Absolute and Relative Emancipation in TSK and Integral

In my recent conversation with Ken Wilber, I brought up my interest in TSK and my belief that it qualifies as a (post)-postmodern, post-metaphysical spiritual vehicle.  Ken agreed with me that it is postmodern in general orientation and that it is freer of “metaphysical baggage” than many other traditions, but he also stressed that it has several shortcomings from an Integrally informed perspective:  Its three levels are not nearly comprehensive enough, and it demonstrates virtually no awareness of the existence or the relative value of structures of development and Kosmic evolution.  (This, at least, is my recollection of his criticism, and what I have been reflecting on since the call.  If you heard the conversation and remember it differently, let me know!)

During the call, Ken made a distinction that I hadn't heard him make before, but which I found useful:  he talked about two modes of emancipation, the relative and absolute.  Of course, this is an echo of the two truths of Buddhism, but he tied it in to Western and Eastern “liberation” projects, respectively.  The West sees that relative development is valuable in itself – that even for the limited self, there is a false self and a true one; there can be dysfunction and atrophy in egoic growth and psychological development, that there are more or less functional and authentic ways to “be” a self in the world.  The East values absolute emancipation, moving beyond form and structure – a movement which could, on its own, simply leave the world behind; but which, if it resists renouncing samsara, can infuse the relative world with depth and Presence.  The Integral project is to encourage both, and an Integral politics would “hold space” for both and nurture them equally.

I mention this distinction (which I think is great) because Wilber was suggesting that TSK, along with Buddhism and other traditional paths, downplays or is even unaware of the value of relative emancipation.  He told me that I should be very careful in my “celebration” of TSK as a post-metaphysical vehicle, making sure not to read more into it than is really there.  I think that's a good warning, and I am taking it to heart.

I certainly agree with Ken that TSK's three levels are hardly adequate to describe the very many levels of vertical, structural development open to human beings.  They are not intended to be used as an exhaustive description of the possibilities open to human beings, of course, but as prompts to deepen inquiry, and invitations (in Integral terms) to “deepen” in state development, from dual to nondual.  As such, they are not opposed to finer distinctions which may be – and in Integral, beautifully are – drawn; they may stand, as modes of “absolute emancipation,” in partnership with “relative emancipation,” moving in mutually enriching loops.

In my opinion, this potential is actually already acknowledged and encouraged within TSK.  I did not get into this in the phone call, because I wanted to get on to my question rather than quibble with Ken, but I believe that Tarthang Tulku actually describes this mutually enriching relationship in a number of places – and in so doing, demonstrates an AQAL awareness of the relative, structural, evolutionary, culturally bounded lines of development that Wilber suggests he lacks.  I want to share an excerpt from the book, Love of Knowledge, in the next post.  Please let me know what you think – if you believe, as I do, that the elements which Wilber stresses are essential in postmodern, evolutionary spirituality are actually already acknowledged.  In my reading of the following excerpt, I think Tarthang Tulku Rinpoche is actually suggesting a way both strands can be held and nourished in the “womb” of free and open inquiry.  But I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: Absolute and Relative Emancipation in TSK and Integral

“Inquiry and analysis follow no model, but depend on the path of their own unfolding. Nevertheless, there are several directions that an open, vigorous question­ing might take that would be likely to lead toward a more comprehensive knowledge.

If we begin at a level that is too abstract, we may come under the influence of theoretical constructs that lack transforming power. But if we look at our own experience to see how the patterns we rely on are estab­lished, insight is directly available. Language, behavior, living conditions, human evolution, the rise of con­sciousness, our own personal development, and the circumstances in which we act and live - these are the subject of our inquiry. Without restricting knowledge to ‘psychology' or ‘anthropology', such an inquiry rec­ognizes that the subject and substance for investigation can be found in immediate, present experience, within and around in all directions.

We might start by looking at beginnings. The known world is built up on the basis of communication. How did human beings learn to speak? Scientific specula­tions on this point, together with the evidence that sup­ports them, can serve to focus an inquiry that looks at how language functions within our own minds, shaping our intelligence, our perception, our understanding, and our interactions with others.

Another focus might be the process by which human consciousness changes over time. Different cul­tures have accepted as fundamental realities and ways of thinking that are completely different from our own. Appreciation for such differences can suggest how the changing dimensions of consciousness have given rise to our own ways of thinking, and can loosen the hold that our styles of thought and imagination have over us. Reflections based on our own experience and obser­vation of the culture around us, together with study of findings by historians and cross-cultural investigators can provide a fruitful basis for such inquiry. Literature and the root meaning of the words and symbols we use in daily discourse can also offer valuable clues to the workings of the mind.

Just as we are ‘positioned' by language and by cul­ture, we are bound by a certain understanding of space and time. This understanding could be traced out his­torically, or it could be the focus of a direct inquiry. Where does space come from and how does it origi­nate? Can anything exist ‘outside' of space? Was there a beginning to time? If so, what was there ‘before' the beginning? If time had an origin outside of time, is a different temporality in operation somewhere else? How might knowledge operate in such an elsewhere?

Knowledge in Particulars

Within the social, cultural, historical, and mental pat­terns that shape the ‘known world', a structure operates that is far less solid than we usually imagine. Objects enter our lives in the course of an unfolding series of events, like actors who appear on stage, play a role for a time, and then depart. Despite appearances, the roles that the actors occupy - the patterns into which ‘things' fall and the stories about them - are a matter of interpretation, not substance.

An inquiry into the inner structure of this world we take for granted begins with our own being and history, and with the ‘things' and patterns with which we inter­act.  Perhaps we focus on a table on which are resting some books or papers. The table is located quite specifi­cally in space and time. It has a history that can be traced back physically, socially, culturally, and economically; it has meaning in our lives that depends on the linguistic structures that let us identify it, the ways in which we have put it to use, and the associations we bring to it.

In the same way, whatever is now in existence has a history and reflects dimensions of structure, mean­ing, and value. Because these dimensions relate as well to ‘our' being as ‘narrator' and ‘owner', an inquiry that embraces them can teach us where we come ‘from' and where we are ‘going'. We can ask how the past led to the present, how we make models and structure experience, and how we project the past toward the future. We can educate ourselves so that patterns open up, stimulating an active, creative intelligence. Through such inquiry we discover that knowledge is available here and now, freeing us from the need to freeze accumulated under­standing into a position for fear of losing it.

In conducting such an investigation, we are inquir­ing also into the knowing capacity of the mind. Here the range of what conventional knowledge knows is quickly left behind. Ordinary understanding offers no obvious answer to the question of how the mind exists, and knows no way to measure its potential. The mind seems almost infinite in its power to produce thoughts, shapes, and forms that come and go, interacting too quickly to observe; yet typically this power is dispersed into the endless repetition of unsophisticated patterns of knowledge and action. On the one hand, the mind is creative at its root; on the other this creativity is chan­neled into rigid structures that throttle its vitality.

It is pleasant to imagine ourselves exercising the innate creativity of the mind in new and fruitful ways, gracefully interweaving thought and action like a gifted musician who takes up a simple theme and shapes it unerringly toward beauty. But when the mind is flooded with content and bound by old patterns, the path of beauty and spontaneous creativity can be elusive.

