Running time: 1 hour 8 minutes
Images by Michael Harris [+view gallery]
There's a lot of talk and a lot of interest in evolutionary spirituality—and there's a fair number of different approaches, different types, and so on. But one of the fundamental things that we need to remember before we start talking about it is that Spirit itself can be looked at through 1st, 2nd, and 3rd-person perspectives. And so an evolutionary spirituality needs to be looked at through all three of those perspectives. And you're going to get a very different view every time you do it!
The point, though, is that you want to include all of them—you want to include 1st and 2nd and 3rd-person perspectives on what an evolutionary spirituality would mean, and how you would include that in your life. So that's what I want to talk about today....
–Ken Wilber
A brief Introduction to the Three Faces of Spirit
by Corey W. deVos
Just as human beings intrinsically possess 1st-, 2nd-, and 3rd-person perspectives of the world, so do we possess those same perspectives in our experience of spirituality. And while these dimensions of the divine can be found in just about any spiritual lineage—Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, Hindu, Islam, etc.—many of these traditions only explicitly emphasize one or two of these perspectives, resulting in one or more important aspects of spirituality often being left out of their conceptions of Spirit.
Spirit in 3rd-Person
Spirit in 3rd-person is often described as the “great web-of-life,” and is frequently experienced when observing objects of miraculous beauty such as the Grand Canyon, exquisite music, transcendent art, or the mind-boggling elegance of deep-space photography. Many astronauts returning to Earth have experienced powerful states of transcendence triggered by simply looking at our planet floating in the vacuum of space, the sublime fragility and significance of the human condition clearly reflected in their retinas. To quote John Glenn:
“To look out at this kind of creation and not believe in God is to me impossible. It just strengthens my faith.”
Or, consider the words of another NASA hero, Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell:
"On the way home from the moon, looking out at the heavens, this insight—which I now call a transcendent experience—happened. I realized that the molecules of my body had been created or prototyped in an ancient generation of stars—along with the molecules of the spacecraft and my partners and everything else we could see including the Earth out in front of us. Suddenly, it was all very personal. Those were my molecules. It was an experience of interconnectedness. It was an experience of bliss, of ecstasy... it was so profound. I realized that the story of ourselves as told by science—our cosmology, our religion—was incomplete and likely flawed. I recognized that the Newtonian idea of separate, independent, discreet things in the universe wasn't a fully accurate description."
Spirit in 2nd-Person
Spirit in 2nd-person is traditionally defined as the “I-Thou” relationship with the divine, where Spirit is experienced as a living intelligence that we can actually interact with in our own lives. As Ken often says, borrowing from renowned theologian Martin Buber, in the “I-Thou” relationship, God is the hyphen connecting the I and the Thou. And of course, our conceptions of God in 2nd-person evolve right alongside the rest of humanity, growing from magical animistic immersion, to the mythic “old bearded white man in the sky” interpretation, to rational and pluralistic recognitions of divinity within our families, communities, and humanity itself, to the simple intuition that we all exist within the unimaginable Mind of some Supreme Being, by whatever name.
This is reflected beautifully in the closing lines of a love poem written by ee cummings, titled i am so glad and very:
we are so both and oneful
night cannot be so sky
sky cannot be so sunful
i am through you so i
Or, from the lips of George Harrison:
It's been a long long long time
How could I ever have lost you
When I loved you
It took a long long long time
Now I'm so happy I found you
How I love you
So many tears I was searching
So many tears I was wasting, oh oh
Now I can see you, be you
How can I ever misplace you
How I want you
Oh I love you
Your know that I need you
Ooh I love you
Or 12th-century Sufi mystic, Jalāl ad-Dīn Rumi:
A lover asked his beloved,
Do you love yourself more than you love me?
Beloved replied, I have died to myself and I live for you.
I’ve disappeared from myself and my attributes,
I am present only for you.
I’ve forgotten all my learnings,
but from knowing you I’ve become a scholar.
I’ve lost all my strength, but from your power I am able.
I love myself… I love you.
I love you… I love myself.
Also from Rumi:
The Beloved is all; the lover just a veil.
The Beloved is living; the lover a dead thing.
