Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

An excerpt of a recent essay by Craig Hamilton, a Bay Area spiritual teacher and a (former) student of Andrew Cohen:

“…much of the spiritual metanarrative of the past forty years of Western spirituality reads like a tragic soap opera. We’ve watched as one after another of our most promising spiritual teachers publicly fell from grace, committing serious moral transgressions, collapsing into corruption and scandal. And this has been an extremely challenging reality for millions of contemporary spiritual seekers. Many have been wondering whether enlightenment is really all it’s cracked up to be. Or if authentic spiritual attainment is even possible. To compound the problem, many half-baked spiritual teachers have capitalized on this doubt, making light of their “human imperfections” as a demonstration of their humility and “spiritual maturity.” And in so doing, they have only continued to erode our sense of what is actually possible.

So, into this sea of confusion walks this notion of Lines of Development—a clean, simple, commonsense theory that seems to elegantly explain the whole problem. It tells us that the reason that these great Masters acted inappropriately was not due to any deficit in their spiritual attainment. They were still Great Masters. They were just undeveloped in some other Lines. For instance, if a Great spiritual master acts in ways that are abusive, we should see this not as a spiritual deficit but as a deficit in their moral line of development, or their interpersonal line of development, or perhaps in their emotional line of development. If a spiritual teacher can’t seem to keep their pants on, this is probably due to some lack of psychosexual development and is not necessarily indicative of any limitation in their spiritual attainment.

At first blush, this seems like the day has been saved, right? We don’t have to throw the baby out with the bathwater after all. The possibility of Great Enlightenment still exists. We just have to understand that it is one line among many. We can still believe in and aspire toward higher spiritual development. We just have to realize that no matter how spiritually evolved we become, it’s not necessarily going to make us a better human being.

Now, I need to be honest. For all of its elegance and simplicity, this theory never quite worked for me. And not just because it lets all the gurus off the hook. Pardon my brief aside, but I mean, what a relief, right? We no longer have to strive to appear superhuman in order to meet our disciples’ expectations. And, more importantly, we don’t have to hold ourselves to a higher standard of conduct. Aaaahhh. If we get caught with our pants down or our hand in the cookie jar, we can simply acknowledge our lack of development in some of the non-spiritual lines—like morality—and we’re out of hot water! And you know what that means, guys: more of those fringe benefits!

But seriously, spiritual teachers aside, the deeper reason why this Lines of Development theory never worked for me in the spiritual domain is this: If all of our spiritual practice and striving isn’t going to make us a more conscious, sensitive, decent, caring, wise, respectful, and moral human being whose behavior in the world shines as a beacon of enlightened consciousness—then A) what good is it? And B) if our definition of spirituality doesn’t include any of those things, what exactly do we mean by spirituality at this point anyway? If we’re going to separate out all of these other lines, it seems that the only thing that’s really left is our ability to access altered states of consciousness. And, for me, that is a definition too small for the domain it attempts to define.

To explain why, I want to bring us all back to where I started my talk. To that spiritual luminary—dead or living—whom you revere and look to for inspiration. What is it about them that inspires your admiration and respect? Is it their ability to access higher states? Or is it something else? And if something else, what is that something else?

If I were to put a word on it, I might call it “enlightened humanity.” I think that if we step outside of all the talk about different developmental lines, we can acknowledge that there is something called our humanity which has to do with the depth of our interiors, our moral sense, our character, our values, our wisdom, our decency, our compassion, our willingness to risk for a greater good. And I think we all have a basic commonsense intuition that spirituality is about the enlightenment and transformation of our humanity on a fundamental level. What makes a truly spiritual person so extraordinary and unusual is that all of the best human qualities and virtues seem to naturally shine forth from that person, while all of the worst human qualities and vices seem to have subsided. And the more enlightened a person is, the more this should be the case. And I think that deep down we all know this, even if our theories have managed to confuse us on the surface.

You see, I think this notion of Lines of Development as applied to spirituality is a great example of an elegant theory talking us out of our common sense. I think the reason it has been so successful at doing so lies in a series of fundamental confusions in contemporary spirituality. And while there is not time here to discuss them all, there is one that’s important to address, as it’s one which some Integral Theorists have helped to propagate.

It is a confusion about what nonduality—and nondual realization—really means. The vast majority of contemporary “nondual” teachings and teachers—including some influential Integral theorists—have propagated the idea that nondual realization is when you discover that only the Absolute or Unmanifest is ultimately Real, and the entire manifest domain is either unreal, an illusion, a cosmic joke or divine play with no ultimate significance. We’ve all by now heard the notion that satori is the realization that everything leading up to satori—including any notion of evolution—is meaningless. And that, after enlightenment, we might still play in the world, but we wouldn’t take it seriously.

So, with this as our idea about where our path is taking us, it’s easy to understand how someone with a high or even ultimate level of spiritual development might not be very highly developed in their humanity. Because that version of enlightenment really has nothing to do with the “relative” world of time, space, and action. So, in this view of ultimate spiritual attainment, the notion that spirituality is a single line divorced from all of the others I’ve been speaking about makes perfect sense.

There’s only one problem. That is not what nonduality really means. That is not what enlightenment really is.

Remember, the ultimate statement of nonduality is that form and emptiness, nirvana and samsara are one. Which means it is all REAL.

This is why the authentic realization of enlightenment is simultaneously blissful and painful. Because one sees, in a way one has never seen before, that the unmanifest ground of everything is a limitless perfection, but that the manifest world is a bloody mess. And they’re both equally real.

And in the face of this beautiful and terrible reality, there is a further recognition—IT DOESN’T HAVE TO BE THIS WAY. So much of the mess of the human condition lies in a fundamental ignorance of the way things are. So much of the horror show of the world is an outgrowth of our collective, unevolved consciousness. And it can all change.

Which is why, when someone truly realizes this, they usually become a fanatic. They have only one choice left. To give their every breath to awakening and evolving the world.

Now, it’s possible to experience all kinds of higher states and insights and not get to this genuinely nondual realization. Which is why most spiritual teachers and teachings are as confusing as they are helpful. Because, frankly, it is very rare that someone touches, let alone surrenders to this ultimate realization. Most spiritual teachers truthfully haven’t gotten anywhere near it. So, generally we get a cocktail of dharma mixed in with a bunch of erroneous conclusions. Like enlightenment is simply about being here now, or loving what is, realizing there is nowhere to go, nothing to become, nothing that needs to change. And various other half-truths that are absolutely deadening to the spiritual impulse.

Now, to summarize where we are at this point, I’ve said that saying that spiritual development is a separate line that excludes moral, social, emotional, and psychological development is problematic because it reduces spirituality to the ability to access altered states. I’ve also said that this way of defining spirituality flies in the face of our basic commonsense intuition that spirituality is about the enlightenment and transformation of our humanity. And then I said that the reason so many of us have been so easily talked out of our common sense lies in a bundle of confusing ideas being taught in the contemporary spiritual scene, and specifically the notion that nondual realization means we see the world as unreal or at best a cosmic joke.

By my count, there are two more questions I need to answer to bring this home.

1) If spirituality is not just a single line of development, then what is it?

2) If this Lines of Development theory does not explain the moral and social transgressions of so many Great Gurus, then what does account for it?

