Hi everyone
Finally my entire essay – Towards a Larger Definition of the Integral – An Aurobindonian vision and a critique of the Wilberian paradigm – is up on Integral World
For those who are interested, the entire series is:
- Historical and Comparative use of “Integralâ€Â
- The Wilberian Paradigm: A Fourfold Critique
- An Aurobindonian Vision
- Where To Now For The Integral Movement?
There will also be a follow-up essay. ÂÂ
I have spoken more about the reasoning behind this essay series on my blog Integral Transformation, so I won’t repeat myself here. But basically I am interested in emphasising much less the intellectual-theoretical, and much more the practical process of integral transformation, which according to Sri Aurobindo and the Mother culminates in the transformation and divinsation of matter itself. This may however be a concept that is too radical for many to appreciate.
Alan, I have read all four of your articles with interest, particularly the third,which I thought was easily the best. Some very good insights into the differences between Aurobindo’s system and Wilber’s. I may possibly respond to the series at length later, but here I have a simple question. You have emphasized that Aurobindo’s system is more of a “spiritual” than an intellectual one, and that you are interested in “the practical process” of transformation. Yet I saw nothing in your series about this practical process. For that matter, I haven’t seen much of that in Aurobindo’s works himself, though I’m sure I’m not as familiar with them as you are.
Are you planning to address this issue later?
Hi Allan,
I appreciated a couple of points from your essay on integral world that I would like to mention here.
First your appeal on practice versus theory in integral spirituality. Spirituality is the highest part of integral theory and the question needs to be raised how we get to these realms not only in theory but more importantly in practice. And here I agree with your assessment of the lack of Ken Wilber’s system. And I would like to go one step further, which I think goes to the heart of the success or failure of integral spirituality. I seriously doubt if it is possible to have an integral spirituality practice through Ken Wilber‘s method of putting together bits and pieces from (Zen)Buddhism, Advaita, Kashmir Shaivism etc. In my view a spiritual practice needs to be based in a living spiritual teaching, which means that the teaching is available in the spiritual realm and can be contacted through a school or teacher that is the conduit for this teaching in the physical plane. It seems this is the way Aurobindo and the Mother have been working and it is also the way my long time teacher A.H. Almaas and his Diamond Approach works. Another way of putting it is that you need to make contact with the frequency of that teaching to create an unfolding towards and into the spiritual realms. This is not a theoretical or intellectual exercise.
And some of these spiritual living teachings can be more of less integral, Almaas for instance has an integral teaching which includes spirituality and psychology. But the integrality of it is not putting together different streams but having a synthesis on a higher level which on that spiritual realm is already the case. So then they cannot be separated anymore into two parts, then the teaching would make no sense. From you essay on Aurobindo I got the same picture. It is one teaching that overlaps all these different areas (with Aurobindo even more areas).
Another important point that you make, I think, is what you called the Soul realization. It seems to me so important that spirituality is not only an realization of your identity as being the Absolute (or any name you have for it) but also that the ego as a functional entity in the world is completely transformed into an spiritual entity functioning in the world. Your description of the Soul realization looks somewhat like what in Almaas’s teaching is called the Pearl although I don’t think it is exactly the same (because I don’t think spiritual teachings are most of the time pointing at the same levels of being). The pearl develops by metabolizing the ego by digesting your experiences and get the truth out of it and discard the false. A bit similar how Ouspensky described the process of experience being food that transforms into essence. The pearl can fully take the place of the ego and in that sense transform the actions of the human being into loving, truthful, strong, compassionate etc. The pearl is the way the absolute (or any other realm of being) can function in the world. So when we see clearly narcissistic, neurotic, violent or manipulating behaviour from a so called enlightened teacher I think it often shows a lack of transformation of the ego. Although they know there identity as the absolute, in a functional setting they still orient themselves from ego realms.
In my humble opinion any integral practice that wants to incorporate the realms of spirit needs to take care of these important points.
Andy: thanks for your feedback! Yes I also felt that part 3 is the best in the series. You referred to the lack of info on spiritual practice, good point! Yes this definitely needs to be addressed in a follow-up essay! I’m currently working on an essay on an integral meta-paradigm (which is turned out harder than I anticipated!), but will see if i can put some material on practice in there. If not, I’ll have to write a third essay in the series!
For me, the techniques of spiritual practice are incredibly simple. One involves simply reading the work of Aurobindo and the Mother and contacting that presence (this absolutely fits in with Marko says, see below). Another involves offering up everything up to the Supreme. I read this in the Mother’s books, but a friend says it is also quite Sufi; obviously, the same techniques occur widely. There are otehr techniques too, but the situation is made more complex by the fact that Sri Aurobindo and the Mother did not teach a specific practice or series of practices, unlike, say, Buddhism, where there are very precise instructions on meditation, watching the breath, etc. But sure, I’ll write up somnething on all this. Thanks again for pointing it out!
Marko, I was very interested to read what you had to say, because there do indeed seem to be some intriguing similarities between Almaas and Sri Aurobindo. And especially when you say
In my view a spiritual practice needs to be based in a living spiritual teaching, which means that the teaching is available in the spiritual realm and can be contacted through a school or teacher that is the conduit for this teaching in the physical plane…Another way of putting it is that you need to make contact with the frequency of that teaching to create an unfolding towards and into the spiritual realms. This is not a theoretical or intellectual exercise.
you really get to the heart of what spiritual practice is about, and I couldn’t word it any better!