Spirit in 1st-Person
Spirit in 1st-person refers to the actual phenomenological experience of God, in the form of satori, kensho, ecstatic reverie, and other sorts of “peak experiences” of the divine. These are most frequently exercised through some form of contemplative practice, such as meditation or prayer, in which we can directly experience consciousness as the “singular to which the plural is unknown”—and the effortless, open awareness behind all of our experiences is recognized as the consciousness of God (or Godhead, as Christian mystics might prefer). In this space, all of our thoughts, emotions, and experiences, as well as the rest of the world around us, are simply and effortlessly witnessed, in much the same way that clouds float effortlessly through the infinite expanse of the sky. And that effortless expanse at the center of each and every moment IS God transcendent, looking at His/Her own immanence through each of our eyes. A wonderful description of this sort of personal experience of and as God can be found in Ken’s book One Taste:
"It is true that the physical matter of your body is inside the matter of the house, and the matter of the house is inside the matter of the universe. But you are not merely matter or physicality. You are also Consciousness as Such, of which matter is merely the outer skin. The ego adopts the viewpoint of matter, and therefore is constantly trapped by matter—trapped and tortured by the physics of pain. But pain, too, arises in your consciousness, and you can either be in pain, or find pain in you, so that you surround pain, are bigger than pain, transcend pain, as you rest in the vast expanse of pure Emptiness that you deeply and truly are.
So what do I see? If I contract as ego, it appears that I am confined in the body, which is confined in the house, which is confined in the large universe around it. But if I rest as Witness—the vast, open, empty consciousness—it becomes obvious that I am not in the body, the body is in me; I am not in this house, the house is in me; I m not in the universe, the universe is in me. All of them are arising in the vast, open, empty, pure, luminous Space of primordial Consciousness, right now and right now and forever right now. Therefore, be Consciousness."
Any spiritual tradition is capable of expressing all three of these forms of spiritual experience—in fact, if you are leaving any of these out, chances are your understanding of spiritual realities is incomplete in some way.
Conclusion
Historically, Eastern and Western traditions have emphasized different perspectives in different ways. For centuries Christianity has focused upon 2nd- and 3rd-person aspects of spiritual life, while being distrustful of 1st-person reports of God—using them at times as the grounds for heresy. Buddhism, on the other hand, tends to emphasize first-person experiences and 3rd-person perspectives of spirituality, while often denying the existence of any sort of “personal” God in 2nd-person—a major source of tension for many Christians. Although these traditions express these perspectives in very different ways (some in the spotlight and some in the shadows), all three faces of God can be found at the core of every tradition—for example, Christians are still having powerful 1st-person experiences of transcendence, reverie, and revelation; and Buddhists still practice Spirit-in-2nd-person in the form of compassion, devotion, and kindness.
Strictly speaking, nothing can be said about the true essence of Reality (including that)—but in the finite, manifest domain, the three faces of God appear to be intrinsic to Spirit’s radiant display. And unfortunately, Spirit’s expression as 2nd-person Thou has largely gotten stuck at the mythic-membership fundamentalist level of development. The modern world not only rejected the marginalization and cruelties associated with the mythic god, it threw out God in 2nd-person altogether—and thus a huge baby got thrown out with the bathwater of mythic consciousness: one-third of God’s own ever-present Face. After all, when moving from a 3rd-person description of God directly to a 1st-person experience of God, without the soul-cleansing qualities of extreme humility, grace, and gratefulness that God in 2nd-person bestows upon us, it can be deceptively easy to sneak the whims of the ego into our interpretations of spiritual experience—and, rather than transcending the ego, our spiritual experiences can ironically become the last refuge of the ego. Indeed, one of the key dilemmas for humanity is discovering a way to help the great spiritual and religious traditions grow into their modern, postmodern, and integral forms of being-in-the-world, with all three faces of God shining brightly.
Comments
Fri, 09/28/2012 - 15:09
Corey's excellent intro aside, can I get this in written form? Will there ever be another 'old school' book from Ken? Some of us still prefer to read (off computer) as archaic as it may be. I'm jones'n for a Wilber book!
Mon, 09/17/2012 - 22:21
Kenny, bud, any open-minded-enough and cross-trained-enough graduate astrophysics student can tell me what happened after the Big Bang. Tell me what happened before, Fellow Mind. I dig your four-dimensional view of All That Is: that's a breath of fresh air (a nice wind of Vedic dreams of the olden days). But - I beg you - take me to the next level: take me back to the moment before the First Second (if there ever was such a thing-less thing). Integrate me in reverse, if you could. Forward I can sorta do on my own...