In answer to the first of these, there are many ways to speak about what spiritual awakening is, but one very good way that I think will shed some light here is to see it as the discovery of the Dharma. When one truly wakes up, one begins to see with the Dharma eye, or the eye of wisdom. Now, the word dharma is thrown around a lot these days, but if we look back at its roots, we find three meanings that tend to be associated with it. Dharma as Truth. Dharma as Law. And Dharma as Path. Simply put, one sees the Truth, which reveals the Law which guides the Path. And, when things are working properly, this is a discovery that engages every aspect of one’s humanity. One sees, suddenly with unimaginable subtlety, the delicate web of interrelatedness that binds us together. One sees the significance of every move we make, and how it impacts the whole through a complex chain of causation. One awakens to the Law of karma, the law of right action which reveals an inherent ordering principle in the Kosmos, and a Kosmic command to align with that order. In the theistic traditions, this Law was referred to as the Will of God, as in, “Not my will, but Thy Will be done.” Finally, one discovers the Path, the actions one must take to stay aligned with the Law, revealing themselves anew through clear seeing in every moment. And, in the face of this knowledge, one experiences the awakening of what Andrew Cohen calls the “Spiritual Conscience,” or what the Sufis called, simply, “the Heart.” That faculty within the awakening psyche which compels us to act in accord with the Law, and which feels a kind of Kosmic pain when we violate it.

What is the impact on an individual who realizes this kind of depth? It’s earth-shattering. The result is a complete revolution at the very core of one’s being, which then radiates outward, bringing about an integral transformation of every aspect of one’s humanity.

On a values level, it brings about a radical reorientation in one’s priorities, worldview and values. We begin to care about the evolution of the whole, and the evolution of consciousness itself more than we care about anything personal. We become a Kosmoscentric or even Godcentric individual.

On a moral level, it brings one into profound alignment with the moral order of the Kosmos, compelling one to always sacrifice self-interest for the good of the whole.

On an interpersonal level, it leads to a profound attunement to the evolutionary needs of others, and an unbearable sensitivity to the impact our actions have on others. Freed from the confines of self-concern, we find ourselves able to see deeply into others souls and respond to them with a precision, warmth and kindness unimaginable within ordinary egoic relationship.

On a cognitive level, it liberates our mind from rigidity and opens us to ever higher levels of spiritual cognition in which authentic intuition and reason are clarified and united in a higher embrace.

On an emotional level, it awakens a depth of feeling that would have been too much for us to bear in our previous ego-identified state. We become choicelessly present to our own emotional life, and that emotional life expands to begin to literally feel for the evolving whole. When we see ourselves or someone else acting selfishly and out of alignment with the Law, it causes us emotional pain, and that pain deepens our evolutionary response to life.

In essence, what I’m asserting is that spiritual attainment is integral at the deepest level of the psyche. It integrates our whole being from the top-down. Enlightenment really is all it’s cracked up to be. It is just exceedingly rare.

Which leaves me with the final question: If authentic spiritual attainment really does make us a better person, why, then, have so many spiritual teachers been less than exemplary human beings?

If you’ve followed me so far, you can probably guess my answer: Most spiritual teachers today have not attained the depth of realization I’m speaking about here. They may have had profound experiences. They may even have attained a kind of ongoing yogic access to expanded states of consciousness. They may even be able to transmit those higher states to others. But that does not mean they have surrendered their will before the throne of the Ultimate. It does not make them truly God-realized human beings.

Why are we in this predicament? Why, after all these years of Western seeking and practice, don’t we have more to show for it?

That’s another big subject, and more than I can do justice to here. But in broad strokes, here is my take.

Truthfully, I think it’s quite simple. I think that pre-modern spiritual practices and traditions are not sufficient to address the complexity of the postmodern world or the postmodern psyche. Those of us postmoderns who are engaging in spiritual practice today are at a completely different developmental level than any of the great traditions knew anything about. We have a kind of complex, layered interiority and individuation that never existed before. Our complex interiors are deeply related to and engaged with the interiors of others in ways that the great sages of yore never could have imagined. The great wisdom traditions are indeed great. And their highest wisdom is universal and timeless. But they really don’t sufficiently address us.
In recent years, many have recognized the limitations of pre-modern spirituality, and have offered various hybrids of Western psychotherapy and traditional contemplative practice. But from my observation, this has mostly just contributed to making the context for spiritual practice smaller, by anchoring it to the healing, recovery, and fulfillment of the traumatized personal self. Out of this marriage, there have also been a variety of what we might call postmodern spiritual practices born, but again, they all seem to be focused on healing and fulfilling the self, and have little or nothing to do with anchoring us into a context infinitely greater than ourselves. Spirituality has always been about bringing us into alignment with and submission to an Absolute principle, in the face of which our personal wounds, fears, and desires are revealed to be irrelevant. In the absence of this ultimate context, we have to ask: are we really practicing spirituality at all?

What I think will usher in a new era of authentic spiritual enlightenment—and, in my opinion, the only thing that will do it—is the emergence of new post-postmodern spiritual forms that are fundamentally Godcentric and Kosmoscentric. These new spiritual Teachings will address the complex relational sensitivity and individuation of the postmodern psyche, but from an authentically enlightened Dharmic context. This means that they will be derived from the Dharma itself—from a clear seeing of the Way with a capital “w”, and from there an engagement with the complexities of the postmodern psyche. New transformative practices will be born that harness our newfound interiority in the dismantling of its own egoic structures. And the path will become increasingly collective, in the recognition that consciousness is relational, and that a profound engagement with the evolution of our collective interiors is needed to support authentic development of our individual interiors.

There are a few such Teachings already emerging. I was part of one such experiment for nearly a decade and a half and the results were extraordinary. And I’m going to be putting forward another approach to this adventure with the release of my books, and the launch of a new kind of spiritual center here in the Bay area next year. If you’re interested in staying tuned, you can sign up for my mailing list on the homepage of this site.”

Re: Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

I have a couple concerns about the above essay, which I'll develop more in another post.  I appreciated Craig's concerns about potential problems with the “lines of development” explanation of the misconduct and abuses of spiritual teachers.  But then his proposed answer appears to be a version of the “no true Scotsman” argument – a logical fallacy which has been a pet strategy of traditional religionists for years.  He weds this also to what appears to be a pre-postmodern (not a post-postmodern) appeal to metaphysical absolutes.

What do you think?

Re: Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

I agree with your analysis, Bruce, although I certainly don't have your way with words in describing what feels “not quite right” about it.  I look forward to reading what more you have to say about it.

Re: Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

Bruce, I don't buy his explanation.  It seems to me that enlightened teachers perhaps can tend to atypical forms of experimentation, beyond the pale, if you will, because in that enlightened state, what is is, and there is no wrong: how could is be subject to anything at all?  Perhaps some less developed aspect of such teachers then takes hold of that experiential freedom and has a party?  Could be 20 valid explanations consistent with real enlightenment. 

If God didn't want murder, why would God create a universe where life sustains itself by murder?  Right and wrong, and morality and what, are tangles that don't touch the depths.  Profound realizers say such at some point (Ramana did, Nisargadatta did …).  Of course, any spiritual teacher must live with his or her reputation, so they get what's coming if they prefer dicey experimentation.  And they get a nice little after-program of straightening things out, including their view of the possible.  Cough.

Re: Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

Firstly I really identified with the passage on spiritual wakening and this article echoed my personal thoughts on how the effects of such an awakening should affect the whole person not just a spiritual line of development. But traditional spiritual teachings do not seem to affect the whole person.

I have discovered insight/vipassana meditation in my early 30's and already have a strongly developed persona in the world, making changes to follow a path is hard at this stage of my life/development. I have obligations and habits that are deeply ingrained and as most western teachers probably come to these ideas later in life (by which I mean they are not born to parents who raise them in these traditions) to a certain extent this must be true for them also.

If the experience of states in meditation and the knowledge of the Dharma as Truth. Dharma as Law. And Dharma as Path, is not enough in and of itself to get me to change simple aspects of my behavior then why are we surprised that spiritual teachers still succumb to deeply held habits or vices. Spiritual work has been assumed to deal with the shadow and this does not seem to be the case.

Re: Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

Here is something I serendipitously found today:

” Level 5, a term Jimmy Collins often uses, refers to the top of a five-tier
hierarchy of leadership characteristics; a Level 5 Leader is someone
who embodies a “paradoxical mix of personal humility and professional
will.” “”

To be a spiritual teacher in the west you don't just live your life, working in a day job, raising a family and get discovered. You set out to teach, you develop your brand / differentiate yourself from the next spiritual teacher, you charge for your workshops, you write a best seller, appear on the talk / daytime show circuit etc.