This concept of the Pearl is pretty fascinating too (likewise similar ideas like the Magnetic Center of Ouspensky and the Immortal Fetus of Taoism). They all seem to have some connection, even if they differ in details (or is the latter just the distorting effect of the respective thought-form of each teaching?). Can you recommend a book of Almaas’ where he talks about the Pearl?
A true Integral teaching, or meta-teaching, may thus be a meta-framework or spiritual-transformative meta-network which includes different spiritual traditions that teach the integral transformation of the entire being.
Hi Alan,
Yes, interesting similarities, I think so too. The book Almaas wrote about and dedicated to the Pearl is called “Pearl Beyond Price†which is actually a good example of the integration of spirituality and psychology in his work. In it you can also find references to the pearl in other traditions, like Daoist and Gurdijeff, as you already said. But also Gnostic, Hermetic and Sufi.
I would say it is not extremely difficult to create an integral spirituality by seeing which spiritual lines need to be included, how they relate and develop towards the absolute and to refer to the teachings that are oriented around these lines. At the least that would be:
Identity; Advaita
Space or emptiness; Buddhists
Pearl/Soul: Sufism, Gnostics, Daoism
Love; Sufism, Christianity
Compassion; Buddhism
Energy: Yoga, Daoism, Kashmir Shaivism
Will; Gurdijeff
Peace; Christianity,
Consciousness: Advaita, Yoga
Strength; Shao-lin, Shamanism
Awareness: Buddhism, Krishnamurti
Dynamism and creativity: Shaivism
Knowingness; Gnostics, Ancient Greeks, Jnana Yoga
Together we could probably pick another ten and relate them to a lot more spiritual teachings then I just have done. But I don’t think you can then just take the practices of these teachings and design the practical part of integral spirituality. It would be a dead teaching, designed from the intellectual realm. It has some value of insight and understanding but it won’t take you to the ‘other side’, only a living teaching that is already on the ‘other side’ can do that, for the reasons I explained in my last entry.
I might be wrong, but it seems to me that the integral movement is missing this point. Perhaps it is because Ken Wilber is starting his Integral University that people think it can be done in this way, but up until a couple of years ago I didn’t think Ken himself even thought that. He was ‘just’ the pandit. What made him change his mind?
Regards,
Marko
hi Marko
Thanks for the reference! I added the book to my Amazon wishlist; hopefully i’ll get around to buying it some time.
The list of spiritual traditions and lines of development is fascinating; I hadn’t thought of it in such terms before. I’d previously followed Huston Smnith’s perennialist approach (see his small but worthy book Forgotten Truth) although obviously in more detail, drawing from the Theosophical, Kabbalistic, etc traditions. But that what still theory, and what you say really gives the practical key.
A few more lines of development to add
o Interaction with Nature Kingdoms: Neopaganism, Shamanism, some New Age
o Interaction with Subtle Realms: Tantra, Hermetic occultism, Shamanism, etc
o Pleasure / Ananda: Tantra, Taoist sexual yoga
o Transformation of Matter: Lurianic Kabbalah, Aurobindo and the Mother
o etc
but you seem to have covered the main ones.
I totally agree that a simple eclecticism would be pointless and limited to the mental plane (which is where Wilber goes wrong)
Ultimately one gravitates to a spiritual tradition that one feels resonance with, uses that as one’s focus or central axis of spiritual development, and then supplement that with practices and techiques from other traditions.
Yes you are absolutely right, this is what is almost always lacking in the Integral movement, not just the Wilberian movement but the wider integral movement. This is due to KW’s being limited to the “middle mental” as i say, and hence attracting people who are likewise strongly mental centered. An important exception here is Michael Murphy, who has developed his own approach inspired by Aurobindo and others, and the Integral Transformational Practice which he co-founded and seems to be highly regarded.
re Wilber’s transition from pandit to guru, well he’s only human (and from the evidence of his blogs a very emotionally immature level of human at that, despite his middle mental level of brilliance) and the poor guy has all these people worshipping him and calling him a bodhisattva; although quite likely he is manipulating the whole situtaion anyway. Regardless, it is little wonder it hgas gone to his head and he now fully believes his delusions of enlightenment
Your last link wasn’t there anymore, so now I found it here: WH’s Blog – Tagged with Disingenious Duplicity
Is it the same?
Love,
mushin
I don’t see Ken’s work as materialistic and/or just intellectual. He doesn’t reduce the psychic, subtle or causal to the material plane, he just explains that all inner consciousness states and stages have outer manifestations. And those outer “bodies” or containers can be subtle and causal, not just physical.