Is such proliferation and stagnation a part of mind from the very beginning? Is there a ‘place' within or beneath thought where there are no thoughts and no perceptions, where the spontaneity of the mind operates without restriction? Is such a place, if it does ‘exist', accessible to knowing? Or does knowing originate with a call for positioning that already violates the absolute stillness of ‘no thoughts'?

Even more basic than mind, it seems, is existence. A non-existing knower could not know; an object that could not be said to exist in some manner could not be known. The polarities ‘subject/object' and self/world seem to presuppose a commitment to existence, so that whatever form the subject's knowing takes, it verifies that existence ‘exists'. Subject and object will point to each other, in a kind of negotiated agreement-a con­spiracy of what is. Is it possible to conceive of a know­ing that would not be bound by such terms?

Boundless Realms of Knowing

In each realm of human being, from the particulars of everyday life to the workings of the mind to the basic ‘given' of existence, free and open inquiry will foster clarity in observation and analysis. Bound to no posi­tions, it will take different forms in each new field, shifting in subtle, unexpected ways, so that one form of knowledge feeds back into another. In the psycho­logical realm, it will bring clarity to values, attitudes, feelings, and the sense of quality. In the religious or spiritual domain, it will disclose new facets of our being in its interconnection with the cosmos and with human destiny, encouraging humility and devotion. In the field of reason and logic, it will teach us how these more traditional tools of analysis can be applied to foster an integrated, all-encompassing knowledge.

Free and open inquiry allows for all these possi­bilities and countless others. There are so many ways of being-so many different worlds, each with its own patterns of arising and becoming. Beneath the world of daily existence vibrates the fantastic world of sub­atomic particles. In the depths of outer space black holes transform the nature of time and place. There are realms of higher energies, realms invisible and visible, realms existent and non-existent.

As conceptual analysis gives way to more direct forms of inquiry, and such alternative ways of being become newly accessible, we may tap a knowing diffi­cult to put into words. Yet even as we struggle with the limitations of language and thought, we begin to notice that such knowledge is self-affirming, communicat­ing itself not only in what we think or say, but in our actions and our way of being.

Insight Through Higher Knowledge

The new knowledge that emerges in these ways can exert a powerful influence. To trace a single instance, suppose that we investigate the polarities and distinc­tions basic to consciousness-the interplay of ‘like' and ‘dislike' or ‘satisfaction' and ‘frustration'. As this analysis deepens, a change takes place quite naturally, loosening the pull of desire and allowing a special sense of freedom to emerge.

If we continue with this analysis, we will come to a level where emotions and feelings appear as manifestations of a more fundamental energy, car­ried by the experience that comes to us through the senses. At this level, emotions and judgments can be understood as labels applied to this underly­ing energy-labels that could perhaps be changed.

At the next stage, we see the link between such labels and distinctions and the underlying structures of the ‘bystander-self'. The self has a yearning for happi­ness or pleasure; it is drawn to such feelings as a moth is drawn to a flame. But the self also establishes patterns that make it dependent on circumstances and thus guarantee frustration. These two aspects of the self are mutually conditioned. The result is that the self holds on to its pain or tension or anxiety, because it is unwill­ing to give up the activities that produce them.

When inquiry has led to this level of understanding, a knowledge begins to operate that makes it possible to move freely between polarities. Because we appreciate the structures of polarity as aspects of knowledge, we can be flexible and open in the patterns that we choose to adopt. As we continue to exercise knowledge, We may grow adept at switching from negative feelings to positive ones and back again. Viewed from a conven­tional perspective, this is a remarkable, even incredible ability. Knowledge itself makes no judgment. Conjoined to no positions by nature, knowledge offers naturally a freedom from the patterns of experience that now bind our highest potential.

If we carry inquiry still further, another dimen­sion of knowing may open. We recognize that even the energy to which labels are applied can be put into operation in different ways. The distinction between energy and label becomes less definite, with the label understood as a frozen energy and the energy as an active knowing patterned by conventional structures.

Working at this basic level, we may recognize that even the complex of energy and labeling that bears the identity ? ‘I am' is only another name-a patterned dynamic put into operation by knowledge. We are free to participate in the pattern with new appreciation, as though enjoying the telling of a delightful story that we already know by heart.”  (Tarthang Tulku, Love of Knowledge, pp. 287-294.)

Re: Absolute and Relative Emancipation in TSK and Integral

Thanks Balder for this transcript. I hope more is coming.

The distinction of Wilber between the two modes of emancipation is a nice idea which springs up from the theoretical point of view of states and stages (W.-C. lattice). I think he explains it well in Integral Spirituality when he says that enlightenment is all states/all stages (available at a time). Is that not the same idea?

Anyway, I think that the connection and mutual influences of these two kinds of emancipation (or selves) has not been well explained.

If we could  clarify the connections between the relative and the absolute, the results of a technique or path could be understood more.

Does not all emancipation, in the end, come from the absolute emancipation? Does it not shower it's knowledge on the relative Self? I'm probably beeing very UL zone1 here, but I don't see it the other way around!

Patrick

P.S. sorry for the charachters of the writing, but I can't seem to get it at normal!

Re: Absolute and Relative Emancipation in TSK and Integral

Hi, Patrick,

I enjoyed my conversation with Wilber, though I found myself sort of having a hard time navigating between Wilber-IV and Wilber-V in my question.  I asked him about his argument in A Theory of Everything that there are 25 “dimensions” of human experience that can be mapped, when you consider the I/We/It-space at the levels of body, emotion, mental, spirit, and soul, each with its own corresponding experience of time.  I'm not entirely clear how the move to the W-C lattice impacts this overall model.

But in our discussion of this subject, Wilber noted that Buddhism and related traditions often speak in terms of emancipation through state development, and he contrasted that to the Western model of emancipation through structure development.  I commented that I hadn't heard him speak in these exact terms before, and he said the only place he'd really developed it was in A Sociable God (the one book by him I haven't yet read!), but that he was glad to hear that I found it helpful and would try to use it more.

Anyway, the gist of the discussion was that both forms of emancipation should be encouraged and cultivated, but that he doubted TSK really did this…or was even aware of structural development and “relative emancipation.”  That is why I shared a chapter from Love of Knowledge in this thread, since I think the chapter indicates that evolution, structural development, cultural and linguistic influence on knowledge, and so on, are recognized in TSK as vital areas for inquiry.  (I think Wilber has only read the first book in the series, which may be why he holds the opinion of TSK that he does.)

However, it is clear to me that Tarthang Tulku's emphasis in this chapter (and elsewhere) is still to encourage deepening into 2nd and 3rd level T-S-K (which Wilber is calling state development), even while acknowledging the many ways that knowledge has unfolded in various structures in time.  Deepening our understanding of these processes appears to be held, in TSK, as another way to open into a fuller, non-positioned knowing (which has multiple perspectives available to it).  The vision does not stress the need to cultivate new structures, which I think is different from the Integral orientation, but it is not opposed to it, and in fact encourages inquiry into the many dimensions of structural unfolding in time and the impact they have on us.