Here's where I am coming from:
1. There is no Nothingness (there is no void):
It is self-explanatory really (except to atomists; holonists get it intuitively; so, let's move on).
2. There is No True Space
The word “space” is just another word for “nothingness.” The word “space” exists but what it refers to doesn’t. The perception of “space” exists but there is no actual – ontologically unfilled – space. The Universe is not Swiss cheese with holes of nothingness in it. The Universe is complete. The Universe lacks nothing – it is a(continuous, uninterrupted, unpunctuated, integral, and perfect) Oneness. Thus, the Universe – in one word – is a Whole.
3. There is No Room for Expansion
There is no ontologically empty, unfilled space. There is no region or area of nothingness unoccupied by the existent Universe. There are no vacant lots in the Universal real estate. Thus, the Universe has nowhere to expandinto, in principle. The Universe – while ever-dynamic (i.e. ever “oscillating” in form) - is neither (spatially) expanding nor (spatially) shrinking. Red-shift data aside, the Universe – in one word – is (already) an Everywhere.
4. There is No Spatial Limit
That which is everywhere has nothing around it. Put differently, the impossibility of an ontologically-true emptiness means that the Universe is spatially unlimited (limitless), i.e. spatially infinite. The Universe – in one word – is Unbound.
5. There Was No Spatiotemporal Beginning
Beginning in time is a beginning in place. A child, for example, is not only born at a certain point in time but into a certain point of space (i.e. location). Any birth (beginning) requires a coordinate in space (i.e. a location). There could be no beginning – either in space or in time. To begin, in theory, the Universe would have required an empty, ontologically-opportune place/space/nothingness to be born into and to be born at. No such emptiness can exist. A something can neither emerge materially out of nothing, nor can it emerge spatially from a nowhere. The Universe – in one word – is Timeless.
6. There is Only Reality
While the Universe - in its spatial-temporal infinity - might appear magical (i.e. beyond precise and finiteunderstanding), it could not have been pulled out of a non-existent hat by a non-existent hand. The Universe – in one word – is Reality (i.e. not a trick, i.e. non-fiction).
7. There Could Be No Original Creator
While the Universe itself might be conceptualized as a god, it could not have been created by any God that is external (transitive) to its creation. If your mind (i.e. cultural programming) insists that the Universe was created, upgrade your level of abstraction from the level of World to the level of Universe. A mother that gives birth to an infant creates a new phenomenological world, but she herself lives in a World that already is, within a Universe that already exists. The Universe – in one word – is Uncreated (i.e. unborn). Put differently, the Universe – since it exists but is uncreated – must be self-creating.
8. There Can Be No Disappearing Act
There is no vacant, unfilled, truly empty space. Therefore, the Universe – as a sum-total of whatever currently is – has nowhere to go to or to disappear into. The Universe is already everywhere. Whatever is everywhere would also contain the very magic hat that your mind might hypothetically stuff the Universe into. Put differently, a Set cannot disappear into a sub-set. The Universe – in one word – is Undying (i.e. infinite, i.e. endless).
9. The Universe Is Its Own Parent
There can be many Worlds (sub-sets) but only one Universe (Set). Uncaused and uncreated, the Universe is self-creating. It is – metaphorically speaking – its own Womb and its own Tit, its own Original Cause and Source of ongoing Causal Nurturance. It has no transitive/external Father. The Universe is self-inseminating. The Universe – in one word – is the Mother.
10. There Was No Primordial Big Bang
Known evidence about the recentevolution of the observable Universe has been attributed to a “Big Bang” like event. While there probably was a big-bang-like cosmological event, it could not have been ontologically primordial. Explosions require space (i.e. a location), as well as explosive materials (incendiaries, ignition energy, motivation/causality). None of these prerequisites could be reasonably found in a nowhere full of nothing. The Reality isn’t a trick: it could not have been clappedinto existence by non-existent hands at a non-existent location amidst a non-existent space of nothingness. There cannot be an ontologically spontaneous combustion of nothing – amidst a nowhere – into a something – only to be further inflated into yet another non-existent but vacant nothingness. No Big Bang type event can be seen as an ontologically causal event, i.e. as an act of primordial creation, i.e. as a historical first. While our particular Worldcould have been locally caused by a big-bang-like event, any such birth would have required an already-existent cosmological womb. The Mother Universe – to reiterate – is Fatherless (i.e. beginningless, i.e. uncaused, i.e. uncreated). It impregnates itself.