As to just being intellectual, Ken goes into great detail about the higher states and stages of consciousness and the necessity for one to take up such practices to experience them. Ken himself is a life-long meditation practitioner, as are many if not most or all of the rest of us in this movement. But to talk about those experiences, to put them in an understandable context, requires that we rationally reconstruct them in language and theories and models. Even Aurobindo did this. Ken’s writings and system, just as much as Aurobindo’s, are based on personal spiritual experience.
hi Mushin
that’s very strange! Okay, try this one
http://colmar3000.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_colmar3000_archive.html
hi Edward, to respond to your worthy comments:
You say that you don’t see Ken as a materialist. But how then do you explain Wilber’s statements that all so-called “supra-physical” realities – the subtle and causal and all the rest, are actually “intra-physical”? Or that ontological levels of being are “abstractions” that he has finally deconstructed? Or that if Plotinus were alive today he’d be a neurophysicist (or whatever)? I’ve already explained all this in my essay, and would be interested if anyone can offer me even one statement by Ken in which he refers to ontological realities above the physical-material. Not as “higher holons”, but totally unrelated to matter and external reality.
Take the astral body for example, a subtle vehicle of consciousness which has no material-physical component at all. I’m not talking about the Barbara Brennan (Hands of Light) version of the astral, which could be neatly slotted in the AQAL framework (actually I’m surprised that no-one has done this yet; it may be the Wilberian aversion to anything “New Age”), I mean as described by people like Robert Monroe (Journeys Out of the Body, etc. It is impossible to explain and do justice to such experiences in a Wilberian context; the Wilberian would be forced to reduce them to one of the interior-exterior holons which would have to include (as every holon does) a material-physical component (this is why Wilber is so interested in neurology etc, he wants to show how higher experiences can be mapped with brain states, so that they can be shown to be parts of the same 4-quadrant holon; Andy Smith has made some interesting comments on Integral World regarding Wilber’s approach to meditation studies).
I want to make clear that I’m not denying the existence of intra–physical realities. I fully acknowledge intra-physical dimensions of being. But I’m just saying that the supra-physical is just as real as the intra-physical; this is something that Wilber in his post-metaphysics, “integral spirituality”, and critique of the perennialist “Great Chain of Beingâ€Â(ontological gradations or hypostases), clearly rejects.
Ken and meditation. Apropos to this, the Mother (Mirra Alfassa) makes some interesting comments. She says that meditation has nothing to do with spirituality. It is just a mental discipline
She gives the example of people with a remarkable capacity for meditation, but who become furious if their practice is disturbed (hmm, reminds me of someone with (so he and his supporters claim) a remarkable capacity for meditation, but become furious if anyone criticises his writings). I’m not talking about these sort of experiences, I’m talking about genuine spirituality. Spirituality that comes from the heart, that’s integral to the entire being, and that leads to true self-mastery.
Regarding rationally reconstructing such experiences, I have to disagree with you; in my understanding such experiences go beyond the rational-mental, and cannot be understood in terms of the rational mental. This is where empiricism – as superb a tool as it may be on the external physical level – fails; Jorge Ferrer has some useful comments here in his book Revisioning Transpersonal Theory.
As I point out in my essay on Integral World, to understand Sri Aurobindo – or any other authentic mystic or Teacher – it is necessary to go beyond the rational mind. Sure you can approach any mystic or sage or enlightened being or avatar from a rational perspective, and only see and appreciate that facet of them. Which is still valid, it is still a part, but it is just the barest surface, it isn’t what they truly represent. As Marko has eloquently explained in an earlier comment here, one has to contact the presence of a living spiritual tradition, and this cannot be done with the external intellect or mere theorising. And as I said in my essay, I only appreciated Sri Aurobindo when I stopped reading him intellectually, and instead used his words as gateways to the Soul.
And that this is where Wilber (and others who take a similar approach), falls flat, because he (and they) tries to explain it all in rationalistic terms. That is why I personally find his whole philosophy arid and sterile, and I am not the only one who feels that way. This is not to say that it doesn’t have a few useful bits here and there, which can be salvaged and incorporated into a larger integral worldview (i quite like his saying “include and transcend” for example). True, the guy is highly charismatic, intelligent, and eloquent, but so is Da Free John / Adi Da. All this has nothing to do with being an authentic enlightened or transenlightened Teacher.
As for Ken’s personal so-called spiritual experiences, I have a rather different interpretation to that of Wilber’s followers.
Sorry for the long rant
regards
alan
Ken is not saying that one can understand a post-rational experience with the intellect. He is saying that for one who has had such experiences they can then use the intellect to rationally reconstruct and communicate to others who have also had the experiences.
As to your challenge that you “would be interested if anyone can offer me even one statement by Ken in which he refers to ontological realities above the physical-material. Not as ‘higher holons’, but totally unrelated to matter and external reality” please see the following:
From Excerpt G, Part III on reincarnation. You can read the rest if you’re so inclined:
http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/kosmos/excerptG/part3.cfm
We come now to the most controversial topic related to subtle energies, namely, reincarnation or transmigration. I am reluctant to even comment on it, because once you take sides in this issue, you alienate the other half of the audience.
My own belief is that reincarnation does occur; however, for the moment, I am more concerned with suggesting a proposed mechanism for such an occurrence, rather than arguing that it does or does not happen. Let us simply assume that it does, and then ask, how can that occurrence be squared with hypothesis #3, namely, that subtle energies are associated with complexifications of gross form? Upon death, clearly the gross form dissolves; what happens to the subtle energies if they are tied to those gross forms?