Do you see this also?  The chapter above is only a sample of TSK's approach to these issues, but it is a representative one, I believe.  As I said, Wilber cautioned me to be careful about reading too much into TSK, and I believe I am being careful, but want to put this out there for communal consideration and verification.

I think you are right, Patrick, that an Integral Spiritual perspective would see “absolute emancipation” as the light and “womb” for relative forms of growth and emancipation.  It seems to me the TSK approach is to focus primarily on “absolute” emancipation, through awareness of the boundaries of relative experience and working creatively to explore and open them.  The orientation of “open inquiry” lays the whole field of human experience and evolution out as potential sources of liberating knowledge. 

Where we go from there is up to us … and Integral provides a particularly rich map to guide us.

Warm wishes,

Balder

Re: Absolute and Relative Emancipation in TSK and Integral

Hello Balder,

Yes, I tend to agree with you. I have no time to write a long post now, but will think about it.

That TSK, or other similar path do not offer stage development is an idea that Wilber has exposed (isn't it the zone#1 and zone # 2 difference, but conceptualized a bit differently?) And I do not agree with him, although this disagreement stays intuitive for the moment. And it may be that my disagreament is that I do not understand well.

I've read Tarthang Tulku's text and will come back to it and write something…


Patrick

Re: Absolute and Relative Emancipation in TSK and Integral

I'm going to do a little “commentary” on part of his text, trying to comb through it from an AQAL, postmetaphysical perspective.  I'd like to hear your feedback, particularly if you disagree with my reading… but also if you don't!

Tarthang Tulku:  “If we begin at a level that is too abstract, we may come under the influence of theoretical constructs that lack transforming power. But if we look at our own experience to see how the patterns we rely on are established, insight is directly available. Language, behavior, living conditions, human evolution, the rise of consciousness, our own personal development, and the circumstances in which we act and live - these are the subject of our inquiry. Without restricting knowledge to 'psychology' or 'anthropology', such an inquiry recognizes that the subject and substance for investigation can be found in immediate, present experience, within and around in all directions.”

Tarthang Tulku suggests an AQAL range of experience and knowledge as the subject of an inquiry which aims at a “more comprehensive knowledge.”  (I highlighted the words which I think comprise an AQAL range of concern.)  As a contemplative, he is interested primarily in the transformative potential of knowledge, and thus stresses that starting from too abstract a perspective will not have transformative power; the knowledge yielded by abstract reflection or research must be wedded to personal experience, which of course is also an integral concern.  I do not believe he is commenting specifically on how individual anthropologists, psychologists, or linguists should proceed – though a number of them have drawn on the TSK vision for inspiration in their disciplines – but rather is suggesting that knowledge from these and other disciplines can be used in the service of deepening TSK inquiry.

Tarthang Tulku:  “We might start by looking at beginnings. The known world is built up on the basis of communication. How did human beings learn to speak?  Scientific speculations on this point, together with the evidence that supports them, can serve to focus an inquiry that looks at how language functions within our own minds, shaping our intelligence, our perception, our understanding, and our interactions with others.”

Here again, he is suggesting using LL or UR disciplines (I believe linguistics and related studies would fall in these areas) in the service of UL inquiry and transformation.

Tarthang Tulku:  “Another focus might be the process by which human consciousness changes over time. Different cultures have accepted as fundamental realities and ways of thinking that are completely different from our own. Appreciation for such differences can suggest how the changing dimensions of consciousness have given rise to our own ways of thinking, and can loosen the hold that our styles of thought and imagination have over us. Reflections based on our own experience and observation of the culture around us, together with study of findings by historians and cross-cultural investigators can provide a fruitful basis for such inquiry. Literature and the root meaning of the words and symbols we use in daily discourse can also offer valuable clues to the workings of the mind.”

In my view, Tarthang Tulku is not only exhibiting awareness of Zone 2, 3, and 4 disciplines, he is encouraging use of the knowledge of these fields in transformative spiritual inquiry.  He does not appear to be encouraging actual memetic development in the service of relative emancipation, and that would be a short-coming from a fully Integral perspective, but he is acknowledging that structures of consciousness develop in time and history, and is pointing to the “loosening” and opening that can take place when we are able to take our own structure as “object.”

Tarthang Tulku: “Within the social, cultural, historical, and mental patterns that shape the 'known world', a structure operates that is far less solid than we usually imagine.  Objects enter our lives in the course of an unfolding series of events, like actors who appear on stage, play a role for a time, and then depart. Despite appearances, the roles that the actors occupy - the patterns into which 'things' fall and the stories about them - are a matter of interpretation, not substance.”

His comments here (and throughout his writings) reflect, to me, at least a postmodern grasp of the fundamental role of interpretation in the establishment of our “worlds,” and a perspective which is consonant with the groundlessness of AQAL space posited by Integral Postmetaphysics.

Tarthang Tulku:  “An inquiry into the inner structure of this world we take for granted begins with our own being and history, and with the 'things' and patterns with which we interact.  Perhaps we focus on a table on which are resting some books or papers. The table is located quite specifically in space and time.  It has a history that can be traced back physically (UR), socially (LR), culturally (LL), and economically (LR); it has meaning (UL/LL) in our lives that depends on the linguistic structures that let us identify it, the ways in which we have put it to use, and the associations we bring to it.

In the same way, whatever is now in existence has a history and reflects dimensions of structure, meaning, and value. Because these dimensions relate as well to 'our' being as 'narrator' and 'owner', an inquiry that embraces them can teach us where we come 'from' and where we are 'going'. We can ask how the past led to the present, how we make models and structure experience, and how we project the past toward the future. We can educate ourselves so that patterns open up, stimulating an active, creative intelligence. Through such inquiry we discover that knowledge is available here and now, freeing us from the need to freeze accumulated understanding into a position for fear of losing it.”

An article by Mark Edwards, I believe, describes developing an “AQAL sensibility” – an aliveness to the multidimensionality of lived experience as it unfolds and evolves in history.  Tarthang Tulku seems to be evoking a very similar sensibility here, describing the fluid responsiveness and sensitivity that emerges when we inquire into and awaken to all of these dimensions of Being, this creative interplay of time, space, and knowledge. 

Again, because he is writing from the perspective of a particular contemplative/transformative vehicle, his emphasis is primarily on how exploration of these things may affect us personally, awakening a creative and responsive intelligence and deepening our understanding and relationship to time, space, and knowledge (a transformation which I believe Wilber would describe in terms of state access and stabilization). 

The rest of the excerpt, in fact, deals primarily with the “effects” of engaging in a free and open inquiry into all of these dimensions of embodied human existence in time and space.  Deepening insight into these dynamics – which are multidimensional, mutually enacting, shaped by interpretation, temporally bound in particular structures (which may be opened and transcended) – introduces us directly to the main subjects of concern in TSK, the dynamic, creative, open ground of Being as expressed through the interplay of time, space, and knowledge.

In my conversation with Ken, while he encouraged exploring and further developing TSK from an Integral perspective, he warned me not to read too much into TSK – because otherwise such an exercise would likely encourage Buddhists to remain complacent about their current perspectives, failing to fully acknowledge or value relative structural development and the trajectory of relative emancipation that entails.  In my view, while TSK, as a vehicle, does exhibit awareness of AQAL space and the postmodern critique of ontology and metaphysics – as I've tried to demonstrate in this thread – its focus is not really on encouraging relative development per se.  An Integral TSK would place more emphasis in this area – and some writers in the TSK tradition have begun to do this* – but I believe the shift would be a relatively small one, since these dimensions are already explicitly acknowledged within the primary TSK texts themselves.