This takes certain characteristics beyond your spiritual teachings in which professional will overwhelms personal humility. So perhaps western spiritual teachers by their very nature are predisposed to misconduct and abuse.

Re: Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

Davy, I agree that marketing pressures add their own complexion.  As to east/west, some of the more colourful spiritual teachers, including some most bunkered in controversy, have been from the east.  Osho is a great example.  Another is Chogyam Trungpa.

These teachers seemed as if to pop from eastern cultural constraints into grand experimentations?

Re: Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

Here's another perspective on it from Johh Heron, who we'll explore in the “next Buddha” thread.

The spirituality of persons is developed and revealed primarily in their relations with other persons. If you regard spirituality primarily as the fruit of individual practices, such as meditative attainment, then you can have the gross anomaly of a “spiritual” person who is an interpersonal oppressor, and the possibility of “spiritual” traditions that are oppression-prone. If you regard spirituality as centrally about liberating relations between people, then a new era of participative religion opens up, and this calls for a radical restructuring and reappraisal of traditional spiritual maps and routes. Certainly there are important individualistic modes of development that do not necessarily directly involve engagement with other people, such as contemplative competence, and physical fitness. But these are secondary and supportive of those that do, and are in turn enhanced by co-inquiry with others.

Re: Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

Good day all…
Thanks to all who've contributed. I've been enjoying this conversation for the shared ability to explore alternative views. I'm especially appreciative of theurj's inclusion of John Heron's work. Here's another link to Heron's notions.
http://g.o.r.i.l.l.a.postle.net/HeronStuff/lifedivi.htm

Re: Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

Duplicating my recent post on IA:


One of the reasons I posted this essay was because of his conclusion.  He makes an appeal to “post-postmodern” forms of spirituality, but in my opinion, the nature of his argument suggests to me that he hasn't grasped the postmodern critique clearly enough to even begin going “post” yet.  For instance: 

In answer to the first of these, there are many ways to speak about what spiritual awakening is, but one very good way that I think will shed some light here is to see it as the discovery of the Dharma. When one truly wakes up, one begins to see with the Dharma eye, or the eye of wisdom. Now, the word dharma is thrown around a lot these days, but if we look back at its roots, we find three meanings that tend to be associated with it. Dharma as Truth. Dharma as Law. And Dharma as Path. Simply put, one sees the Truth, which reveals the Law which guides the Path. And, when things are working properly, this is a discovery that engages every aspect of one’s humanity. One sees, suddenly with unimaginable subtlety, the delicate web of interrelatedness that binds us together. One sees the significance of every move we make, and how it impacts the whole through a complex chain of causation. One awakens to the Law of karma, the law of right action which reveals an inherent ordering principle in the Kosmos, and a Kosmic command to align with that order. In the theistic traditions, this Law was referred to as the Will of God, as in, “Not my will, but Thy Will be done.” Finally, one discovers the Path, the actions one must take to stay aligned with the Law, revealing themselves anew through clear seeing in every moment. And, in the face of this knowledge, one experiences the awakening of what Andrew Cohen calls the “Spiritual Conscience,” or what the Sufis called, simply, “the Heart.” That faculty within the awakening psyche which compels us to act in accord with the Law, and which feels a kind of Kosmic pain when we violate it.

If authentic spiritual attainment really does make us a better person, why, then, have so many spiritual teachers been less than exemplary human beings?

If you’ve followed me so far, you can probably guess my answer: Most spiritual teachers today have not attained the depth of realization I’m speaking about here. They may have had profound experiences. They may even have attained a kind of ongoing yogic access to expanded states of consciousness. They may even be able to transmit those higher states to others. But that does not mean they have surrendered their will before the throne of the Ultimate. It does not make them truly God-realized human beings.

Re: Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

Hi Bruce,
Interesting post. I wonder if you could flesh out, a bit more, how the scotsman fallacy applies here.

Re: Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

By the way, Bruce, I'm not trying to trip you up here. I think you are on to something, and I want you to teach me more about it. You've obviously thought about it.
cheers,
k

Re: Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

I don't buy the distinction between “Great Masters” and “half-baked spiritual teachers.” It is this very idealization/demonization that creates the so-called “problem” here. We should do away with the capitals letters. More later.

Re: Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

See Heron’s “A tangle of lines and levels” in this regard at this link:

Here’s an introduction:

Wilber has given an account of human spirituality in terms of lines and levels of development (Wilber: 2000a, 2000b, 2002). The lines are relatively independent kinds of human development, and the levels are stages of development through which the lines proceed. So the different lines all go through the same levels. Wilber defines spirituality in five different ways, but two of them are key ones in his system: spirituality as the highest levels of any line, and spirituality as a separate line itself. He thinks these two definitions are mutually compatible components of his integral psychology.

But in the way that he deploys them, they lead to very serious difficulties. Wilber needs spirituality as a separate line, to explain how it is that people can be spiritually lop-sided. The various human lines he mentions include psychosexuality, socio-emotional capacity, communicative competence, creativity - and many more. The independent spiritual line is primarily contemplative/meditative. Wilber acknowledges that someone can be highly developed on this line, that is, competent at subtle, causal and nondual awareness and still be spiritually undeveloped in other crucial lines of development, including 'psychosexual, emotional or interpersonal skills'. This imbalance he characterizes as 'One Taste sufficiency that leaves schmucks as it finds them' (One Taste refers to the nondual state).

Wilber evaluates the nondual state as 'the highest estate imaginable'. Yet at the same he believes it can co-exist with a complete absence of spirituality at the top end of the interpersonal line, and of other lines absolutely central to human development. This admission immediately dethrones the nondual state from the supremacy he claims for it, and makes it appear as dissociated and quasi-pathological. This dethroning also means that the highest estate imaginable is really the integration of all the different facets of human spirituality to be found at the top end of all the relatively independent lines. Furthermore, it cannot be the business of just one of those independent lines to define in advance by what stages all the other lines will reach their top ends. But Wilber tries to promote just that kind of business.

Re: Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

In Integral Spirituality Wilber still maintains consciousness per se as the measure of altitude in all lines. This lends support to Heron's idea that this “state-stage” of emptiness/openesss is the ultimate measure. Not to mention that it is also considered “authentic enlightenment” to boot. In this book that is defined by one who possesses the highest state-stage and structure-stage combined, and per the definitions below that would mean non-dual state combined with indigo cognitive stage. But notice has the cognitive stage is really just a qualified, “relative” mini-version of the “absolute” state. A tangled web indeed.
 
The following excerpt from IS is from Chapter 2, Stages of Consciousness, Section - The Relation of the Different Lines to Each Other: 
 
To begin with, the levels/stages in one line categorically cannot be used to refer to the levels/stages in another line…. But what is the actual gradient here? What is the vertical or y-axis in the psychograph? There are two theories available that attempt to explain this…. One theory…is that the basic yardstick is the cognitive line…which is necessary but not sufficient for the other lines…. The other theory…is that the y-axis is consciousness per se. Thus, “degree of consciousness” is itself the altitude: the more consciousness, the higher the altitude (subconsciousness to self-consciousness to superconsciousness). In this view, all of the developmental lines move through the same altitude gradient—and that gradient is consciousness, which is the y-axis.
 
This happens to fit nicely with the Madhyamaka-Yogachara Buddhist view of consciousness as emptiness or openness. Consciousness is not anything itself, just the degree of openness or emptiness, the clearing in which the phenomena of the various lines appear (but consciousness is not itself a phenomena—it is the space in which phenomena arise).*

* This altitude view also accepts the previous (and widely held) view of cognition as necessary but not sufficient, because cognition is simply a qualified type of consciousness appearing as an actual developmental line (or path up the mountain) with its own structure and content. As such, the cognitive line is simply one line among other lines, with its altitude also measured by consciousness per se.
 

