Please Log in to Vote.

6 out of 6 members found this useful.

Study, Meditation and Service

Posted December 28th, 2008 by Jerry Sherwood

I am Eternally grateful for

The Peaceful Ground of Equanimity

on which to stand

The Compassionate Eye of Wisdom

that Lights the Way

And the Joyful Heart of Love

in Action

Prayer of Gratitude[1]

Study, Meditation & Service

All spiritual traditions and paths - to some degree or another, in one form or another - include these three injunctions[2] as essential practice for those aspiring to discover greater depth and meaning in life. They are usually interpreted as requiring extra time and effort devoted to studying prescribed scriptures and/or other text, formal sitting meditation and/or prayer, and sacrificial service to those in need. It sounds like a lot of hard work and discipline. From this perspective it's no wonder most people shy away from the so called spiritual life and why those who don't often seem more sullen than happy.

What if I was to tell you that when you penetrate to the depths of simplicity in these three injunctions you will discover they are not three tasks you must undertake, but A Single Way of Being/Doing that brings ease and joy, love and light into daily living!

I hope to stimulate in you a new perspective on these aged pillars of the spiritual paths. When viewed as a whole study, meditation and service are revealed to be the integration of Being/Doing. This is the full engagement of Life as it is meant to be – inspired and "in joy able" under all circumstances.

All who seek to consciously tread a spiritual path can be said to be divinely dissatisfied. That is, they are deeply dissatisfied with being perpetually dissatisfied. Therefore - when first encountered - study, meditation and service may be seen by you as prescriptions for relief. Whether it is study, meditation or service that holds the most appeal to you depends on the circumstances that provoked your dissatisfaction. There are three varieties and each stimulates a particular need.

Perhaps the turmoil and confusion of daily interactions and personal drama sparked your desire for greater clarity. Maybe the internal and external strife produced by a plethora of beliefs, customs, and conflicting agendas led you to seek resolution through the discovery of Truth. Or it could be that the lack of fulfillment in the attainment of personal goals moved you to search for greater life purpose. Study, meditation and service can be seen as a means to these ends. They are usually understood as three distinct and separate activities.

The potential pitfall at this stage is becoming captivated by one of these disciplines to the exclusion of the other two. Such a lopsided approach leads to a life out of balance. With an over emphasis on meditation you risk becoming addicted to the re-creation of peace and clarity during your formal practice. If you rely on study alone you are likely to become trapped in an intellectual cul-de-sac, addicted to feelings of security that come from the reinforcement of mental positions. And focusing on service alone can leave you restless and ill at ease when not engaged in your service activity and distracted from your feelings.

But clarity on the cushion while still clouded in daily life is pointless, truth without application is meaningless and purpose in life is not found in what we do but how and why we do it. Therefore it is wise to seek a closer relationship between these three facets of the spiritual path.

As we bring the openness of the meditative mind into our studies and the curiosity of our studious nature into our meditation insights arise. In seeking to be of service to the truth and to bring truth into service we allow the values of truth to be paramount in determining how we interact with others; our ethics are shaped by the truth as we know it. And finally, being open and compassionate in relating to our self and others manifests as mindfulness in our service and meditation practices. With time we come to understand that studying is not limited to the scriptures, meditation is not confined to the cushion and service is not bound by place and time.

Caught in a self-centered dream, only suffering

Holding to self-centered thoughts, exactly the dream

This moment, Life as it is, the only teacher

Being just this moment, Compassion’s Way

Anonymous

Vows from San Diego Zen Center[3]

While the bringing together of all three facets of spiritual practice in this manner does serve to extend them more into daily life, there still remain subtle separations. There are separations both between the three spheres of practice and between the practitioner and the practices. That is, the perception is that insight informs and shapes ethics, ethics are applied to behavior and mindfulness is something we do in relationship to our activity. Although it can easily be seen that each practice impacts the others it is equally clear that a slight time/space separation still exists between the practices.

Regarding the separation remaining between practitioner and practice do not be fooled by language. Even though the words we use may imply “being” – such as, “I am being mindful” – the understanding is more likely to be that the practice of mindfulness is, “something I do”. Given that the natural developmental structures in human consciousness shaped through millennia of cultural and social conditioning firmly underpin the tendency toward “self-centered” thinking this is not a surprise! The surprise lies in the discovery that the spiritual practice initially adopted as a means towards the ending of my suffering could well become a camouflaged trap blocking the exit from my “self-centered dream”.

Do not be mistaken. This is not an attack on spiritual practice. This is a journey through the complexities of thought surrounding spiritual practices to the simplicity of Being/Doing that lay at their heart. The next step is to look into the heart and discover what it takes to reside there.

