Authentic Enlightenment and the "Spiritual Line"

I recently came across an essay which critiques Wilber's "Lines of Development" model that I think is worth looking at -- both for the actual criticism, but also for the "evolutionary, post-postmodern" alternative that the author offers.  You can read the full essay here:  Integral Enlightenment - Why Authentic Spirituality Is Much More Than A Line of Development.  

In particular, I think the author, Craig Hamilton (a founding member of I-I, a former student of Andrew Cohen, and a Bay Area spiritual teacher), offers some important cautions for the "integral spiritual community" to reflect on and take to heart, but I am not really satisfied with his conclusion, for reasons I'll state below. 

In this entry, I want to draw attention to his essay and informally comment on it (I recommend reading the full thing to make sense of what follows), and then to invite discussion of the issues I'll highlight below.

First, the "problem" with the Lines model, as Craig sees it:

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

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

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

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

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

I do not think the above critique undermines the value of the Lines model or psychograph itself -- I believe it remains a useful tool -- but I am sympathetic to Craig's concerns about the potential for abuse, for slippery self-justification by spiritual practitioners or leaders, particularly when "spirituality" is treated as its own independent line. 

In Integral Psychology and Integral Spirituality, Wilber offers multiple definitions of spirituality, indicating that AQAL uses them all.  For descriptive and interreligious or interdisciplinary discussions, I think this makes sense and is useful.  But within the community of Integral spiritual practitioners, having multiple definitions of spirituality, including a definition which treats spirituality as existing (and unfolding) independently of other lines of development, could prove potentially troubling, particularly if the AQAL model is used for normative purposes as well as descriptive ones. 

I believe Wilber introduced the lines model in relation to Integral spirituality in part to find a way to account for the fact that a number of purportedly realized persons nevertheless "behave badly" -- abusing and exploiting others.  The psychograph offers one way of "understanding" how a "spiritually realized" individual could still be, in other ways, an interpersonal monster ridden with shadow.  Potentially, however, this explanation could also be used to serve the interests of such individuals:  allowing them to hold onto the mantle of their spiritual authority and "justify" or "explain away" problematic conduct as shortcomings in non-related "lines."  ("Don't mind my interpersonal or business ethics, I'm still God-realized in the spiritual line...")

This is sort of a "what if" scenario, and as such, it may not be worth worrying about too much at this point.  But given the scandal that has surrounded a number of modern teachers and spiritual leaders (including some that continue to receive Integral endorsement), and in light of the recent entries regarding the ethics around the promotion of spirituality in the human potential movement that Schalk and others have discussed here recently, I think it's at least worth keeping in mind...

This aside, one of the reasons I posted this essay was because of its conclusion.  In it, as you'll notice, Craig makes an appeal to “post-postmodern” forms of spirituality, but in my opinion, the nature of his argument suggests that he hasn't grasped the postmodern critique clearly enough to even begin going “post-post” yet.  For instance:

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

In this passage, Craig sounds to me more like a traditional religious evangelist, dealing rather ham-handedly in givens and absolutes, than someone who is speaking from a post-metaphysical perspective. 

I'm not sure what his background is, but his basic answer to the question of why spiritual teachers fail or fall prey to scandal would seem to support this:

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

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

This isn't necessarily problematic from a post-metaphysical perspective, but I have to say that it does remind me a little of an argument that runs something like this, mostly in conservative Christian circles:

A: Faith is permanent. Once a Christian, you cannot lose your faith.
B: But Mark used to go to church, and then lost faith in Jesus.
A: Yes, but Mark was never a true Christian in the first place.

The rhetorical move above is referred to as the “no true Scotsman” fallacy.  This fallacy arises when the definition of a concept is ambiguous, vague, or contested, which is certainly the case when it comes to the tradition-specific notion of awakening…and which is possibly compounded in the Integral Spiritual context, where at least four or five definitions are recognized.

In Craig's case, I don't think his argument amounts to a clear-cut example of this fallacy, but I do feel he is in the general neighborhood.  Really, I think this is an issue that dogs most idealized claims about spiritual membership or attainment.  In reading Craig's essay, and just in listening to religionists over the years, I have gotten the impression that folks frequently engage in an ad hoc change of definitions in order to defend against criticism and preserve a treasured ideal.

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

As I said above, I'm sympathetic to Craig's critique that the Integral Lines model, coupled with the notion of spirituality as an independent line, could be used in rather slippery, self-justifying ways by teachers (or organizations supporting teachers) wanting to preserve the mantle of their spiritual authority while they also continue taking advantage of or abusing others.  I also share Craig's desire to articulate forms of spirituality better suited to our zeitgeist, to the needs of our times.  But when he appeals to an idealized, essentially traditional model of enlightenment, and makes what appears to be representationist appeals to the Absolute (and sundry absolutes, like the Truth, the Way, the Law, etc), I don't think he is really charting any new territory, or offering a viable “post-postmodern” way forward.

What do you think?