Re: Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

Hi Locutus,
I remember you bringing up this problem of the cognitive line vs the “consciousness line” at Lightmind, and my almost simultaneously writing on the problem. I have a blog post on the subject. I think it is real problem for Wilber, one that he appears to be content with shrugging off.

Re: Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

You can see my discussion with a couple of Wilber apologists (Joe Perez, Chris Dierkes) on the topic at this link. Shortly after this debate OI (i.e., me) went from being rated turquoise to teal by Joe. Funny.  You can also see the previous discussion between kela, me and others in the old Lightmind forum. And there's this link to another OI discussion on the topic that references some of the Lightmind discussion.

Re: Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

Yikes. Those were dark days at Lightmind. Here's the post in which I discuss the problem of lines.

Re: Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

Hey Ed,
One thing I find astounding is the degree of mental effort and ingenuity that goes into defending “The Wilber.” i don't hate mr. ken. It's the fact that an inordinate amount of talent and brains have been enlisted to defend a perceived master of the universe, and that this has not been balanced with a requisite, parallel degree of detached, intelligent reflection upon the master's teachings. It bugged me at Lightmind and it bugs me here. It's the Wilber-cult that I find offensive.

Re: Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

I am in some agreement with Wilber on some points. I remember reading his analogy with Albert Einstein, about how we should not expect Einstein to be a marathon runner simply because he is a mathematical genius. When I first read this, possibly in Eye to Eye, I sympathized with what I saw as an attempt to naturalize or humanize these “Spiritual Masters.” In my view these people are above all humans and not gods. I fail to see how seeing these “Great Masters” as god-men constitutes a mature, grown-up view, and we are presumably talking about forms of growth and development that lie beyond the received view of what constitutes maturity. I can't help but see the irony here. When I see “spiritual practioners” — “indigo” people, the cutting edge of human evolution, or whatever it is that they're supposed to be — falling for the sacred ash trick of Satya Sai Baba I can't help but think that these are people who refuse to let go of their attachment to Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. When John Lennon became disillusioned with the Maharishi over his lusting after over Mia Farrow, I saw less of a fault with the Maharishi than I did with Lennon. The primary “problem” in that case was in Lennon's own juvenile idealization of the Maharishi. (I'm not condoning the behavior of the Maharishi; it almost as juvenile as Lennon's. I'm simply saying we shouldn't be surprised.) The same goes for the idolization of Ramana or Nisarg. They were human with human faults like anyone else. I don't see a “benchmark” in their person at all. This whole business of “who's the most enlightened master” strikes me as quaintly Romantic.

Re: Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

Distortedbehaviour by spiritual teachers is obviously due to the fact that they still identify with parts of their ego. They can have realised deep spiritual states and at
the same time identify with parts of their self that are abusive. Because of
the fact that in some traditions self realisation or enlightenment is seen as
an all or nothing thing and the teacher maintains he/she is enlightened, this
simple fact of there still being ego parts left is not acknowledged: the teacher is enlightened and thus has no ego left. This makes the possible abuse worse because these ego parts of the self of the teacher often are not sufficiently dealt with. The teacher and/or student rationalize this behaviour away as skillfull means, crazy wisdom or a way to help the students see their ego.
 
Selfrealisation happens in grades and the identification with ego representations
is let go of part by part. Craig Hamilton saying that obviously Andrew Cohen
has not been enlightened deep enough means he is still looking at the wrong
side of the medal. He needs not to look at the realisation dimension but the
ego dimension to see that Andrew Cohen has distorted behaviour because he still
identifies with ego parts that are distorted. And you only have to read this
website to have an idea what kind of distortions are going on. And the biggest
problem is not that Andrew Cohen has these distortions, most of us have some
distorted ego patterns, but that Andrew nor his surroundings is willing to
acknowledge this. So he has no change to work on them and transform them.
 
Also the fact that Craig Hamilton speaks in terms of not being realised enough creates this higher/ lower dichotomy that can take the attention away from the actual content of the stuff that Andrew Cohen needs to deal with. Which is not a
question of higher or lower, that is not the real question or central problem.
The central issue is the behaviour and ego parts that need to be transformed.  Even talking in terms of different development lines can be tricky in this way that it still can be a subtle dissociation or moving away from the abusive behaviour itself by putting it in a bigger map but not addressing the issue directly.

Re: Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

By the way, Andrew Cohen seems to have reacted  on the allegations for the first time in some official way by answering questions from a journalist but at the same time threatening the journalist with a law suit if he would publish the allegations in his newspaper. See http://whatenlightenment.blogspot.com/

Re: Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

Hi Neon,

Glad to see you're visiting the flatland relativist bardo of bitchy, Integral PMS. hahahaha!

You say, ”Distorted behaviour by spiritual teachers is obviously due to the fact that they still identify with parts of their ego.”
 
Could be. But to me, this seems to imply the following line of thinking: “if we could only do away with our ego, we would be enlightened.” And its corollary: “When you are enlightened, you have no ego.” Now, this is NOT what you said. But by modifying the old new age wisdom concerning the “true guru” and qualifying it as, “well yes, he does have an ego, tis true; he simply does not identify with it anymore,” I think we are still toeing the old Romantic line about gurus and enlightened beings.
 
Not identifying with my “little head” is, for me, an ongoing process. Why would I think that there is a class of beings for whom it is not an ongoing process? Of course, if you think “awakening” is some sort of panacea, then maybe you'll think such a class of beings is a possibility. IMHO, awakened males are still dogs. woof! woof! We're just better at “witnessing” our dog nature. Which, then again, may be what you are getting at. (Did I say 'we'? ;-)
 
For me, setting up a class of beings who purportedly “no longer identify with the ego,” spells trouble. For one, there is no way of knowing that such is the case, since there is not way of knowing what's going on in their head, awakening or otherwise. Why? Because they have privileged access. Once we allow privileged access, the only thing we have to go on is their testimony. And, unfortunately, this, more often than not, amounts to their ability to convince us; it amounts to their rhetorical skill.

Re: Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

Hi Kela,
 
Yes, I thought it was time to bring the Truth to this nest of infidels ;-)
 
“Could be. But to me, this seems to imply the following line of thinking: “if we could
only do away with our ego, we would be enlightened.” And its
corollary: “When you are enlightened, you have no ego.” Now, this is NOT what
you said. But by modifying the old new age wisdom concerning the “true guru”
and qualifying it as, “well yes, he does have an ego, tis
true; he simply does not identify with it anymore,” I think we are
still toeing the old Romantic line about gurus and enlightened beings.”
 
I don’t think there are people on this earth that have no ego left, or that don’t
identify with their ego anymore. I do believe there are grades between people.
Some identify with ego representations more then others. But even with the most
realised people I have met, I have seen ego patterns. Which for me is no
problem at all as long as those spiritual teachers do not deny they have ego
patterns themselves. But indeed some of them called themselves enlightened and
beyond the ego and at the same time obviously had some distorted behaviour
pointing to ego patterns. This becomes pretty disturbing after a while.
 
“if you think “awakening” is some sort of panacea, then maybe you'll think such a class of beings is a possibility. IMHO, awakened males are still dogs. woof!
woof! We're just better at “witnessing” our dog nature. Which, then
again, may be what you are getting at. (Did I say 'we'? ;-)”
 
I think indeed I heard you say ‘we’ …..

On one level we are animals, nothing we can do about it. Although many try very hard to get rid of their dog nature by becoming saints. This is probably also not very accepted in these areas but I think Freud was right on some fundamental areas of life, f.i. the instincts being hardwired.
 
“Once we allow privileged access, the only thing we have to go on is their testimony. And, unfortunately, this, more often than not, amounts to their
ability to convince us; it amounts to their rhetorical skill.”
 