11. There Will Likely Be Another Big Bang
If there are at least two blades of grass (and there are!), there is likely to have been more than one local Big Bang, and, therefore, likely to still be an endless series of local Big Bangs. That which is eternal has time to repeat itself.
[there's more where it came from but that's not the point, the point is that, Kenny, you told me only half the story, tell it to me in reverse to its Unborn-and-Undying Non-Beginnings...]
your fan,
p
Wed, 10/17/2012 - 18:01
Integrate me in reverse = like why is à wheel à circle. You can't be integrated in reverse because you are already integrated. Does not matter from what Side you come from.
The No in all your statements imply a yes. To say yes too nothingness/void is exactly the issue materialist can't acknowledge. Comparing space (à cheese with wholes In it) with nothingness again explains you do not got THE message. Space is not THE void/ nothingness Ken talks About. There is only one singlerarity ...as you know.
No original creator, its own parent... Is only pointing out That you are à believer in THE one. Welcome And lets shake hands. there is from THE perspective of THE one no creation only being and its expression. Time and space is à perspective view. Your view is made clear in your comment.
Tue, 09/18/2012 - 00:12
P
Sure, there's no nothingness. Empty space is not empty. But it might still be space. We should stipulate that space is not a synonym for the void but rather the basic material "transparent fluid of locatability" which oscillates in order to produce the phenomenology of physical structures. This fluid of locatability need not be unlimited in order ot have nothing around it. Just as we cannot imagine a space outside of space into which space expands we also cannot imagine the endless expanse of space. What we imagine is only a non-terminated temporal process. And speaking of non-terminated temporal process we cannot imagine a start or termination of time. Therefore we do not imagine a beginning of the universe. But we say "beginning" as a slang term to mean that our data displays a radiant centralized pattern relative to the local production of conventional material structures in this region of space. Obviously that is the whole universe. Just as obviously there can be no "creator" prior to or distinguished from the universe.
BUT the spiritual cosmology of the Big Bang is not for people who find all of that to be obvious. It is a marketing tool which assimilates current popular-academic cosmological myths into a developmental-spiritual pattern. The goal is to inspire the sorts of people who currently exist and make easy their ability to fold different parts of their universe together into a common map.
It is not necessary when discussing such a "story" to make critical philosophical-mystical boundaries upon the cosmological options nor is it necessary in such a discussion to call-to-presence the indiscernible common "being" whose phantom haunts us at the impossible beginning, ends, centers and edges of any model of reality.
P
Tue, 09/18/2012 - 01:02
P(ascal) says: "But we say "beginning" as a slang term to mean ..."
The other P(avel) says: Slang? Sounds smug. A story of cosmological genesis - when attempted - requires clarity of terms.
P says: "BUT the spiritual cosmology of the Big Bang is not for people who find all of that to be obvious. It is a marketing tool..."
The other P says: A marketing tool? Sounds fishy. The loft series is for serious integralites, is it not? For the market that's already capturedd through premium subscription, after all.
P says: "It is not necessary when discussing such a "story" to make critical philosophical-mystical boundaries upon the cosmological options..."
The other P says: Says who?! P? Sounds smug and fishy. The other P says: Way necessary!
Tell me, brother Ken, the other half of the History of Everything - in reverse. And attempt to show me the holonic integrity of the pre-big-bang era when there was - according to the Big Bang model - nothing to integrate yet.
Fri, 09/28/2012 - 15:25
For continuation of the discussion of the interplay of the Big Bang model and integral thought in the general forum go to "Kenny, bud, integrate me in reverse" thread.
Tue, 09/04/2012 - 15:20
This story Ken expressed was beautiful and touching. He begins with the big bang for third person perspectives and brings in second and first person persectives with the Big three. Wonderful. What has me not so excited is his use of big bang theory and the creating of matter and stars and galaxies. A cosmology that is driven by gravity. But what if matter is formed more by electro magnetic forces? You do not get a big bang theory but one that mimics the analogy Ken gave of spirit in first person. No beginning or end, and evolving.
Thunderbolts of the Gods
The human search for the ground field(Aether) that is harmonious and equal in which matter starts to make asymetrical. From plasma to atoms. And is it gravity that made atoms or EM? And what is gravity?