At this point, one simply chooses to decide whether reincarnation exists or not. If you believe that reincarnation does not exist, then the integral theory of subtle energies that I have presented thus far needs no further adjustments (not in relation to reincarnation, that is). If, on the other hand, you believe in reincarnation, then an integral theory needs to be able to incorporate that occurrence. It can do so if it adds one hypothesis, as follows:
4. Complexity of gross form is necessary for the expression or manifestation of both higher consciousness and subtler energy.
Hypothesis #4 introduces the possibility that the higher forms of consciousness and energy (i.e., higher than the gross-family realm) are not tied to complexifications of gross form ontologically but rather as vehicles of the expression of subtler forms and energies in that gross realm itself. In other words, it is not that higher consciousness and energies are bound to the complexities of gross form out of ontological necessity, but that they need a correspondingly complex form of gross matter in order to express or manifest themselves in and through the material realm.
A bit more on the topic from Sidebar G (not Excerpt G), Part I:
http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/boomeritis/sidebar_g/index.cfm/
Technically, in these traditions, a general (broad) state of consciousness is defined as: ‘the perception or consciousness of a particular realm,’ and the realm is defined in part by the body/energy composing it (i.e., its essential characteristic). Thus, the waking state is defined as a perception of the gross realm; the dream state, bardo state, and savikalpa states are a perception of the subtle realm; and deep sleep, nirvana, nirvikalpa, and formless states are a perception of the causal realm. And each of those realms is laced with a different energy or body (which is why ‘realm’ and ‘body’ are often used almost interchangeably: a realm is the particular world populated by particular bodies/energies. Generally, ‘realm’ and ‘body’ are meant to be more ontological–the actual ’stuff’ of the different worlds–while ’state’ and ‘level’ are more epistemological–the knowing side of the equation.
hi Edward
yes I was very surprised when I saw Ken’s reference to reincarnation, which really jars with the rest of that essay (and the rest of his writings in general). Obviously he is being “religious” rather than “rational” here. i.e. if Buddhists did not accept rebirth (not reincarnation because in Buddhism there is no persisting entity to re-incarnate) then there is no way he would believe in it. This is in contrast to, say, Theosophy or Hinduism where reincarnation is integral to the overallworldview in question.
I have however been told that more recently Ken has become more sceptical of reincarnation. After all that page you cite goes back away, whereas now he is much more into “integral spirituality” and debunking all previous mystical and esoteric traditions as “abstractions”. (see his Integral mathematics essay on-line).
If you look at Ken’s explanation of reincarnation in the abvove quoited passage you will see it is midway between traditional perenenialist ontology and his current post-modrenist inspired physicalism. He says
“the higher forms of consciousness and energy (i.e., higher than the gross-family realm) are not tied to complexifications of gross form ontologically but rather as vehicles of the expression of subtler forms and energies in that gross realm itself.”
So even though he here admits ontologically “higher forms of consciousness and energy” they are still tied to the gross realm as vehicles of expresison of the subtle. Sinnce then, Ken seems to have gone all the way, referring to the concept of higher levels of reality as metaphysical ghosts and abstractions. See his integral mathematics essay at http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/kosmos/excerptC/appendix-B.cfm :
If “direct experience” and “consciousness” are already low-order abstractions mistaken for realities (and hence are metaphysical ghosts), the notions of “levels of being,” “levels of knowing,” “ontological planes,” and so on are even worse: they are abstractions of abstractions of abstractions”
re your quuote of Sidebar G, yes, no-one is denying that Ken talks about these realities as higher holons or evolutionary stages in the kosmic nest of being. However by his current understanding they are still “intra-physical”, not “supra-physical”
Have a look at http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/kosmos/excerptG/part1.cfm/
Wilber says
“what we call “matter” is not the lowest rung in the great spectrum of existence, but the exterior form of every rung in the great spectrum. Matter is not lower with consciousness higher, but matter and consciousness are the exterior and interior of every occasion.”
This would, obviously include the subtle, causal, and other such realms as well (since all are – in his system – parts of the same spectrum of being).
Exerpt G is of the same approximate date as Excerpt C which you quote. So they are both from his recent writings. Ken is making the distinction that to manifest in the material realm that the higher states and stages of consciousness must have increasingly intra-physical levels of material complexity to contain them, like the human brain. But in the piece of reincarnation, which is contemporaneous with the rest of this material, he allows that the subtle body and consciousness can exist without the matieral realm.
Plus Ken has repeated time and again (which I will not seek out and quote at this moment) that his AQAL model concerns only the relative realm, not the absolute realm. Since we happen to live in material bodies in a material world it might serve us well to include material complexity in living within it. With of course a “spiritual” or absolute orientation wherein we can “divinize” matter, as you are fond of pointing out. I’d suggest that that is also one intepretation of the goal of nondual realization, where Brahman is the world.
Hi Edward
I can best reply by interspersing your comments with my replies.
Exerpt G is of the same approximate date as Excerpt C which you quote. So they are both from his recent writings.
Fair enough.
Ken is making the distinction that to manifest in the material realm that the higher states and stages of consciousness must have increasingly intra-physical levels of material complexity to contain them, like the human brain.
