind that cognises, perceives etc. from nature-of-mind, in such a way that what one is strongly present to is “nature-of-mind”, and that any thoughts, perceptions, feelings etc. are merely arising within it and naturally self-liberate within it. It would also be argued that pure awareness is self-aware, that there is a difference between this self-awareness and perception, and that being self-aware, nature-of-mind doesn't need to be perceived 'through' anything.

Mascha: “Maybe you don't interpret the nondual experience fully consciously, then? My observation is that every experience is interpreted in the sense of being categorized, at least as “okay, no danger”, or “dangerous” – some fundamental sorting is going on automatically for self-preservation etc.”

I get the distinction you're making here. I undoubtedly place a value on the nondual state. I think it's a Good Thing. I could imagine that my mental appreciation for it might grow stronger and deeper were my capacity to develop such that I could rest in it with less and less distraction … but it's hard to know, really. I'm not sure if this is the same as interpreting the nondual state, though.

I've been trying to imagine myself as a caveman who's been introduced to his nature-of-mind and whether this me would value or appreciate it in a different way …. assuming he/I was intelligent enough to intellectually understand the oral transmission, and to grok the symbolic transmission, in such a way that the mind transmission or 'direct introduction' was 'gotten'. Then, if I try and imagine myself at 'turquoise' with all that tetra-enaction going on, would my appreciation for the nondual 'experience' be any different? Somehow I think/feel not. As much as I value and appreciate it, there's a very simple ordinariness and naturalness to it that at least seems to be inherent  … that, as well as being self-arising, self-aware, self-perfected it could also be called self-ordinary, self-natural or self-basic, if you see what I mean, and that these 'qualities' would, if you like, present themselves equally to caveman/woman as to ultra-violet man/woman. Or at least that's how it seems to me.

So I guess I still don't see how it is interpreted (presumably differently) through whichever structure we're relating to things!

Mascha: “Here, I stumble over the “trying to integrate” part. What is there to integrate when arisings are seen as essentially empty  comings and goings -  as it must be the case for you, a Dzogchen practitioner?”

The idea of  “… integrating whatever is arising “for” me into whatever presence of awareness that's still there from my contemplation ..” is how it's languaged in the teaching (although not as clumsily as I put it). What it means (speaking from personal experience) is that when I “come out of” whatever depth of contemplation I've managed to relax into in a 'formal' session, some degree of this presence of awareness comes with me. It's not a concept, but there is like a felt-sense to it … I'm sure you know exactly what I mean. The training for me now is to remain present to and in this as much as possible in all circumstances and in/with whatever it is I'm doing or saying or thinking. When I'm sitting in contemplation it's clearly much easier to have these 'empty comings and goings' come and go without being distracted by them from nature-of-mind - than it is when I'm actively /purposefully using body, voice and mind after the session. Nondual awareness remains the same, but my capacity to remain as deeply in it or present to it decreases - like it is right now as I concentrate more on this keyboard! Then it effortlessly returns to being dualistic, and more 'concrete' - in which case I recognise this when I do, and 're-discover' my presence of awareness with its felt sense, and the act of typing becomes 'integrated' into my presence more as an “empty coming and going”. So this integrating isn't in itself an active trying-to-do, it's just how it's languaged.

Hope that makes sense, M.  - and lovely talking with you (I didn't notice any mud anywhere!).

Kelly: ”I think this interpretive turn [KW] is taking is a little too strong, and although I see his point, I would question whether this way of interpreting these teachers is valid.  I see these teachers as more emphasizing the emptiness part of reality rather than the form part, but placing them at an amber-blue structure may be a little strong (especially when we haven't even considered what line he is specifying here).  
For any type of structure labelling to be valid we would have to do a much more thorough interviewing also, to get at how they construct reality, rather than merely looking at content which has serious problems and limitations.”

Kelly, I found your letter ruler-straight and very beneficial! I resonate with what you're saying above. When I read Ken saying things like ”Exactly. The Tibetan yogi sitting in his cave thinks he is contemplating timeless truths, truths that hold for everybody, whereas a good number of them are actually just Tibetan fashions.” [“God's Playing a New Game” interview, WIE?], I appreciate he's generalising to make a point, but the fact remains neither he nor we know what a Tibetan yogi like Milarepa's perspectives actually were, even if the AQAL model says they can't have been above Amber because nothing else had evolved yet. But maybe he and other yogis were 'grooving' post-ultravioletly all along, who knows?

Mary, (I had to stop myself automatically reaching for you-know-who's beret when I was reading your piece!), I completely get what you're saying. I feel certain that I had a nondual peak experience as the culmination of a process of experiencing I was having a few days into tripping on some very pure acid (I was taking some each day) in 1974 (I was 22). The whole episode was a profound and powerful experience … and maybe I did interpret the memory of that through whatever worldview I was inhabiting then. I couldn't recapture it (as I foolishly hoped to the next time I tripped) and the experience receded from me as time passed and I metaphorically tried to look over my shoulder at it. The culmination-point 'experience' I hadn't been able to grasp onto at all, I didn't have anything in my prior experience to compare it to; so it was, I would say, impossible for me to remember it as in bringing it back to mind / mindfulness. But I could sort of conceptualise how it'd been, and it may well be that this conceptualisation was interpreted through the lens of my worldview. (Come to think of it, I do now remember during this time knowing that God was in the centre of my being. Okay.)

In the Dzogchen teaching, though, gaining knowledge of ones real condition, primordial state, nature-of-mind … however it's languaged … is contingent on being directly introduced to it by someone who has the capacity to do this. (Some people today challenge this, debate this, but I don't want to go into that here.) Suffice it to say that, at least as far as I'm aware, all the Dzogchen practitioners (female and male) who are recognised as having this capacity unanimously affirm that direct introduction is essential for gaining this knowledge – direct experiential knowledge that can be re-discovered and re-entered into from that time on – of ones primordial state.

I didn't receive this direct introduction when I was 15, I may well have not been able to hear it when I was 15, but if I had I suspect that not only would I not have been able to remain a Catholic in the way I was brought up, I would have been catapulted out of Amber, if that's where I was, into …?

Even as I'm saying this I recognise that  this little scenario didn't happen,  and that it's accepted there's a reason one has to go through the developmental stages in sequence!

Balder, I think it would be really great if you did start a new thread and (re-)launch this discussion there – for me it's so heart-warming that you're “.. deeply interested in how teachings such as Dzogchen relate to a (post)post-modern, integral worldview.” Me too!

I think your questions are top-notch, and will happily give my tuppence worth in response … but not in this letter, I've been going on long enough already 8)

”I think the fact that these questions can, and in fact must, be asked about it, reveals that there is a conceptual component to it – if not to the state itself, at least to its import and its “place” within the context of spiritual life and practice.”

Couldn't agree with you more!

All best to all,

Lol

Re: Integral Spirituality in the 21st Century

Hi, Lol,

I'll be starting a new thread on this shortly…

Best wishes,

B.