With that said, I also think that TSK provides one living example of how an “Integrally informed” transformative path of inquiry can wed investigation of multiple fields of knowledge to depth-oriented, “absolute” emancipatory practices in the service of personal transformation.

Re: Absolute and Relative Emancipation in TSK and Integral

Balder,

I can't help but think that TSK, as a contemplative discipline, has a place in an integral life.  It just seems to fit.  I can't quite tease out from what you have written and posted from TT just how TSK fails to anticipate or accomodate all of the Integral, and I am not sure it is important. 

What really resonates with me about TT's interests is the sense of avoidance of abstract speculation at a level that the contemplator cannot sustain.  It is as though we can only really explore from where we are truly “at.”  I know that I have gone beyond the state of my “perspective set” and reached to abstraction for “knowledge.”  This does not seem to work as the hierarchies in the abstract which are beyond my current platform (grasp) in expansion appear nebulous to me, as if cloudy, rambling, non-linear, hiding their scale and logical succession. 

This is good counsel from TT, and your careful analysis of it helps me to arrive more completely at the door of TSK phenomenon.

I have only a rudimentary grasp of “Big Mind.”  How does “Big Mind” compare to TSK as a disciplinary exercise?

best,
Michael

Re: Absolute and Relative Emancipation in TSK and Integral

Hi, Michael,

I think you're right that it's not that important if TSK doesn't anticipate or accommodate all of the issues and perspectives that Wilber stresses in his Integral model.  I think what I am up to, in part, is sort of an apologetic exercise:  I'm trying to “sell” TSK to Integral, simply because I think it is a rich, sophisticated, postmodern tradition that is little known in the Integral world, but which I believe is quite complementary to the Integral project as a whole.

About Big Mind:  I am not very familiar with it, other than what I've read about it on the Internet and the few clips I've watched on Integral Naked.  Big Mind, as it currently exists, appears to be a particular technique – an exercise which weds Western voice dialogue techniques with Buddhist meditation – while TSK is more of a comprehensive vision (with over a hundred different exercises to aid in the exploration of that vision).  But the fruit of the Big Mind technique, if it helps induce an authentic Satori experience, may ultimately be similar to TSK, in that both aim at nondual realization. 

You may know that the TSK vision features something called “The Giant Body Exercises.”  I think it would be interesting, perhaps in a retreat setting, to spend one day with Big Mind and another with the Giant Body; but I'd want to try this first, before inflicting it on an unsuspecting crowd!

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: Absolute and Relative Emancipation in TSK and Integral

Hola Bruce,

A huge thank you for this thread. I still haven't had time to read the whole of the excerpt from TT's Love of Knowledge, but have read your commentary which I found hugely helpful …. sometimes I have to read a paragraph of TT over and over again - and I know I still haven't really got it!

So this post is principally to express gratitude/acknowledgement.

And while I will bend my mind to the utmost to take part in this conversation in the way you've initiated it, I also want to bring to it some things I've been musing on but so far haven't found the brain-power required to articulate them within an AQAL context!

For example: I can accept meditation as UL …. but not non-meditation (non-dual contemplation) as just UL …. because something tells me that the totality of AQAL perspectives – and more – are contained in, and fully available within, what it is we are open to in contemplation …. it's just that I, for one, don't have the clarity to 'know' them in the same way as I can't help but perceive the blue sky when I'm gazing 'into' it …. and clarity here is a term Norbu uses to denote something like a capacity for wisdom-knowledge that is developed through contemplation/non-dual awareness.

What I'm really trying to say here is that my belief, which stems from the tiniest beginnings of some kind of knowing, is that human beings who develop clarity/wisdom maybe have and understand far more perspectives than KW gives them credit for based on the world-view they seem to be abiding in when judged by their public teachings or writings. I often muse on the very distinct and individual callings and visions of different Dzogchen masters, if I may narrow the focus to Dzogchen just now. If I think of Dilgo Khyentse, Namkhai Norbu and Tarthang Tulku alongside each other … all enacting very different visions for how Knowledge can be and is communicated …. I find it difficult to accept that they wouldn't understand precisely what each other was doing/enacting/ constructing/setting forth. Much as I find TT difficult to stay with, from the very little I've read it seems quite clear to me (even if he does say something like TSK is not Buddhism in different clothes) he's teaching essential Dharma for those who have the propensity to hear, get off on, understand etc. this mode of expression … his TSK vision. It is part of his skillful means.

I'm not sure how coherent what I've written is …. and I'm too tired to re-read it (to see if I've gone horribly off-topic) or attempt to edit it …. so I'm going to post it as it is. Tomorrow evening I should have time to give this thread, and your request for comments, the attention it deserves.

All best brother B.,

Lol

Re: Absolute and Relative Emancipation in TSK and Integral

Howdy, bro.

I'm happy that summary was helpful, and not a hammer just banging out the obvious!

In a number of different ways, I have also questioned if there are absolute, impermeable limits on what can be known, what perspectives can be taken, etc, when one is established in Great Knowledge or rigpa.  Wilber speaks of temporal horizons on what can be known and realized even by enlightened beings – e.g., Dzogchen masters 1000 years ago were enlightened, but were only able to be “one with” whatever had emerged in history up until that point – but TSK would at least encourage us to question whether the linear history to which we appear to be bound actually constricts us in the ways we imagine (and typically experience).

Wilber does say that there is one perception which is beyond all perspectives, transcending them all: Satori.  But he does not appear to be saying that this sort of nondual realization allows us to grasp relative forms of knowledge which have not yet emerged in history.  And it is true that you frequently find enlightened individuals speaking the language of their times, using the terms and concepts of their age, and often generally accepting various metaphysical beliefs, cosmological models, and cultural assumptions prominent at that point in history.  So, I understand why Wilber makes the argument that he does – using anthopological, historical, and cultural analysis, you can sort of track these patterns…

This makes sense.  And yet … I believe there may be at least some “permeable borders,” allowing for forms of knowledge to emerge which are not culturally and historically bound. 

But it's a subtle subject – worthy of its own thread, or maybe its own book!

About TSK being a skillful means of presenting Buddhism:  I think that's one good way to look at it.  I've felt that way fairly often – that TSK is a way of making essential Dharma palatable in the postmodern West.  But to say it is merely “skillful means” (treating it as a simple horizontal translation) may miss or at least downplay some of the relative-level developments that it has absorbed, as if it has nothing to say that could not also flow backwards and benefit the tradition (Buddhism) out of which it sprouted.  I think this is what Wilber would argue:  that there are relative-level developments which are valuable in themselves, but which may get brushed aside from the point of view of emptiness (thus preserving certain relative structures and patterns within traditional religion from challenge or examination)….

That is also a subject that deserves more investigation.  I hope we can do so here.