I agree that we only have their testimony but the part of the rhetorical skill is a
little bit to extreme for me. I see that this plays a major role but also see honest
teachers out there. I belief their testimony need to follow the rules of logic
as the first check. Sadly enough some spiritual teachers deny that logic can be
applied to their teachings, which for me makes them suspect. And we always have
our own self inquiry as the second check to see if their testimony is applicable
or not.

Re: Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

Neon: Distorted behaviour by spiritual teachers is obviously due to the fact that they still identify with parts of their ego.

I disagree.  Your statement assumes that there exists one form of non-distorted behaviour, if not agreed to by, at least applicable to all.  That's called, among other things, projection, which is basically the same mode Hamilton engages. 

Re: Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

With all respect Tom, but based on your remarks here and on other parts of this site I think you believe in a form of extreme constructivism. And this particular example
shows how this can lead to nihilism. Meaning that we would not be able to
define distorted behaviour anymore.
 
The ego is constructed with the building blocks of object relations which are based on
past memories. The ego is in that sense based on personal beliefs and cultural
conditioning. These will automatically distort the perception of reality in the
now and thus also distort our behaviour based on this distorted perception. So
I do think that there is a constructed reality based on personal and social
influences. But I also belief there is a reality beyond that and that shedding
the ego means we are more and more able to perceive this reality undistorted by
our beliefs. This is part of the process of realisation. This reality has
patterns that can be investigated. Science and technology is built on
understanding these patterns. How else could planes fly? And even if the plane
is seen by Indians in the Amazon who do not have a concept of a plane, there is
still a plane flying there.
 
Also I believe there are patterns in our inner consciousness apart from the personal
mind or social context which can be recognized. The recognizing of these
patterns can show us which behaviour is distorted and which is sane. The accusation
of projection probably means that you think that anything beyond the personal
mind or social context is a projection. What about the plane that flies above
the Amazon tribe that do not have a concept of a plane. A projection too? What
do you think happens when the plane crashes on their huts when they are inside?

Re: Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

Interesting talk about the ego. I guess we'd have to define how we're using that term. One way of talking about it it the self-system, as does Wilber in “A summary of my psychological model.” And here the ego-self is what integrates all the levels, lines, states etc. This would include the so-called “enlightened” state. Without the ego, no enlightenment.

Note also that the ego-self would seem to supersede both consciousness per se (as a state and supposed measure of all altitude) and the cognitive line (as a stage and supposedly necessary for all other lines), as these latter are “devoid of an inherent self-sense” and require the ego-self to integrate them. The basic structures of cognition, in themselves, “either emerge or they don't”; they are not a “functional system” without the self. The ego-self is the key. No ego to integrate and consciousness in itself in irrelevant. Also keep in mind Heron's comments above about the integration of the lines as being critical in defining “spirituality,” not advanced meditative states.

Excerpts from Wilber's referenced article:

We might look now at the “self” (or self-system or self-sense), and although
there are many ways to depict it, one of the most useful is to view the self as
that which attempts to integrate or balance all of the components of the psyche
(i.e., the self attempts to integrate the various states, waves, and streams
that are present in the individual) (Wilber 1986, 1996c, 1997a, 2000b).

A striking item about the levels, lines, and states is that in themselves they
appear to be devoid of an inherent self-sense, and therefore the self can
identify with any of them (as suggested by ancient theorists from
Plotinus to Buddha). That is, one of the primary characteristics of the self
seems to be its capacity to identify with the basic structures or levels
of consciousness, and every time it does so, according to this view, it
generates a specific type of self-identity, with specific needs and drives. The
self thus appears to be a functional system (which includes such capacities as
identification, will, defense, and tension regulation [Wilber et al, 1986]), and it also undergoes its own type of development through a series of stages or waves (as investigated by, e.g., Jane Loevinger, 1976; Robert Kegan, 1983; Susanne Cook-Greuter, 1990). The main difference between the self-stages and the other stages is that the self has the job of balancing and coordinating all of them.

This balancing act, this drive to integrate the various components of the psyche, appears to be a crucial feature of the self. Psychopathology, for example, cannot easily be understood without it (Blanck and Blanck, 1974, 1979; Kohut, 1971, 1977). The basic structures of consciousness do not themselves get sick or “broken.” They either emerge or they don't, and when they do, they are generally well functioning (barring organic brain damage).

The fluid nature of all of these events highlights the fact that the self-system is perhaps best thought of, not as a monolithic entity, but as the center of gravity of the various levels, lines, and states, all orbiting around the integrating tendency of the self-system (Wilber, 1997a, 2000b).

Re: Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

To be fair, it's a bit more complicated in Wilber's model. I'm looking over “The self-system in integral counseling” in Counseling and Values, 01-APR-07 by Elliott Ingersoll and Susan Cook-Greuter. The relationship is known as “ladder, climber, view.” The ladder is the cognitive structural stages, the climber is the self system that identifies with those levels and the view is the self's worldview from that rung on the ladder. The cogntive stages are permanent and the views are temporary and replaced.

The self itself is three-fold: proximal, distal and antecedent. The proximal is that self that identifies with and is embedded within a particular level. The distal is that self that disidentifies with the prior rung. And the antecedent self is the imfamous ever-present transcendent witness. While this is supposedly available at any level as a temporary state, meditative or otherwise, it is only at the construct-aware level that the ego becomes an object of awareness, i.e., the ego becomes distal to itself, or split into both subject and object in Epstein's terms. The authors do note though that the antecedent self “is only advisable for clients with relatively healthy ego boundaries who are not experiencing dissociation.”

I would argue that the ego-self first become its own object at the rational ego stage. This is where the abstract “witness” begins. However it is here that it also becomes split in the representational sense of subject versus object. In other words the proximal self is embedded in the view that cannot yet understand subject-object integration so hence sees them as opposites. Hence we have the roots of metaphysical systems that separate heaven and earth, real from illusion, authentic from fake enlightenment and so on. The next level of centaur views the former distally and can then integrate the subject-object nondually.

The authors then go on the show the relationships of the self to the lines. Lines are of three types: cognitive, self-related and talents. Cognition is necessary but not sufficient for the others because it provides basic awareness and differentiation. Self-related lines function is that they identify with what one is aware of and are all at approximately the same level. Examples of self-related lines are values, ego development and morals. Talents are acquired skills like music and are if a different category then the former.

Regarding a previous discussion on translation and transformation, this is related to the self in its proximate and distal aspects. Translation occurs when the proximate self is embedded in a level and translates every phenomenon from the view of that level. Transformaton occurs when the self disidentifies with a previous level and begins to integrate it.

Re: Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

If you want a copy of the article email me.

As a further clarification, the chart at the end of the article shows CG's self-protective ego level (aka red) and “egocentric.” This is where the ego has not yet become an object to itself and is hence self-involved. This is the crux of this discussion in that how can a guru who is supposedly construct-aware be so self-involved? What exactly is the pathology involved given all these levels, lines, ladders, climbers and views?

Re: Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

Edward,

If there is any pathology involved here it is the rot that sets into
journey of whatever organic matter there is that is trying to find its
way between Jane Loevenger's intellectual but sterile office in the
State of Washington (USA) and into the Rabbi's office (see my post
below), wherever, in which we find him gazing into the limpid pools
that are the eyes of suppliant Mary Sarah, the two of which are motive
enough for him to want to spread his genes with her's throughout the
known Universe. There is no pathology at all involved with a man, any
man or woman for that matter, feeling mysteriously compelled to spread
their genes throughout the known Universe through the passage of Mary
Sarah's womb or the Rabbi's loins. The pathology is the academically
and philosophically and spiritually righteous inspired illusion that
anyone, all the lofty Spiritualistic public relations and marketing
hype and the scholastically hermeneutic analysis notwithstanding, is
above such a compelling urge.

The human race would be a feeble species indeed if it had, throughout
the millenia, attended more to the needs of spiritual enlightenment,
instead of the compelling urge to spread genes equally from the loins
of the Rabbi and the womb of Mary Sarah throughout the known Universe.