You can see into the heart of study, meditation and service by returning to where we started – to the apparent needs that prompted our conscious entry onto the spiritual path. We sought a higher Truth in hopes of bridging the gaps in our own fractured psyche and in conflicted humanity. We sought Clarity when we saw the folly and consequences of the “blind leading the blind”. We sought greater Purpose following the revelation that our goals based on personal aggrandizements are hollow. In short our felt need for Truth, Clarity and Purpose is rooted in Love. The Love I am pointing to is not a sentimental memory or attitude nor an emotional state dependent on the ebb and flow of circumstance. It is Love free of limitations and conditions, unbound in expression and extension. It is an all inclusive Love

This diagram illustrates how Love is central in motivating us to study, meditate and serve. What it also indicates is that when Love’s centrality is recognized Clarity, Wisdom and appropriate Action are seen to be natural and spontaneous manifestations, free from the constraints of any particular form or discipline. What is implied but cannot really be shown is that there is no separation. It is all Love as Being/Doing.

This is analogous to walking along familiar paths in a forest. You know where you want to go and where the various pathways lead. Coming upon a fork in the trail there is no separation in seeing, knowing and doing; you simply step onto the correct path. The choice is seen, decided and acted upon in one smooth unbroken motion. So it is with the Heart of Love. There is no separation between sensing, knowing and appropriate response.

The spiritual impulse then is not to have or share love. Our innate drive is to “Be Love”.

Seeking this one will never find it

Fleeing this one will never escape it

Grasping this one will never hold it

Stand still with this and this is all there is

Just This[4]

Your next question might well be, “How do I do it? How can I Be Love?” And the answer is, there is nothing that you can do to “Be Love”. You can only discover the Love that you are already.

So, you ask, “Where is this Love? Why have I never seen it? If I am this Love why have I never experienced it? If I am this Love how can I be so hateful?” Consider this. After hearing wondrous stories of water’s life giving and nourishing qualities a fish goes in search for that marvelous elixir. When nothing extraordinary is encountered he decides water really doesn’t exist. It’s not that the water is too far away or too well hidden to be found. On the contrary, it is the close proximity and ever present nature of the water that conceals it from the fish. Water is the very substance in which he has always lived, moved and had his being and it was never experienced as anything other than ordinary. It never warranted any special attention and if its presence was even noted at all it was with an air of indifference. And all too often this is how it is with Love. But, not only do we live, move and have our being in this Love – we are this Love.

I am saying that Love is now and has always been present and is always perfect in its activity. Therefore all activity (and non activity) you have ever experienced was Love in Action and perfectly appropriate. It is understandable that you may chafe at this statement. After all, it probably seems perfectly clear to you that Love could have no hand in much of our every day strife, let alone the daily string of misery and atrocities we witness in the world. But consider this. Young children are quick to judge the wise and loving actions of their parents as uncaring and hurtful. However, any loving parent knows full well that pleasing the child is not necessarily in the child’s best interest. The wise parent also realizes that as the children get older allowing them to suffer the consequences of their actions can be the most loving – and hardest – non activity one will undertake. And so it is with this Love.

You need not take my word for it though. Just honestly reflect back through your life experiences. From your present perspective, with the benefit of hindsight, answer this, “how many of your so called tragedies have actually turned out to have beneficial consequences?” Perhaps right now you can only see one or two instances where this is so. Even if there is just one example, you will have to admit that the limitation of perspective can and does distort the Truth.

So, perhaps you are beginning to open up to the possibility that this Love does exist and has already been the active agent in Life. But still some questions remain. Such as, “What are the circumstances that will allow me to be more aware of this Love?” And, “What does it mean to Be Love?” Let us explore these questions.

You must start from where you are in any process of discovery. In regards to the first question that means you must first seek to discover what it is right now that is keeping this Love hidden from view. A clue is to be found in the short exercise above. There you utilized the marvelous capacity of mind to enlarge perspective by reflecting back over time. It was only from this broader perspective that the evidence for Love in Action could be revealed. It is not unreasonable then to infer that the more limited your perspective the more limited your perception of Love.

How many ways do you limit your perspective? What are the effects on perspective of your judgments, preferences and beliefs? How does your perspective change when you are able to put yourself in the other person’s shoes? What happens when you take an “objective” stance? Do things look different when you consider the environmental or systemic conditions? How many ways are there to enlarge your perspective?

These are not questions that I am going to answer for you. They are not even questions to be answered conclusively by you. These questions are an invitation to explore. I only suggest that as you explore you pay attention along the way to what happens to “you”. What must happen to the boundaries of “you” in order to move through various perspectives? Also, how does changing perspectives affect the quality of relationship? Take some time to really examine these questions before you continue.