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: Absolute and Relative Emancipation in TSK and Integral

Ma rig pa,

I tend to agree intuitively with you. But I can't seem to find the words or proofs to explain it. I sense that non-dual awareness leads to relative stage growth. As to, if those stages are not yet available for humanity, as Balder said it, I don't know.

If we try to compare the AQAL model with the traditions, we should note the following:

- UL Quadrant represents the evolution of the relative self, or the stages of the selves.
- Non-dual awarenes, or even subtle awareness is not an UL phenomenon.

It would be more adequate to say that non-dual awareness is on all quadrant…it is the sheet of paper as KW said once. So it follows that this awareness must have an impact on all quadrant.

KW said, I think it was in “A brief History of Everything” that the non-dual aspect of God was the sheet of paper. When we're identified with this awareness, all quadrant must certainly vibrate…or non-vibrate.


Patrick

Re: Absolute and Relative Emancipation in TSK and Integral

Patrick, per your request, I am moving your post on the I-I thread over to this one, since you are no longer a member at I-I Zaadz….

~*~

Thank you Balder for this analysis and bringing this topic. I think it is of major importance.

First of all let me say where I'm at:

My knowledge and understanding  of TSK  is near to zero. I've bought the book, and I started a week ago the Giant body exercise. I've been meditating for 15 years, but with a different approach. I include the giant body exercise at the beginning of my meditation and then I go on with my practice.

In many ways, Tarthang Tulku's words sound familiar, as I believe is the case for many other practitioners of different paths.

Then, as you showed it, his texts shows that he is considering things from an AQAL perspective.

But the question is, does the technique bring one to an AQAL perspective? When I refer to the “technique” I mean what I've read in the book.

And it's here that I have difficulties. I believe the techniques exposed in the book would be considered zone 1 - meditative techniques.

One could say that tarthang Tulku's text exhibits an AQAL perspective, but that he might have come to this point of view not by his technique, but by contact with zone 2: beeing in the west, studying philosophers and so on. He may have grown an AQAL perspective not due to  the meditative technique, but through other means. Now this is of course an hypothesis.

Now the question for me is the following: All meditation techniques are considered zone 1. But are not these two experiences very different:
1) thinking (zone 1)
2) seeing the thought process.(zone ?)

The second point is a very different experience, and as I've understood it, they would both be classified zone 1-meditation techniques.  But those process are so different in their perspective that I just can't put them in the same zone or perspective.

It could be that meditation is a zone 1 and 2 process. And the shadow? Yes of course, but what if meditation was a zone 2 process of the self in the here and now? Meditation helps us disidentify with the “I am a body, emotions and thoughts.” Psychotherapy or shadow work could be then a zone 2 practice of the transcended and included but still bruised selve.  Two techniques aiming for the same zone, but different stratas of the self.

I would need some help on that one.

But basically my idea is that i can't resign myself to accept KW's idea that meditation is a zone 1 technique and that it fails to foster evolutive energies to other zones and quadrants.

Love to you,

Patrick

Re: Absolute and Relative Emancipation in TSK and Integral

Hi, Patrick,

Thanks for your letter.  I might copy a version of it over to the discussion on the TSK pod too, if you don't mind; or you could copy it there yourself, for others who are reading on that pod to follow.

If I had to name TSK's primary “technique,” I would say it is “free and open inquiry” rather than meditation.  I think there's an important difference here, because while many of TSK's exercises are classical “meditation” techniques (phenomenological introspection and discursive inquiry/reflection), TSK encourages using all human faculties and being open to all fields of knowledge.  TSK teachers emphasize that TSK is not just a collection of techniques, with the books understood as commentaries on the techniques; the inquiries and explorations in the books are seen as essential complements to the exercises, having their own value and role.  The method of open inquiry that TSK cultivates is understood as something that can impact and deepen any knowledge discipline, since all paradigms (Zones 1-8) can be understood in terms of the interplay of time, space, and knowledge, seen from different perspectives or through different focal settings.

I don't believe Tarthang Tulku is claiming that the exercises he has created (not just the ones in the first book, but all 120 of them) are capable of leading to every form of knowledge that he lists in the chapter I quoted.  I believe he learned many of the things he talks about in that chapter the same way we have:  through reading books and studying the fruits of the research of individuals in many different disciplines.  What he is saying is not that TSK leads to all this knowledge, but that all of this knowledge can be fruitfully used to further and deepen TSK inquiry.  In other words, he is saying that we can and should draw on the knowledge of the sciences and the arts (for instance), as well as the knowledge that is afforded to us through phenomenological introspective techniques, when engaging in TSK inquiry.

Does this make sense?

About the difference between thinking and watching thought:  I agree that they are different, but if I understand Wilber's use of the term, he places both in Zone 1.  Zone 2 deals with structures of consciousness that are not visible to naked introspection; it deals with patterns which are grasped when we take a “big picture view,” either gathering data from many subjects or taking a long historical view and analyzing trends.  Written in Integral Math, I expect the difference between thinking and watching thought would be clear, but for the time being, it appears Wilber still sees fit to lump both together in the same zone (1).

Take my views here with a grain of salt.  I may be wrong about this, but this is how I understand Wilber's model so far.

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: Absolute and Relative Emancipation in TSK and Integral

Dear Ones,

Man oh man, has this taken off!  I leave this thread alone for 2 days and you guys are off into the integral ether!  So much above has stirred my little pot.  I really appreciate the tone of the dialogue.  It seems soft, reaching, speculative, tender, and masculine.  I'm such an integral newbie - new to TSK as well that all I can really do is just listen, feel for the traction, and let it lead me on.

A couple of thoughts about the ancients, their states of enlightenment, and the moderns, playing in a far-different world:  Satori, if that could be described as resting in full awareness of the all-inclusive moment, is limited by all that the moment contains at that time in history.  There is no doubt that today's moment is more complex in detail, but I think that all the essential threads of what we consider spiritually pertinent were evident in the long ago.  I think the fundamental moment of true enlightenment rests with the seeker's becoming established within the process of evolution as designed by the source.  I do not think that evolution (of consciousness and materiality) proceeds in a constant, uniterrupted flow.  Rather, it stutters and chatters as stress builds upon the domaine field.  The stress load (urgency to change) causes occasional, almost, if not, instantaneous changes in the domaine.  I believe the enlightened (fully, irrespective of when) state is characterized by a virtually irreversible heart-centered awareness of this split moment to split moment unfolding of evolution, consciousness, and materiality. 

At present, TSK does not seem to be “about” enlightenment, per se - it does seem to be about training consciousness to appreciate that theTSK continuum is the theatre in which consciousness evolves/expands.  Such appreciation is vital to the grounding of the seeker as he allows satori to show him how it feels to approach true establishment in the chattering succession of one moment to the next.

In this sense, I think that there is no difference between the enlightened states of our elders and that of those who have achieved it in the present.  There is a difference, however, in the detail of these experiences separated in time.  Surprisingly, some of the earliest meta-scientific/spiritual/philosophic texts like the Kashmiri Saivite, The Doctrine of Vibration, fully anticipate modern theories of acoustics, the quantum field, and the origin of the universe in sound, then light.