Re: Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

What's academics or hermeneutics got to do with it? It's the infestation of the monastic and renunciatory traditions that have generated this particular “pathology.” What's curiously ironic is the degree to spirituality itself constitutes a form of self-absorption.

Re: Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

Indeed. When I got my massage training (and Holistic Health Practitioner certification and license) in the mid 80s at the prestigious-sounding Institute of Psycho-Structural Balancing in San Diego, I was struck by how the usual California self-indulgence was magnifed given the “spiritual” context. Now we were “authentically” self-indulgent. I created a mantra-affirmation for the movement which didn't go over well with the more seriously-minded teachers and seekers: “I am my Higher Selfish.”

I was also teaching tai chi at the time, going up to LA weekly to receive my own advanced training from Master Tung Kai Ying. There's was another young tai chi teacher in town who advertised his classes this way on a flyer: “Learn tai chi in 10 short weeks!” Not to be outdone I put up my own flyer next to his all around town that said: “Learn tai chi, play the guitar and be a plumber in ten short minutes!” I even offered training in opening the drain chakras with a fast-acting spiritual Draino. Those were the days my friend, I thought they'd never end…

Re: Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

Looking at the pathology section in the CG article the general idea is that if the fusion-differentiation-integration cycle gets interupted in transformation to a new level then some aspects of the self can get split off and still identify with previous level views. Hence there can still be some red egocentric aspects of self manifesting within some other turquoise+ construct-aware aspects. A self divided then makes for a poor integrator of all the other levels, lines, states, etc. Comments later as time permits.

Re: Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

And don’t forget our discussion in the “Epstein thread” about the ego. It just might be the infamous “witness” of meditation! Recall this from Epstein:

The development of mindfulness…involves a “therapeutic split in the ego”…in which the ego becomes both subject and object, observer and observed.
 
Thus, mindfulness is not a means of forgetting the ego; it is a method of using the ego to observe its own manifestations.

Re: Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

Hey,

Over in the IA thread where Balder posted the Hamilton essay I put up some thoughts on the matter that I would like to restate here in slightly different language.

As I said over there, I can see why people like to theorize about lines and levels and the Water Clos… WC Lattice, and we, after saying “Cool modernist graphic, kids.” think to ourselves, “Sure looks like Realism to me.”

Now Hamilton might be oversimplifying when he says that Wilber's, as
always oversimplified, testimony is that if a God-realized Rabbi rogers
a few too many suppliants we should not doubt his God-realization but
only one of his lines, of which Wikipedia says there are now about 24
that are recognized (by whom I had to wonder….?), such as his moral
line or his psychosexual line or whatever (though obviously not his
pick-up line). But the way this is handled gives each line, including
the God-realized line, a cast of intrinsicality, a sort of
non-relational, absolute quality as in: if we examine the Rabbi's
psychosexual line the truth of the situation involving Mary Sarah will
be given to us. So what this looks like is that Wilber is, or Hamilton
is have Wilber reduce all behavior to an intermeshed weaving of
intrinsically definable lines. The WC lattice has to be applicable to
all behavior, not just spiritual, or else it will have an
intrinsicality cast itself and will have to be relegated to the
dust-bin of modernism, so I can safely write “all behavior.” (Nice…I
haven't been able to write “the dust bin” of anything since 1971.) And
this puts, according to the latest readings off my GPS system, Wilber's
lines and levels–at least in the Rabbi's instance, into the
realist/reductionist territory.

At this point, I have to say that my contentions are open to all kinds
of argument. But (corollary), from my perspective all kinds of further
argument are nothing more than decadent scholasticism. I want to see
how it all works on the ground.

For instance, if I were a plaintiffs attorney representing Mary Sarah
in her civil sexual harassment suit against the Rabbi and the Rabbi's
Insurance Defense Lawyer's rent-a-witness shrink put forth the
Wilberian/Full Spectrum WCL defense of “The Rabbi's God-realization
status is not in question here (it is intrinsically non-relational and
irrelevant) the only thing for consideration is the poor, humble man's
unfortunate upbringing in a rare dysfunctional Kibbutz that etc. etc.
etc. and so he is no more liable for his behavior than the other 33
male children so brought up–all of whom are now semi-literate goat
herds who would be judgment-proof so must the jury consider the poor
rabbi.”  I would then get my rent-a-witness to testify that the Rabbi's
God-realization was a direct outgrowth of his unfortunate upbringing,
because it was an outgrowth of his psychosexual line as it related to
his interpersonal line as it related to his cognitive line as it
related to his emotional line as it related to his pickup line and that
the Rabbi–the entirity of the Rabbi, the whole God-Realized man, was
the one who rogered Mary Sarah by convincing her that it would awaken
her kundalini in as much as he got his PhD on Kabbalistic Kundalini
back in….” And Mary Sarah is going to walk away with $1.5 million of
Shalom Beth Israel's endowment as a result.

And that is the basis of my contention that lines and levels and the WC
Lattice aren't worth talking about except to decadent scholasticists
after one says, “Cool modernist graphic, kids.”

As for the “authentic enlightenment” part of this thread: there is a
line in the Tao de Ching that say in regard to that specific topic:
“Those who know, don't say. Those who say, don't know.” It might not be
true, but for me, it'll do until the truth gets here.

Re: Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

Or Plato: “The wise one has something to say; the fool has to say something.”

Re: Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

<br /><br />

This guy hits on an important point.
 
I have always TRIED to point out the absurdity in the notion
of “evolutionary enlightenment”
 
Enlightenment is evolutionary and developmental only for
those who need it - in relationship to the [cosmic] fall of humans [matrix of mis-development]
that was born in primordial times.
 
Wilberian ill-logic that correlates development with enlightenment
existentially, is only partially true in that the road to enlightenment includes
development but transcends it at a point.
 
 
“Remember, the
ultimate statement of nonduality is that form and emptiness, nirvana and
samsara are one. Which means it is all REAL”.
 
This is only true [nirvana and samsara are one] from a
certain perspective, this statement “nirvana and samsara are one” is not true
from our [humans] perspective.
 
To human’s ants, whether they are red or black are still
ants, but from the perspective of the ants - red and black ants are different
 
 
Which leaves me with
the final question: If authentic spiritual attainment really does make us a
better person, why, then, have so many spiritual teachers been less than
exemplary human beings?
 
He concluded the simple answer: It may be that these were
not completely realized beings.
 
 
Those of us
postmoderns who are engaging in spiritual practice today are at a completely
different developmental level than any of the great traditions knew anything
about. We have a kind of complex, layered interiority and individuation that
never existed before. Our complex interiors are deeply related to and engaged
with the interiors of others in ways that the great sages of yore never could
have imagined. The great wisdom traditions are indeed great. And their highest
wisdom is universal and timeless. But they really don’t sufficiently address us.
 
This to me is totally untrue.
 
This individual is obviously a past student in the
Cohen/Wilber school of thought. He accepts their false notions of “post-modern vs.
the ancient wisdom traditions rhetoric, and espouses Cohen’s philosophy [since
he probably has no other training to rely on]
 
What I think will
usher in a new era of authentic spiritual enlightenment—and, in my opinion, the
only thing that will do it—is the emergence of new post-postmodern spiritual
forms that are fundamentally Godcentric and Kosmoscentric. These new spiritual
Teachings will address the complex relational sensitivity and individuation of
the postmodern psyche, but from an authentically enlightened Dharmic context.
This means that they will be derived from the Dharma itself—from a clear seeing
of the Way with a capital “w”, and from there an engagement with the
complexities of the postmodern psyche. New transformative practices will be
born that harness our newfound interiority in the dismantling of its own egoic
structures. And the path will become increasingly collective, in the
recognition that consciousness is relational, and that a profound engagement
with the evolution of our collective interiors is needed to support authentic
development of our individual interiors.
 