Yes, but in the AQAL system the “higher states and stages of consciousness” are the UL quadrant, while the “physical levels of material complexity” that contain them which are UR. So he is still not referring to realities unconnected to the material plane. He certainly isn’t a reductionist physicalist, I agree with you there, but he’s still a physicalist, albeit of the “holistic” kind..
But in the piece of reincarnation…he allows that the subtle body and consciousness can exist without the material realm.
First, as I was told, Ken is currently distancing himself from this reincarnation stance.
Second, while I agree that hypothesis #4 can be explained as acknowledging that there are realities above the gross realm, this unfortunately jars both with his statement in the Integral Mathematics Essay (Excerpt C) and in his essay on Subtle Energies and “postmodern” solution to the perennialist cosmology which he sees as misguided (Excerpt G).
So the reference to reincarnation is clearly an anomalous occurrence, not found in any of Wilber’s other writings, apparently now rejected even by Wilber himself, and in contrast to the uniform stance of Wilber-V which is that there are no supra-physical ontological realities, but rather holons of increasingly higher levels within and as the physical.
Of course, Ken can clear up this whole problem with a single blog post or essay on the Shambhalla website. The fact that he doesn’t strongly indicates to me that he does indeed deny the reality of independent supra-material ontological realities.
Plus Ken has repeated time and again (which I will not seek out and quote at this moment) that his AQAL model concerns only the relative realm, not the absolute realm.
Sure, this is the Two Truths teaching, a classic monistic Indian epistemology (Nagarjuna, Vasubandha, Shankara, etc). So what? I have already spoken about this two years ago in a web page I wrote two years ago when I was feeling more positive about Ken (before I read his Earpy blog posts and realised where he was really coming from – in no way would I now consider him a fellow gnostic!)
What I am talking about are totally non- or supra-material realities within the relative realm.
Since we happen to live in material bodies in a material world it might serve us well to include material complexity in living within it.
That sentence is hard to understand, but I assume you mean “to include an understanding of the world’s material complexity” If that is what you mean, this is my position too, which is why I have a positive attitude to scientific knowledge. It may even be that Wilber could have a few genuine insights to offer here, despite his poor understanding of things like biological evolution.
But what I am saying here is simply this. Wilber does not (currently) accept ontological realities of a supra-physical nature. Not that he accepts them but doesn’t describe them. No, that he simply does not accept that such things exist apart from the AQAL holons of the physical and intra-physical cosmos; he considers that they are metaphysical abstractions based on the insights of a pre-modern and pre-scientific age. Except for a single very brief and anomalous reference to reincarnation which may no longer be held by Wilber himself, you have said nothing to refute that position.
With of course a “spiritual†or absolute orientation wherein we can “divinize†matter, as you are fond of pointing out.
Certainly! And in part three of my essay I show that the Wilberian stages can be included as earlier and more partial holons of the larger Aurobindonian paradigm (assuming we use Wilber’s over-simplistic linear model)
I’d suggest that that is also one intepretation of the goal of nondual realization, where Brahman is the world.
You are confusing the standard Eastern “two truths” form of monism with Aurobindonian Supramentalisation. Advaitin or Wilberian or other concepts of Enlightenment are not the same as Aurobindonian Supramentalisation, as I have argued at length in part 3 of my essay, and as anyone can see by reading the last four chapters of Sri Aurobindo’s The Life Divine or his other writings, the Mother’s Agenda, or even the extracts of the latter in Satprem’s Mind of the Cells or other books. This is not in any way to denigrate sublime insights of the traditional teachings, only to point out that the Aurobindonian concept of the Divinisation of matter goes even beyond that, it is a process of matter itself becoming conscious and enlightened.
Alan, when you say “supra-physical” realities, I think you mean–correct me if I’m wrong–realities with no basis in the physical world–disembodied consciousness. That sure sounds like dualism to me. But then how can these supra-physical realities descend to the physical plane and change it? And for that matter, how can a physical organism realize a supra-physical reality?
“She gives the example of people with a remarkable capacity for meditation, but who become furious if their practice is disturbed (hmm, reminds me of someone with (so he and his supporters claim) a remarkable capacity for meditation, but become furious if anyone criticises his writings). I’m not talking about these sort of experiences, I’m talking about genuine spirituality. Spirituality that comes from the heart, that’s integral to the entire being, and that leads to true self-mastery.”
Meditation is the process of moving to a higher level of existence, emphasis on “moving to”. It takes time, a meditator by definition is between levels. So of course it is possible for him to experience anger, hostility, etc. Indeed, I would say a meditator feels those emotions more powerfully than an ordinary person.
What the Mother refers to as “genuine spirituality” sounds to me like emotional maturity, nothing more, nothing less. Some people are more developed emotionally than others. If they happen to be meditators, they may handle interruptions better than those who are not as mature emotionally. But emotional maturity is not the same thing as being spriitual. One can be very emotional mature and still be very much in the ordinary world. Some people who are very developed emotionally–the Mother may well be one of these–because they lack an equal development intellectually, are more prone to confuse this emotional development with transcendence.
Hi Edward,
Thanks for defending Ken Wilber’s point of view, although I was’t trying to put him down as a mere intellectual. Instead I was trying to address something I think the Integral Movement sees wrongly and I think is an important principle in spirituality.