I have yet to feel a shred of doubt as to the suitablility of TT's work to the Integral vision of Wilber.

yer pal,
Michael

Re: Absolute and Relative Emancipation in TSK and Integral

I think TSK is a direct vehicle of transformation – not a system or theory – that focuses on the structure of experience, and does not focus on conventional communication or theories, because as Balder quoted above from Tarthang Tulku: “If we begin at a level that is too abstract, we may come under the influence of theoretical constructs that lack transforming power.”  Or in my terms, we might spin our wheels inquiring where there is little gold to be found.    What I've found so far is that focusing on the structure of experience is the most direct means of transformation, not wasting time on conventional issues.

I think there are plenty of disciplines that focus too much on the labels and conventional communication and theories, systems, or philosophies, and that actually 'talk too much' about things, and put precious little emphasis on doing the actual transformation of consciousness/awareness itself.  And these are especially good traps for those of us who tend to be intellectual. 

I have never in 30 years found that tsk's discussion of three levels to be limiting for my transformation.  Nor has the focus on structure and pattern of experience / existence felt limiting or constricting.  On the contrary, this focus is one of the beauties of tsk, and has probably helped me keep from wasting time. 

I used to teach a lot of time management, of two types:  one conventional type – the one almost everyone teaches and learns – deals with conventional and ordinary, physical time – WHAT we list and schedule and do.  The other, which I call inner time management – deals with the way we experience and structure time in our lives and in different cultures – HOW we do things, racing against time, hurrying, or being timelessly involved, e.g.  Almost everyone talks about and thinks about conventional time, physical time.  Almost no one deals with HOW we experience time or timelessness.  Very few see the importance of how we do things, which varies from being detached from things to being 'into' things to being completely engrossed with no sense of separation. 

As I see it, we need both of these, but the more important of these two is HOW we do things.  Sure it's important what we do, but it's attending to HOW we do things, including noticing that we're not very interested or involved in WHAT we're doing, that tells us that we need to change WHAT we're doing.  If we focus too much on the WHAT – as this culture teaches us to – we can easily end up doing things poorly, and even lose track of WHATs important. 

This culture attends almost exclusively to what we're doing, and has hardly any useful concepts – such as 'self-other' or 'bystander-outside-stander' or 'linear time' or 'container space' – to address the structurings that are the focus for efficient transformation.  TSK provides such concepts and such a useful focus for our efforts.  It ignores nothing, but facilitates a beneficial focus. 

Steve R

Re: Absolute and Relative Emancipation in TSK and Integral

Bruce

First, what a great excerpt from Tarthang Tulku!

It is interesting to me how these ‘post-modern' disciplines get branded, especially Ken's ‘Integral' label.

I'll just make a few rambling comments for now as I'm short on time.

The term ‘relative emancipation' seems a bit of a misnomer to me, where possible synonyms might be ‘health' or ‘integrity'.  The only human emancipation I am aware of is dwelling in the non-dual awareness of the a priori “I”, which I guess is what is being referred to as ‘absolute emancipation'.  Can you explain more about what is meant by ‘relative emancipation'?

Clearly, both Tarthang and Ken value inquiry as a tool for growth.  Ken's forms of inquiry seem pretty open ended while Tarthang's are powerfully focused here (allow me to crudely paraphrase) as inquiry into:

• The symbols for objects within our perspectives
• The basis for my/our actions
• The underlying basis for dynamics that shape our experience
• The continuum-based events have shaped the mechanics of our experience and perception
• The basis for this “I” awareness
• The limitations and potentials for my personal growth
• The underlying basis for the conditions in which I/we live

It seems the beauty of inquiry in all of its forms is the separation that eventually occurs between what one identifies with (objects) and the subject that is able to view these objects from a deeper perspective.  The human problem comes about from the painful identification with what we are essentially ‘not'.  In a way, we can only 'know' with clarity what it is that we are not, but can only ‘be' that which we are in essence.  The process of inquiry owes its potency to rooting out what we are not, which eventually allows the experience of what we are to more fully emerge.

Seems to me that Tarthang's above inquiries set up a pretty good orthodoxy for effective inquiry:  By looking into language, one comes to recognize that there is a difference between what is and what one perceives it to be based on interpretation.  By looking onto our actions, we can gain perspective on pathological influences and recognize (and thereby set up change of) behavior that leads to further suffering.  By questioning our perceptions of surrounding mechanics that appear to be set in stone, one becomes aware that the world around us is not as limiting and static as it seems.  Looking into the basis of our experience is the most powerful mechanism to plunge us more deeply into unconditional awareness and freedom from the artifice of the persona that one tends to confuse for what we are.  The exploration of personal development allows for increased harmony within ourselves and with the world around us.  Taking a hard look at our surroundings can free us up for healthier and creative alternatives.

Technically though, I disagree with a few things he seems to be saying. 

Re: Absolute and Relative Emancipation in TSK and Integral

Hi, Steve,

It's nice to see you here again, and thanks for joining the conversation.  I agree with you – TSK is not intended to be a theory or even a map, which certainly distinguishes it from Wilber's Integral Theory.  But while Integral Theory as a whole focuses more on “mapping” and integrating multiple already-existing disciplines and perspectives, it also offers its own approach to transformation, and it is from the perspective of this approach that I think Wilber was leveling his criticism of TSK (and most other contemplative vehicles of transformation, such as Buddhism or Hinduism).  I only found part of his criticism to be on the mark with regard to TSK, which is why I opened this thread – to explore the criticism, and to show why I think some aspects of it do not apply to the TSK vision.

Here's the criticism in a nutshell:  Most contemplative vehicles focus on some form of nondual realization, which may involve the dissolution or recontextualization of the “self” or ego such that it is no longer identified with or considered to be separate from Being.  These traditions typically use phenomenological inquiry – bare attention to our immediate experience, watching thought and working with energy, coming to see the “emptiness” of the self, opening to Being in its timeless presence, etc.  According to Wilber, these are all supremely valuable developments:  the fruition of these developments constitutes absolute emancipation, in his terms.  But here's where his argument comes in:  some dimensions of our experience and our conditioning are not open to phenomenological awareness.  These dimensions have to be discovered and explored using other methods of inquiry…methods which are usually ignored by contemplative, phenomenologically oriented vehicles.  For instance, certain things such as cultural conditioning or psychological stages of development cannot be unearthed by “bare attention,” and therefore may continue working in the background (as unexamined presuppositions) even after we have “opened” our experience up and tasted nondual presence.  If practitioners of a contemplative vehicle are unaware of these other methods of inquiry (such as those developed by the social sciences), they may continue indefinitely without unearthing or really dealing with the subtle conditioning imposed by these unrecognized, sometimes unconscious structures.

On this relative level of structural evolution and conditioning, there may be many stages of cognitive, egoic, emotional, values, or cultural development which are not acknowledged or paid much attention to by phenomenologically oriented transformative vehicles.  This is why Wilber says he finds TSK's three levels to be limited – the levels point towards a deepening of experience toward the nondual, but they do not account for (or adequately “map”) the relative structural levels of development that have been charted by folks like Piaget, Kohlberg, Gebser, and others.