 
There is nothing new under the sun,
 
If this individual expects “an authentically enlightened Dharmic context” then whatever really
drives “enlightenment” is the same thing that drove it millennium ago.
This emphasis on” post-modernism” will defeat his very
purpose because that itself is egoism.

Re: Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

Andrew Cohen makes this statement about the ego (at this link): 

The Ego: An Anti-Evolutionary Force

There is a profound contrast between the enlightened perspective, which is the absolute, universal, and impersonal view of the Authentic Self, and the unenlightened perspective, which is the relative, separate, and personal view of the narcissistic ego. It is literally the difference between heaven and hell.
 
When I speak about ego, I am not using the term in the psychological sense, which usually refers to what we could call a self-organizing function in the psyche. In an enlightenment context, the word ego refers to something else altogether. Ego is the deeply ingrained, compulsive need to remain separate and superior at all times, in all places, under all circumstances. In contrast to the inherent freedom of the Self Absolute and the fearless passion of the Authentic Self, ego is experienced as an emotional quagmire of fear and attachment. It is the part of you that has no interest whatsoever in freedom, feels victimized by life, avoids anything that contradicts its self-image, is thoroughly invested in its personal fears and desires, and lives only for itself. Ego is an anti-evolutionary force of powerful inertia in human nature—attached to the past, terrified of change, and seeking only to preserve the status quo.
 
Ego is the one and only one obstacle to enlightenment. If we want to be free, if we want to be enlightened, we have to pay the price. The great wisdom traditions have always told us that the price is ego death, and in evolutionary enlightenment it is no different: if the Authentic Self is going to act through us as the uninhibited expression of evolution in action, then our attachment to ego must be transcended.
­­­­­________
An entire issue of WIE magazine was devoted to the ego (17, Spring-Summer 2000) at this link. Jack Engler’s interview in that issue is particularly interesting. Here’s an excerpt: 

Jack Engler: In the psychoanalytic tradition, ego has a very positive connotation. It's a collective designation for a whole set of very important psychological functions. Functions from thinking to feeling to reality testing—a whole set of capacities that are essential to human life. And very often people have deficits in these different areas of functioning. In therapy, one thing you're trying to do is develop what's traditionally called “ego strength.” As a psychologist, part of my effort is to help people develop capacities that may be underdeveloped or may have been derailed earlier in development or may have been compromised by subsequent trauma. So ego, in this sense, is a positive thing. That's the way I think of it in psychology.

But a lot of people who come to me for therapy don't think of ego that way. They think of ego in a spiritual context, where it's a bad thing. But talking about ego in a spiritual context, to me, is even more problematic. It gets talked about almost like it's an alternate personality within me that is bad; it gets reified as some part of me that I have to battle with, that I have to transcend. I think spiritual language reinforces a lot of dualistic thinking when we talk about ego that way—unless we're really careful in how we define it. Now instead of “self versus other” it's “self versus ego.” And so the struggle just continues in another guise.

If you ask me what I think ego is in a spiritual sense, I guess I would say it's our attempt to grasp ourselves. It's the myriad forms of self-grasping that are doomed to endless frustration and disappointment. I think that's the root of what ego is, and everything else follows from this, whether it's preoccupation with self-image or whether it's attempts at self-aggrandizement or whether it's experiencing self as separate and over/against others. The core of it seems to be this attempt to grasp the self and fix it. Or fixate it, that's a better word. And where does the self-grasping come from? I think it mostly comes out of fear, out of this core, chronic, anxious sense that we don't exist in the way we think we do.

Re: Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

Andrew Cohen is full of it. He's begun sounding like he's going through some sort of midlife crisis or something: his thinking is becoming increasingly incoherent. How could there ever be an evolutionary drive without personal self-interest? Saying that the relenquishing of the drive toward self-preservation is itself the driving force behind evolution sounds like pure nonsense to me.  The renunciatory traditions may be concerned with letting go of self-interest as a final stage in life, as a kind of wind-down to the earlier stages of life concerned with propogation etc, but this kind of detachment will have nothing to do with “evolution” as we commonly understand the term. I'm trying to image grizzly bears on the rivers of British Columbia somehow “evolving” by means of giving up their interest in salmon…

Re: Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

This excerpt from Craig Hamilton's article begins with mention of “the notion of Lines of Development” as a “clean, simple, commonsense theory” that seems to explain the problem of “great Masters” who “acted innapropriately.” Hamilton doesn't mention that the notion in question comes from Ken Wilber. Hamilton then proceeds to explain why he finds the Lines of Development theory wanting.

Before Ken Wilber attempted to explain “innapropriate” behavior by supposedly enlightened “Masters” like the late Franklin Jones (AKA Adi Da, etc.) with his Lines of Development theory, Jack Kornfield, addressing the same type of problem, wrote about “the halo effect.”

“The halo effect is the unexamined assumption that if a meditation master or spiritual teacher is good in one area, they must be good in all areas, that if they know about inner vision, they will equally know about childrearing and car mechanics. It is easy to see this fantasy enacted repeatedly in spiritual communities.” - A Path With Heart: A Guide through the Perils and Promises of Spiritual Life, 1993

Obviously, the notions of the halo effect and the Lines of Development theory address different aspects of the problem. The halo effect has to do with how some students of spiritual teachers regard such teachers, whereas the Lines of Development theory is an attempt to reconcile enlightenment with behavior that some people consider unethical, pathological, or simply “innapropriate,” and to explain how it can be possible for someone to be simultaneously enlightened and “pathological.”

Hamilton concludes that “authentic spiritual practice” makes one into a “better person,” and therefore the reason some contemporary teachers behave in ways that are “less than exemplary” is because their practices were or are insufficient to address and transform “the postmodern psyche.”

Kornfield, unlike Wilber, does not think in terms of separate spiritual and psychological lines. It may be worth mentioning that Kornfield is a pioneer of what some today call “integral psychology.” He began working on the integration of spiritual practice and psychological work in the early seventies, several years before Wilber's first book was published.

Hamilton talks about “various hybrids of Western psychotherapy and traditional contemplative practice” and says that in his observation, “this has mostly contributed to making the context for spiritual practice smaller, by anchoring it to the healing, recovery, and fulfillment of the traumatized personal self.”

Hamilton does not get specific here, but I'm sure he could cite specific examples of approaches that fit his characterization. But there are approaches that do not, such as Kornfield's, A.H. Almaas's Diamond Approach, Tarthang Tulku's Time, Space, Knowledge, and Arnold Mindell's Process Work. Just as one cannot “explore Africa” by reading about it, one cannot explore and therefore adequately assess these and other approaches merely by reading about them.

As someone mentions in this thread (or it may be in another thread on Gaia that Balder started with the same excerpt), the excerpt reads like an advertisement for Hamilton. To this 57 year old, much of what Hamilton says has a whiff of old wine in new bottles. (Ever since Wilber began catering to an increasingly younger demographic group, I have thought of the time when my daughter begged me to listen to the first CD by the rock band The Strokes with her. After we listened to the entire CD, I played a few selections from my CD collection for her, by bands such as Television and The Velvet Underground. She immediately got my point: The Strokes' sound and expressions of angst were new to her and many others in her generation, but were not new to me, and The Strokes' influences were obvious to anyone familiar with certain older bands. This is not to suggest that there can be no such things as “New transformative practices” and “a new era of authentic spiritual enlightenment,” but young seekers might keep in mind that “new to you” doesn't mean “new to me.”)

In a letter to the editor in the Fall 2000 issue of Inquiring Mind journal, former Buddhist monk Alan Wallace takes issue with what Wallace takes to be Kornfield's view that, as Wallace characterizes it, “all realizations and awakenings are transient, and…traditional accounts of liberation and enlightenment are 'misleading'.”