Infinity in a finite world
None of these change what Ken is saying but allows a more grounded understanding of the subtle. And a foundation for understanding which allows for third person perspectives of mind/body interaction that does not confuse gross for just matter but also EM.
And what about our social systems? They evolve! what is the gross energy source of the next civilization?
LENR energy. My favorite being Blacklightpower. But there is many research happening at our greatest institutions, NASA, DARPA, MIT, SRI etc
LERN's have been validated such that NASA is designing space ships and planes to run on it. This event that the scientist agree means that the stardard model of physics is not correct and that a new model will need to be formed. And it is so daunting that it will change our understanding of gravity, EM, QM to the same degree that relativity brought in the early part of the last century. What does this mean for our orientation? That the cosmos is not contained and this means that there is no beginning or end, and is evolving. And that we can get energy from the release of bonds between atoms and then let them reform and do it again, and again. No need to burn or blow matter up to get energy. But this would need us to understand the electron( blacklightpower) and gravity( Nassim Haramein). The nuclear force and the weak force will be seen as made up forces that physcist made to try to make sense of something that there relative incomplete understanding of gravity and EM lead them in the wrong dirtection. Creating new forces to make their models work. And this was all done looking at events in a contained system, thus their misunderstanding. But nothing in our universe is contained!!!
Tue, 09/04/2012 - 09:53
Highlights of Part I (as filtered through this mind):
- every thing has depth (interiority/subjectivity); each thing has its own* 1st Person perspective/its own spirit/its own conscious dimension/its own intra-subjective depth; thus no thing is a thing (except when seen through the 3d Person geometry of objectifying observation).
*its "own" spirit is not its own (see below)
- suffering is a function of mistaken identity; "am-ness" is not our own, this "am-ness" is the shared ground of being, the subjectivity of the Kosmos itself** while the individual/idiosyncratic "suchness" and "thusness" of any given "I" (that sees one's "own" self as a "this/that" self) is maya; solution: neti, neti; or a 3-dimensional/triune/holistic identity of the 4th (nondual) Face.
**Kosmos is not an It; the "itself" here is functionally equivalent to "ourselves"***
***"ourselves": plurality is maya
Just thinking out loud. Resonating, that is.
Wed, 06/20/2012 - 22:11
Why is it that we find ourselves continually wanting to play this game of life? Perhaps one reason is because we sense the opportunity to, as Whitehead says, creatively advance in novelity. With novelity comes the hope of newness, freshness, purity, something untainted and unharmed, something good, beautiiful, and full of bliss.
novel [nov-uhl] Show IPA/ˈnɒvəl/ Show Spelled Part of Speech: adjective Definition: new, original Synonyms: at cutting edge, atypical, avant-garde, breaking new ground, contemporary, different, far cry, fresh, funky*, innovative, just out, modernistic, neoteric, new-fashioned, newfangled, now*, odd, offbeat, peculiar, rare, recent, singular, strange, uncommon, unfamiliar, unique, unusual Antonyms: common, customary, familiar, old, ordinary, overused, used, usual, worn
http://thesaurus.com/browse/novel?s=t
Tue, 09/04/2012 - 08:55
Stanley, I read your question ("Why is it that we find ourselves wanting to play this game of life?") and thought in response: "Kosmos studies its ever-evolving state of Self through our-selves-at-play." I don't know if it's really so or not. So take this mind-echo for what's it worth...
Wed, 06/20/2012 - 15:25
Truly awesome, especially part 2. I never get tired of Ken describing spiritual evolution. It lifts you up! Thanks!
Sat, 06/16/2012 - 22:21
This was simply breathtaking. Ken, you really knocked this one out of the park. You gave such an exquisite summation of the Kosmic story...you Kosmic storyteller, you!
Wouldn't it be wonderful to see this delivered as a TED talk with video and visual aids? Or simply as a short film? I'm going to email a link to David Christian. Perhaps you could send him the full version, Corey? Maybe he would appreciate a more integrated view of kosmic evolution, a Real Big History, or maybe I should say a Deep Big History to emphasize depth and surface, or left-hand and right-hand perspectives on the Kosmos-as-Spirit.
Kevin
Sat, 06/16/2012 - 17:52
I find Corey's background essay to be excellent in its own right -- I hope people so inclined take the time to let its energetic transmission come through.