I generally agree with Wilber that TSK's three levels do not really account for these things, in themselves.  They are not even intended to, in my opinion.  But Wilber also says that TSK exhibits virtually no awareness of the relative structures explored and mapped by many modern researchers in different disciplines – the many layers of structural, social, cultural, and linguistic conditioning which influence perception (without being directly, phenomenologically available to it), and I disagree with this assessment.  I think TSK demonstrates both awareness of a number of important postmodern philosophical perspectives (see pp. 83-85 in Time, Space, and Knowledge for an example), and also clearly describes all of the dimensions of our conditioning that have been especially well disclosed by modern research (as I believe the chapter I quoted above illustrates).

Best wishes,

Balder

P.S.  I agree with you, Steve, about the danger of distraction posed by overly abstract, intellectual models.  I am certainly prone to being distracted in that way.

Re: Absolute and Relative Emancipation in TSK and Integral

Hi, Mike,

It's great to see you here – meaning on this pod and on Zaadz in general.

In my letter to Steve above, in outlining the gist of Wilber's argument, I think I've given what may be read as at least the start of an answer to your question about the meaning of relative emancipation (as opposed to absolute emancipation).  Adding to what I wrote above, I would say that relative emancipation is that movement in history to which the West appears to have paid the most attention:  identifying and deconstructing social structures, mores, power systems, cultural patterns and presuppositions, etc., in order to achieve greater autonomy and freedom for individual human beings.  The Enlightenment, the separation of the value spheres (art, morals, science), the emancipation of slaves, civil rights, feminism, liberation theology, psychoanalysis, technological innovation and improvement, the human potential movement, etc.

I agree with you that emancipation is probably not the best word, since the “good” won through these efforts is always conditional and partial, always a story of good news / bad news.  But some of these movements actually use the language of emancipation, which is why I think Wilber gives it a nod.

I like your summary of TSK's points of focus, which you drew from the excerpt.  While TSK theoretically places no bounds on inquiry, and encourages total questioning, the vision itself does point skillfully in certain directions which are more likely to be effective catalysts for transformation.

I'm interested in what theoretical disagreements you have, based on what you've read so far, if you have the time to share them.

In my next post, I'm going to post another passage from TSK, which I referenced in my letter to Steve and which I think exhibits more than passing familiarity with postmodern trends in thought.

Warm wishes,

Balder

Re: Absolute and Relative Emancipation in TSK and Integral

Excerpt from Time, Space, and Knowledge, pp. 82-85:

 

“To begin with basic aspects of our exploration, a central insight is that inasmuch as everything that con­stitutes our realm and existence is alike in being a func­tion of a focal setting, everything is inseparably related-'given together'. A tempting, but misleading, inference is that this interdependence gives special prominence to the self or mind, that the self has adopted a viewpoint or focal setting but can also change it. Yet, as we have seen, the ‘self is only a part of what we are calling the ‘output' of the focal setting. It has no special status.

The following list is designed to help clarify the rela­tionships of various conventional views to the perspec­tive of the new vision being presented. Basically, the list refers to subtle presuppositions which may hamper suc­cess in ‘opening the focal setting'.

*  Some conventional views posit a subjective idealism or mentalism; but from the view of this new vision, the world is not ‘all in the mind'.

*  A current thesis about relativity maintains that the linear causal connections and other features of our world are merely “how things look from a certain vantage point and to a certain type of observer.” But it can be shown that there is a subtle though profound difference between this thesis and what is involved in being ‘given together'. As a simple illustration of the difference, we should con­sider the possibility, according to earlier comments, that there may not be an ordinary ‘here', a truly solid vantage point from which to construe the world.

*  The view that our ordinary faculties of cognition and perception ‘make the world' is not affirmed by this new vision. Perhaps these faculties structure and even falsify some features of ‘the world', but they do not ‘make' it. Ordinary ‘knowing'-as understood by our conventional models-is not itself the restrictive focal setting, but only a facet of this setting's output. The world is not merely a concept in any ordinary sense.

*  Conventional views often accord a special primacy to the ‘here' or the position of the observing self. But accord­ing to this vision, such primacy is attached neither to the ‘here' or observing self, nor to the ‘here' and ‘out there' of an independent or ‘objective' world order.

*  Though various conventional views hold that there was an origin or an original dynamic factor of our familiar world order, the vision presented here holds instead that it is the output of a focus or optional perspective on Great Space. This world order is not a state of affairs that has, in being, been set up on its own, once and for all, even to the extent of being a real falsification of Great Space. Other perspectives or focal settings are possible and, since they remain Great Space under all their various guises, they do not constitute exclusive states of affairs. They are not only possible, but can be actual, in some sense, because they do not block each other.

The capacity of Great Space is never exhausted or compromised by a commitment to one particular trend or world order. Great Space can let anything appear. There is no level or criterion on or by which the various presentations can be compared and judged to be incom­patible or inconsistent. Great Space supports infinitely many choices of perspective.

*  The conventional acceptance of sense data as being real is challenged by the Space-Time-Knowledge vision. Its rejection of an ordinary ‘here', as well as the other features of our observed realm, is not due to any kind of sense-datum theory, according to which the observed world order and ‘here' are mere constructs formed from sensa, basic sense data. Sensa themselves are not unquestionably real, just because-by conventional hypothesis-they underlie the perceptions and interpre­tations which constitute human experience. The term ‘sensum' belongs to a particular set of epistemological theories, which may be supported by the evidence avail­able within a lower space, but are all subject to the ‘no outside-stander' principle.

Basically, the issue is how experience, or knowledge of reality, comes about. The psycho-physiological model which posits ‘emitting regions' in the ‘external world'-with emitted radiation and stimuli crossing distances, im-pinging upon sensitive surfaces (sense organs), then being processed and interpreted, resulting in the perception of some object or situation-is perhaps good enough for ordinary purposes. But ordinary ‘reality' and ‘experi­ence' can be called into question at such a basic level, and in such a thorough manner, that an appeal to expla­nations which presuppose aspects of that reality are no longer sufficient.

*  The popular meditative injunction to ‘Be here now' is seen from the Great Space perspective as being prob­ably misleading. On one hand, it might be interpreted as invoking the ordinary sense of ‘here' and ‘the pres­ent'. On the other, it might seem to refer to a kind of fleeting, immaculate sensum-like ‘here' which must be apprehended. Such orientations are a perpetuation of the restrictive focal setting and its emphasis on located­ness, etc.

There may also be an achievement and self-orienta­tion involved, to the effect that we are urged to try to ‘be here', or to capture something close at hand. Or we might be reassured that everything is fine and that we should just ‘let things be'. In either case, the immediate presence ‘here' of Great Space, and a true ‘opening' to it, are both being missed by clinging to small focal setting counterparts, which are actually counterfeits.

*  From the view of the new vision, the conventional religious surrender of self and of the world must be car­ried on in a new way, so that they do not transcend ordi­nary perspectives only by validating them. ”

Re: Absolute and Relative Emancipation in TSK and Integral

A parallel conversation to this one is taking place on the Integral Multiplex

Absolute and Relative Emancipation in TSK and Integral

Ralph has just offered an informed criticism of TSK after reading through the first book, to which I have offered the beginnings of a response.