In response, Kornfield says that Wallace “misstates my writing about the profound question of enlightenment,” and he suggests that “forty years of experience” of “a generation of Western practitioners…may help us better understand the difference between the archetypal ideal and the human realm.”

It seems to me that Hamilton's ideas about “Great Masters” and “Great Enlightenment” have more to do with archetypal ideals than the human realm.

Re: Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

Since Jim mentions Jack Kornfield I'd like to provide a relevant excerpt by him from “Psychotherapy and Meditation.” I'll tie together the excerpts of Wilber, CG and Kornfield in a subsequent post. Kornfield:

What American practice has to come to acknowledge is that many of the deep issues we uncover in spiritual life cannot be healed by meditation alone. Problems such as early abuse, addiction, and difficulties of love and sexuality require the close, conscious, and ongoing support of a skilled healer to resolve. In large spiritual communities, the guru, lama, or teacher rarely has the time to guide us closely through such a process. Many spiritual teachers also are not skilled in working with these areas. Some have not even dealt with them in themselves…. I have benefited in this way by working with several excellent therapists who have allowed me to understand and heal levels of my heart and mind that were never touched in years of meditation.

Re: Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

Along these lines it is good to remember the phenomenon known as the
“Spiritual Bypass” that was particularly troublesome to Transpersonal
Professionals in the early days of that occupation. We all know
therapists who have entered into the profession looking for healing as
much as looking to give healing. With the introduction of new paradigm
spirituality into humanistic psychology and the resulting transpersonal
movement, more than one professional in the field decided this was a
double blessing and took up a spiritual practice that acted more as
perpetual scab to their wounds (often childhood abuse or neglect)
instead of a cure. I have known several who, if not doing therapy or
meditating, or involved in an offshoot activity like ecstatic poetry,
remained fairly well fucked up and dissociated from their fucked-upness
by their immersion in The Spirit.

Re: Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

Jim, I appreciated your balanced, reflective response – as usual!

Kela, in response to your question to me above about my claim that Craig is committing the “no true Scotsman” fallacy:  I have to back away from it a bit, in that I don't think this is a clear-cut case of it, but I do feel he is in the general neighborhood.  And really, I think it's an issue that dogs most idealized claims about spiritual membership or attainment.  In reading Craig's essay, and just in listening to religionists over the years, I have frequently gotten the impression that folks are engaging in an ad hoc change of definitions to defend against criticism and preserve an ideal.

Now, in Craig's essay, he didn't first make a general claim – “enlightened teachers never mistreat others” – and then, upon receiving contradictory evidence, suddenly shift his claim – “well, authentically enlightened teachers never mistreat others” – so, I can't say that he actually has engaged in the equivocation that characterizes this fallacy.  But he does seem to be engaged in a rhetorical exercise on behalf of “enlightenment traditions” that amounts to something like this: e.g., accepting the popular idealized notion of enlightened perfection, and then when faced with the apparent imperfection of actual enlightened exemplars, saying, “Well, they weren't authentically enlightened.”

I'm sympathetic to Craig's critique that Wilber's lines model, while having its own utility, could be used in rather slippery, self-justifying ways by teachers wanting to preserve the mantle of their spiritual authority while also continuing to take advantage of or abuse others.  And I share his desire to articulate forms of spirituality better suited to our zeitgeist, to the needs of our times.  But by then appealing to an idealized model of enlightenment (archetypal enlightenment, as Jim and Jack say) and making what appears to be representationist appeals to the Absolute (and sundry absolutes, like the Truth, the Way, the Law, etc), I don't think he is really charting any new territory, or offering a “post-postmodern” way forward.

Re: Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

Hi Bruce,
thanks for the response. That's quite an interesting application of the scotsman. I'll have to keep it in mind. I think you are right though, that idealized conceptions are sometimes at work when there are attempts to answer such problems. And I agree that something like the scotsman is at work here.
cheers.

Re: Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

Speaking of idealization, recall what Epstein said this in the Buddhism & Psychoanalysis thread:  

“At the core of the self-representation as agent lies the narcissistically invested ego, an idea which the ego has of itself as perfect and inviolable. The ego ideal involves a sense of inherent perfection…. While concentration practices can temporarily suspend ego boundaries and provide a deep sense of ontological security through the merger of ego and ego ideal, insight practices operate within the ego system itself. 

“Concentration practices do indeed evoke the ego ideal and the oceanic feeling in a manner well described by generations of analytic commentators, but the mindfulness practices, which define the Buddhist approach, seek to dispel the illusory ontology of the self encapsulated within the ideal ego.” 

So from Wilber we have the notion that it is the self-system that is the key to integrating all the leves, lines, states, types, etc. The latter includes the so-called transcendental or causal meditative state and the cognitive line itself. So first off “enlightenment” cannot be the combination of the highest state and highest cognitive level, since the self system not only can be but most often is split within itself and at numerous levels (via subpersonalities) simultaneously. This split does not just occur in deep dysfunction like Sybil but is the ordinary state of everyone's self-system, to some degree. If modern psychoanalysis has taught us anything it's that we're all fucked up. So as Kornfield says, we have to explore this with trained personnel to get at it. And no, just using your ILP home starter kit by yourself isn't going to cut it. 

In a very real sense each of us is all over the place in lines, levels and states. So it's hard to see how this typical self-system, with its own competiting sub-personalities and worldviews, can integrate anything without some form of self-system therapy. And meditative traditions in themselves just aren't going to get at this, given that they were created without the benefit of the psychoanaytic enactments from an entirely different cultural base. Meditative traditions just don't have a clue in this regard.

Plus we have to look at the embedded cultural and sub-cultural dysfunctional biases built into the eastern meditative traditions. One of these is the bias toward the transcendental and states of consciousness that seemingly support such “objective” realms. Hence we have deep concentrative practices that seem to elicit an experience of oceanic oneness with the universe, a place that is “perfect and inviolable.” We can see this remnant in Wilber’s model with the notion of the antecedent-transcendental self. It’s the same as consciousness per se as the ultimate measure of all altitude. As Heron notes it’s the ultimate consciousness state that acts as the arbiter and supposedly integrator of all, even above the proximate and distal self. Since the self is what ties everything together he has to have this transcendent principal in the self-system lest it be just another state or stage to be integrated. 

Yet then we have the notion that even those who have achieved such a transcendental state of so-called enlightenment have completely fucked up human personalities. So the transcendent aspect of the self-system did not integrate all the other level, lines, states etc. If we’re to believe Epstein that the transcendental self is a narcissistic ego idealization causing the problem in the first place then we need to “dispel the illusory ontology of the self encapsulated within the ideal ego.” We need to get at a more grounded practice might have us operating within the ego system itself, via mindfulness and therapy. Then we might obtain a more accurate picture by actually integrating the various aspects of body and psyche within ourselves, families and cultures and from this vantage create more equitable, human ideas about “spirituality.” 

Re: Authentic Enlightenment & Lines of Development

To return to Hamilton’s original comments, I’d agree with him that we need to redefine spirituality and nonduality as an “enlightened humanity” by way of an integration of the various lines. He says it’s not “discover[ing] that only the Absolute or Unmanifest is ultimately real” through a meditative line that is divorced from all others. The nondual includes the relative realm of pain and suffering. 

On the other hand he does seem to maintain that old dualistic nonduality in that there really is an enlightened absolute that can transform the painful relative world. “Authentic” realization still recognizes “that the unmanifest ground of everything is a limitless perfection.” And this “true” nondual realization is the integrator of all the lines. In a sense it’s Wilber’s transcendental self at the heart of the self-system. It has the ego ideal written all over it. 

Yet I agree with some of his conclusion in that we need to create and apply new spiritual forms relevant to our pomo culture. He just doesn’t go far enough and recognize the heart of the problem in ego idealization, and that the developmental ego is the means of our relative liberation. That realization is quite a transformative experience and gets us down to brass tacks instead of following illusory rainbows with their mythical pots of gold guarded over by leprechauns.