My point was that I don’t see Ken Wilber as representing or conducting a living teaching, but as a brilliant and very interesting theorist on spirituality (among other things). He himself always confirmed that, calling himself ‘not a guru but a pandit’.
Lately with him starting to be more of a teacher his pandit role seem to have gotten confusing for people. And perhaps I am wrong but I get the impression that the Integral Movement now thinks that if you add the right practices to his theories your development will move on through the lines of his theories all the way up.
I don’t believe that. I believe that to really unfold towards self realization one needs to connect to a teacher or school who act like a conduit for a living teaching which is ‘working’ from the spiritual dimension. This is more than just picking up the practice of meditation, although very useful in itself.
First I’d like to thank Alan for providing a context for this discussion and for his ongoing participation. For me that is a key component of this site, to explore together these ideas in community, to express our similarities and differences and for all of us to learn in the process. I learn a lot from this process.
Second, I am not an expert on Ken’s works. I am merely trying to understand them so I use discussions like these as one vehicle in that process. So when I say Ken says or thinks this or that, it’s my limited intepretation which may or may not have some partial validity. It’s from my own understanding of Ken (or anyone else) from which I speak.
So to continue to respond to some of your points Alan I’m going back and re-reading Ken’s latest work, Integral Spirituality. I only have the original draft, not the full, new book. The new book is being released chapter by chapter at the Integral Spirituality Center but I’m not a member so I don’t have access to it. Plus the original draft does not contain the footnotes, so I don’t have access to many key explantions.
Disclaimers now aside, it seems that what the perenniel traditions discuss is the state-stages of meditative awareness, not the structure-stages of self development. (I know you say Aurobindo goes beyond them; we’ll get there.) The state-stages are the developmental sequence of 1st-person, phenomenological experience, the inside of the interior of the UL quadrant. Ken claims that such traditions were blind to the modern, exterior scientific developments and postmodern, intersubjective developments, which is true. Hence these traditions confused the state-stages for ontological realms of objective being. In other words, their intepretative framwork, not yet having the structural-stage developments of modern and pomo, intepreted these state-stages in the only ways they knew how.
Another factor is that one of the discoveries, or enactments, of the pomo, intersubjective worldspace is that epistemology and ontology cannot be separated. Both are valid, neither can be reduced to the other, but one cannot exist without the other. In a sense it’s like the inner/outer necessity we’re discussing with higher planes of existennce (ontology) you maintain can exist without a material connection. And I think you’re right that Ken disagrees, because he sees that a level of being cannot exist separately from the intepretive framework of the knower. It seems that the actual ontological level of being only comes into existence at the time that someone at the leading edge of evolutionary consciousness co-enacts it with their apprehension of it.
I understand that the metaphysical idea is the reverse, that the ontological levels of being were laid down in involution and that in evolution we progress back up through these already existent realms. These realms’ existence came before and exist apart from the material plane. Ken allows for involution but not as pre-existing ontolgical planes, merely as a morphogenetic gradient. It seems this gradient is “consciousness,” which is itself without form or content, merely the empty space is which evolutionary form arises.
This consciousness does sound a lot like a some kind of metaphysical “thing” that is outside of the material plane. It also seems to be outside of the upper left phenomelogical state-stages experiences discussed earlier. At least it would have to be, or else it wouldn’t transcend the AQAL matrix and hence not be an absolute. And this is where I get hung up on understanding the whole process. Help!
Andy, good questions!
Supra-physical meaning no basis in the physical world – yes, not dependent on the physical for its existence. Meaning disembodied consciousness. Disembodied consciousness implies beings that have lost their bodies, e.g. personalities and personality fragments of deceased people (what spiritualiists (positively) call spirits, Blavatsky (negatively) calls kama-rupa or elementaries, etc). But there are also non-physical entities and realitie staht are not dis-embodied because they never had bodies in the first place (not sure if i’m making sense lol!)
Dualism, no, this is not dualism, but a continuum, think of fractal sublevels, gradations, branching and converging nodes (the Kabbalistic Tree of Life provides a useful if highly simplistic glyph). I see Ken’s dichotomy of Interiors and Exteriors (Teilhard sees the same thing) as dualistic. Ferrer criticising Cartesian dualism from one perspective (the post-modern), i criticise it from another (the esotericist).
What the Mother refers to as “genuine spiritualityâ€Â-
My apologies for the misunderstanding and sloppy quoting. “Genuine spirituality†was my term. The Motehr never mentions that phrase. If you follow the link and read the original page in context you will have a better understanding
-sounds to me like emotional maturity
Read the original passage for a better context. Yes, there is control and and mastery of the emotions (or “the vital” to use Sri Aurobindo and the Mother’s terminology), but that goes beyond emotional development. How many emotionally mature people never lose their temper, never get flustered, never get hurt if someone betrays their feelings, happy if complemented, angry if insulted?
Some people who are very developed emotionally–the Mother may well be one of these–because they lack an equal development intellectually
Andy I would very strongly recommend that you read at least some of the Mother’s works; they are all online, follow that link I gave and then up the menu. Then, having read her words, rather than taking a poorly worded comment of mine out of context, you can come to your own conclusion.