Re: Absolute and Relative Emancipation in TSK and Integral

Here is my latest post in the parallel discussion which has been taking place on the Multiplex.  The individual I've been speaking with, Ralph, has been arguing (based on his cursory reading of the first TSK book), that he doesn't think TSK is truly integral and that it emphasizes Zone 1 to the exclusion of most, if not all, others.  The following is one of my responses to him, which I believe is complete enough in itself for you to follow without having to read the other discussion.  I would be interested in the thoughts of any interested readers here (since I'm still exploring and refining this analysis).

~*~

 

Ralph,

In this post, I would like to spell out more clearly how I see TSK in relation to Integral, and where I think Integral can complement or supplement it.  To do this, I will concentrate mainly on the criteria Wilber lays out for creating an Integral Life Practice and for countering the current “narrowness” of many traditional religions.

First off, I want to emphasize that I see TSK - like Buddhism or Christianity or other spiritual Ways - as primarily a “UL vehicle.”  Which is as it should be for any contemplative tradition which aims at individual transformation.  This does not mean it doesn't use or appreciate views and methodologies and structures from the other quadrants; it is just an acknowledgment that this is its (appropriate) focus.

In Integral Spirituality, Wilber points out that contemplative vehicles and the contemplative fruits they yield depend in large part upon right View for their effectiveness and completeness.  Wilber argues that a truly integral spiritual tradition must exhibit knowledge of and appreciation for multiple perspectives (from at least 8 zones), and be capable of integrating them within its overall View.  This doesn't mean that a practitioner of a (post)-postmodern, truly Integral spiritual tradition must master all the complex methodologies of all the major human paradigms to be worthy of the name.  It means that the tradition (and the practitioners within the tradition) must at least be generally knowledgeable of all of these perspective-dimensions and have a way of integrating their insights, on some level, into spiritual life and practice.

My essential argument here is that TSK, as a Vision (e.g., a View), does exhibit knowledge of and appreciation for an AQAL range of perspectives, and provides practices for working with a number of them.  I further claim (and Wilber agrees) that TSK offers a postmodern/postmetaphysical understanding of reality, which makes it relatively freer of metaphysical baggage than many traditional religions.  However, I also recognize that TSK addresses a number of the perspectives that AQAL maps in a rather general way - pointing readers to them as fruitful areas of inquiry but without a great deal of specificity - and that the Integral model can add a helpful wealth of detail and granularity to the TSK perspective.

In his chapter on the Shadow in IS, and elsewhere, Wilber argues that integral spirituality must acknowledge (and work with) the 3 S's:  states, stages, and shadow.  Contemplative traditions have historically concentrated on state training, and TSK's emphasis on realization of 2^nd and 3^rd level time-space-knowledge is a new formulation of this same general movement.  It is what makes it a contemplative vision.  But TSK also recognizes “temporal” stage-structures, describing (in some TSK books and also in a companion book, Knowledge of Freedom, which deals mainly with Knowledge and touches more lightly on Time and Space) multiple stages of development in individual life and in culture and history.  For instance, in Knowledge of Freedom, Tarthang Tulku claims there are at least 9 stages we pass through before reaching (conventional) maturity.  He argues that each stage involves different ways of experiencing and understanding, with attendant strengths and problems at each level.  Further, he argues that unresolved issues at any stage often go underground, becoming hidden “narratives” and limiting presuppositions which influence and often undermine our functioning at higher levels.  The “shadow” in TSK is described primarily in terms of these hidden narratives, beliefs, and feelings, which structure the ongoing “presentation” of the self in time.  Some of these patterns are available to direct observation, but others elude it (according to TSK) and must be uncovered with other forms of inquiry.

TSK describes both individual and collective “shadow” (though it doesn't use that word).  In addition to the narratives, beliefs, and emotional constellations that work under the surface in individuals, societies (and individuals within them) are subject to what TSK describes as “collective knowledge.”  This is the accumulated weight of patterns and structures of knowledge in history, which typically constrain knowing, but which can be turned (with practice and open inquiry) into resources for growth and transformation.  This transformation is facilitated, in part, by the recognition of the central role of interpretation in experience, at all levels.  (Several TSK books have chapters devoted to this issue).

In the remainder of this post, I want to describe how the TSK vision, as a whole, relates to (and fulfills the requirements of) an Integral Life Practice. 

Body:  TSK features a number of physical practices which energize, explore, and open the body and the senses.  In addition to the handful of practices which may be found in the TSK books, TSK practitioners (myself included) often also practice Kum Nye yoga, a complementary yoga and self-massage system taught by Tarthang Tulku. 

Mind:  TSK primarily emphasizes open inquiry and taking multiple perspectives; it also recommends mental training and study.  In one of the books, Tarthang Tulku lays out the beginnings of a TSK Geometry (which “maps” the play of focal settings in time and space), which practitioners use as part of their inquiry, but which, I believe, can and should be even further developed.

Spirit:  TSK's contemplative emphasis is on transitioning from conventional, first-level perspectives to deeper, second- and third-level time-space-knowledge perspectives (which correspond to causal and nondual realizations).

Shadow:  TSK offers a number of cognitive therapy-like practices and inquiries, as I mentioned above, which explore the hidden narrative structures of the self - exposing, analyzing, and opening/transforming limiting presuppositions and other forms of conditioning.

Ethics:  TSK does not offer any explicit practices or teachings for ethical development.  However, TSK teachings do contend that the “course” it follows - of opening limiting positions and being able to adopt multiple perspectives - will lead naturally to a flowering of love and compassion.

Sex:  TSK also does not offer any sexual practices.  Again, however, its basic teachings and perspectives - which include deepening our capacity for appreciation and intimacy - can be naturally extended to sexual relationships.

Work:  Work is a very important component of Tarthang Tulku's teachings - see his “Skillful Means” and “Mastering Successful Work” books, for instance - and TSK practitioners often also study these works, the principles of which are quite compatible with TSK.  The TSK books and practices address certain ways of functioning, the transformation of which facilitate working more efficiently and effectively - a fact which has been noted by a number of writers in the TSK tradition.  (See Steve Randall, Ron Purser, and Alfonso Montuori for examples).  As TT says, “We have a responsibility to work, to exercise our talents and abilities, to contribute our energy to life.”

Emotions:  TSK has a number of exercises for inquiring into, opening or thawing, and transmuting emotions and feelings.  Further related exercises are offered in Kum Nye and Knowledge of Freedom.

Relationships:  TSK does not offer practices tailored specifically for relationships, but seeks to cultivate qualities which can contribute to healthy, deepened relationship and increased intimacy - understanding reactivity, loosening self-contraction and challenging the basis of self-centered thinking, learning to adopt multiple perspectives, bringing compassion and appreciation into all our encounters, etc.

There is more I could say here, to further flesh out this picture (and touch on other issues), but again I've created a long post for you to wade through, so I'll stop here.  (I happen to be working on a paper which will argue that TSK is worthy of more attention in Integral circles, and will be going into a number of these issues there, so if I don't get to everything in this discussion, then perhaps you can check out my paper when I'm done).  At the least, I hope I've made a case that TSK's scope is actually wide enough to be considered integral, though there are many resources that Integral Theory offers that can deepen and refine the scope of vision that TSK presents.

Best wishes,

Balder