If, having read some of her actual teachings, you still have questions or criticisms, I would be interested to hear them, and most happy to discuss them (or any other such subjects) with you, either on this forum or by private email.
Edward, thank you for your very eloquent reply! Yes what you say here seems in keeping with my understanding of Ken’s position. I fully admit I am even less of an expert than you on this. The only advantage that gives me is that I can approach Wilber from an “outsider’s” point of view (which I do).
It seems that Ken and I have diametrically opposite positions! I have already given my counter-argument to his “post-metaphysics” in sect 2a of my Integarl World essay. Ultimately it is up to every individual to come to their own conclusions regarding all this. Some will agree with Wilber, some with me, and some will develop fresh and novel insights of their own!
As this is a blog and not an academic, peer-reviewd journal, please forgive me if I think as I write. Doing so, along with feedback, help me to learn.
Ken’s conception of involutionary pre-givens outside of evolution can be found in note 26 to Exceprt A. These are distinguished from the kosmic pattern/habits of evolutioin thought to be involutionary givens by the perenniel philosophy.
As Spirit throws itself outward in creating the physical universe with the big bang it leaves traces of itself, but not with levels, forms or contents but rather the morphogenetic field that pulls or spurs evolution forward (eros or agape, depending on the perspective). It is a gradient of potential, not actual ontological realms. So what then is pre-given by involution, besides this gradient of potential, eros and agape? According to Ken it’s the 20 tenets of holons.
But what of this Spirit that left traces in involution and that we grow toward in evolution? This Spirit that stands outside of time and space, that is the very ground of it all? Is this the same Consciousness per above that is without quality or content that gives rise to both the involutionary morphogenetic gradient as well as the evolutionary measure of altitude?
In Integral Spirituality (IS) Ken says:
“This happens to fit nicely with the Madhyamaka-Yogachara 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 is not itself a phenomena–it is the space in which phenomena arise).” (p. 29)
Yet this consciousness is the altitude or level marker for all the lines. How can this be so if it is empty of quality? Ken goes on ask this same question on p. 30: “Since consciousness itself is without specific contents, how can we refer to its degrees?” He then refers to the perennial traditions’ notion of using the colors of the rainbow to identify them but it doesn’t answer, for me, the question of how something without quality can measure something with it? And it also doesn’t answer for me how this conception of consciousness, which is outside evolution, sounds remarkably like the empty consciousness of the causal realm which is inside the relative realm of UL states.
You might be asking how this relates to Alan’s original contention that Wilber is using a form of materialism, that all experience of interiors must have a material correlate, that spirit cannot exist without matter. Well, it seems to me that Ken is answering this with the above elucidations, though I don’t quite understand it yet.
Another clue to the notion of Spirit beyond manifestion is this comment from p. 32: “Thus, altitude or the x-axis is both empty consciousness as such, and then, in manifestation, the cognitive line, which is necessary but not sufficient (and whose altitude itself is measured by empty consciousness as such).” Ken sees the cognitive line as a qualified type of consciousness, one that enters “manifestation.” Consciousness per se, or Spirit, is empty of phenomenon and is the space in which it arises. The more phenonomon that arises the higher the altitude. But Spirit itself is both outside manifestation (transcendental consciousness per se) AND within it (immanent) via the cognitive line.
This is consistent with Ken’s comments on reincarnation, that higher levels of consciousness (and their related body-energies) can exist outside material manifestation. But within material manifestation there is a related, intraphysical component for every level of the other quadrants.
I’m still stuck though on how consciousness per se, which sounds a lot like the causal state within the UL as part of the manifest matrix, is also outside the matrix. Anyone?
Hi everyone,
It seems to me that we are having an age old discussion here, which is already going on between Buddhists and Hinduists (mainly advaita) for more then 2000 years. The question being “is there Atman and Brahman or Noatman and Nobrahman?â€Â. Part of this discussion is the question if identity, truth and consciousness are ontological states outside of our knowledge of it or not?
Ken in his essay Intregral Spirituality incorporates postmodernist thought which says that truth is only relevant in cultural context (LL) and outside of that there is no ontological truth. He then links is to the ultimate emptiness doctrine of Buddhism. But that is circle logic because postmodern thought was influenced by Buddhism itself.
Aurobindo seems to be on the Hindu side of the discussion and believes identity, truth and consciousness are ontological states laid out in involution which are also there without us knowing them.
I see Ken‘s way of involution and morphogenetic fields somewhat artificial. It seems to me that he very much wants to incorporate postmodern thought because of the (postmodern) research that backs up this thought. I am on the Hindu side of this and see identity, truth and consciousness as pre given ontological states that are already there without us knowing them.
If I am misrepresenting one of the positions I would very much like to be corrected. And it could be I am using some strange words like circle logic because I am Dutch and, just like you Edward, thinking out loud but added to it then translating my Dutch in English.
I think you on right Marko that Buddhist and Postmodern thought are both on to some very similar ideas, though both sides would vehemently deny it. I’ve read numerous articles that suggest as much, though there are still some differences between the two. I intepret those differences through my personal, idiosyncatic integral lens as the pomo version being of a higher structural level of development and therefore more inclusive and relatively better than the Buddhist intepretation. (Ironically I also realize that I shouldn’t be able to make this judgment if I were the type of postmodernist criticized by Ken.)
I’d also agree that Ken uses more the Buddhist intepretation through his integral lens. But he also sees that the pomo worldview is an advance in some respects and I think he rightly includes some of those discoveries. I just think that due to his Buddhist bias he sometimes misinterprets some of pomo’s conceptions and misses how close it is to some of the Buddhist ideas of emptiness, witness consciousness and nondual realization. Only better.
Edward, I think you’re quite right in seeing an inconsistency in Wilber between, on the one hand, his stated view that consciousness at any level is associated with some material presence, and on the other, with involutionary levels that step down. I made this point at the end of my most recent posting at Visser’s site.
Alan, sorry, I find your response to the dualism charge to be gobbledy-gook: “Dualism, no, this is not dualism, but a continuum, think of fractal sublevels, gradations, branching and converging nodes (the Kabbalistic Tree of Life provides a useful if highly simplistic glyph).” I can think of all those things to be heart’s content, and they seem completely irrelevant to the problem. I can’t imagine a Western philosopher who would accept this, and I don’t consider it an adequate response to say this is all somehow “beyond” Western philosophy. Nobody has even offered a coherent explanation of how our ordinary consciousness, which has a definite relationship to the brain, can be associated with the physical world. The problem is even worse when one begins with the assumption that there are states or levels of consciousness that are completely free of the physical world. Lacking any kind of explanation for this, and with no evidence for them that I can see other than your claim that you have “experienced” them, or that Aurobindo or someone else claimed to have experienced them, I see no point in incorporationg them into a theory.
I myself don’t accept the idea of reincarnation. But for those who do, Wilber’s theory is just as capable (or no more incapable) of explaining it as Aurobindo’s. Maybe more so. After all, we can see an involutionary process occuring in the physical world. When an organism reproduces, it creates a holon on a lower level, a cell, which then develops to the level of that which produced it. The cell, if it has any consciousness, has a much lower level than that of the organism. This increases as it develops. If we begin with Wilber’s premise that all forms of existence have interiors and exteriors, we can plausibly understand how that lower consciousness becomes higher. It is much less obvious to me how a disembodied consciousness is going to be reborn into an individual.
Buddhism and postmodernism. To me this seems like yet another attempt to make Buddhism “respectable” to the secular West, much as Wilber is trying to do with traditional spirituality. Sure there are superficial similarities, but likewise there are superficial similarities with quantum physics, as Fritjof Capra showed.
Jorge Ferrer, in Revisioning Transpersonal Theory, has some pertinant critical comments to make regarding these sort of apologetics.
Andy, you said
I can’t imagine a Western philosopher who would accept this, and I don’t consider it an adequate response to say this is all somehow “beyond†Western philosophy.
In reply I refer you to section 3-ii of my essay on IW. Replace “Wilber” with (a “secular (as opposed to wisdom tradition e.g. Platonic) Western philosopher”, “Aurobindo” with “esoteric and spiritual teachings”, and ignore the footnotes.
And if you disagree with all that, I have the feeling you’ll absolutely hate some of the things I’ll be saying in my follow up essay!
For me it is very important that an Integral meta-paradigm break free of the shackles of western secularism. That means going beyond western academia and the limitations of the physical-secular consciousness.
I am not here denigrating the vital role of academia in helping to elucidate the facts of the objective material world, and our physical consciousness’ individual and collective responses to and interaction with it and with each other. But this can only be a small part of the larger picture.
This is why I see Sri Aurobindo and the Mother as better exemplars for an Integral tradition than Wilber or any other academic or quasi-academic theorist, brilliant and insightful as they may be, and useful as their contribution may be in adding to the much larger understanding and praxis.
Andy Smith said, “Nobody has even offered a coherent explanation of how our ordinary consciousness, which has a definite relationship to the brain, can be associated with the physical world.”
While this is somewhat true, recently analytic philosophers have started arguing that our ignorance regarding the true nature of the physical is responsible for the hard problem of consciousness. See Daniel Stoljar’s article entitled “Two Conceptions of the Physical” (http://philrsss.anu.edu.au/~dstoljar/onlinepapers/2COP.pdf) or his recent book “Ignorance and Imagination” (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195306589/sr=8-1/qid=1154312022/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-1505259-0939836?ie=UTF8). In particular, Stoljar’s “Two Conceptions…” article is required reading in most analytic philosophy departments. Taking into account Stoljar’s articles and David Chalmers’ earlier efforts in addressing the hard problem of consciousness, it is premature to assume that consciousness cannot be accommodated into the physical – for the simple reason that the physical itself is not well defined at present.
Also for a dual aspect panpsychist approach to consciousness which clearly associates consciousness with the physical world, please see Gregg Rosenberg’s “A Place for Consciousness” (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195168143/sr=1-1/qid=1154312449/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-1505259-0939836?ie=UTF8&s=books)
Anand
Tusar N Mohapatra Says:
August 9th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
“Basically I am interested in emphasising much less the intellectual-theoretical, and much more the practical process of integral transformation, which according to Sri Aurobindo and the Mother culminates in the transformation and divinsation of matter itself.â€Â
Can the discussion veer back to its original provocation?
girl ihsaa news swimming…
girl ihsaa news swimming intro…