Now, what about the second question? “What does it mean to Be Love?” If you actively pursued the above exploration even a little it should be apparent to you that the broader the perspective the more inclusive it is. What is the quality of your perception when you simply take in all that arises - all perceptions, thoughts, feelings, everything? Just sit like that for a while, totally allowing everything to be as it is. If attention wanders that’s OK too. What happens when it does? Take a few minutes with this and then proceed.

It has been said that Love is infinite and all inclusive. It can be likened to the space which both surrounds and interpenetrates all phenomenal objects. From this wide open perspective, are You so very different?

So, there you have it. Study, Meditation and Service are practices that point the way to the Heart of Love in Action. It does not take time to enter there, because there is where You are already. However, it may take time for the illusory you to drop the illusion of control. When You know who You are You can’t help but enjoy the ride.

[1] Prayer of gratitude, 2007, JLS

[2] Not all traditions include an injunction to meditate. However, prayer pursued to its deepest level of communion with God leads one to a place of stillness. It is simply a matter of differing terminology. The goal of prayer and meditation is the same, Clarity.

[3] From the endnotes of “Nothing Special”, by Charlotte Joko Beck. 1993, Harper Collins

[4] Just This, 1998, JLS

Please Login to Add Comments
show all sub-comments
Report Abuse

Please Log in to Vote.

3 out of 3 members found this useful.

Evolutionary Love

Posted December 29th, 2008 by David Marshall

Hi Jerry,

Great blog. I really like the meditation, study, service triad, and also wisdom, clarity, action. This is a particularly great line at the end:

Study, Meditation and Service are practices that point the way to the Heart of Love in Action.

However, I want to discuss these lines:

Normal 0 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 Normal 0 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

Normal 0 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

There is a lot to this perspective, much more than a lot of people realize, but I don't think it is considering the evolutionary perspective. It sounds a little mythological and predeterministic the way it stands now.

First of all, we would have to ask for evidence that this is true. I understand that it can seem like it is true, but that is just one perspective.

I think it's problematic for a number of reasons. For one thing, it is a perspective that could enable all sorts of manipulation, energy vampiring, and the like--once an action is committed a person could simply declare: "The Self is perfect! Love is perfect!"

I also think it's an idea that could undermine the action part of your wisdom, clarity, action triad. "There is no need for action here because you haven't been victimized. Love is always and has always been perfect."

Now, the need to stay out of the victim position is essential to deep authenticity. However, the need to evolve and participate in the evolution of all four quadrants is equally essential. I think we have to come up with a formulation that is paradoxical, something like: "Love is always perfect and always needs to improve," or something like that. I understand that "perfect" is an absolute, but I think a parodox is necessary to integrate the evolutionary perspective, the evolutionary nature of Love.

~David

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

Love is evolution

Posted December 29th, 2008 by Jerry Sherwood in response to Evolutionary Love

Hello David,

I am deeply grateful for your honest feedback and well considered critique. This is precisely what I hoped to find here at Integral Life; you have not disappointed me. You bring up valid concerns and important points that are well worth discussing.

In regards to my assertion “ … that Love is now and has always been present and is always perfect in its activity. Therefore all activity (and non activity) you have ever experienced was Love in Action and perfectly appropriate” you raise three points which I paraphrase here:

There is no evidence, beyond one perspective, that this is true
It is a position that can be used to justify all sorts of active and passive evil
It is a statement that does not account for evolution

I really love that you started your critique by noting that “we would have to ask for evidence that this is true.” Right off the bat you point to the fundamental pitfall we each face every time we are confronted with statements proposing spiritual truths, our powerful habit to make assumptions. To fall into this trap can lead us “down the garden path to the very gates of hell” or hide from our view the “gateless gate” of Nirvana. Either way the ultimate consequences of making false assumptions are usually not pleasant to experience.

So, I fully agree with your assertion that we must demand “evidence” before we accept or reject any spiritual statement. However, we must also ask ourselves, “what constitutes acceptable evidence?” We are faced here with the dilemma that has fueled the integral movement from the outset; how to reconcile the various truth claims of science and religion.

AQAL integral theory proposes the quadrants as a solution to this dilemma in that each quadrant has its own set of validity claims and methodologies for claim verification. Furthermore, there are three forms of knowledge to be considered, depending on whether it was acquired via the eye of the flesh, the eye of mind or the eye of spirit. The question of absolute perfection is one that can only be properly investigated individually via the “eye of the spirit”; it is matter of individual subjectivity (UL quadrant)

As such, to suggest that this claim may not be valid on the basis that it is “just one perspective” is meaningless if this is saying that it is just “one person’s” perspective as that is precisely what defines the upper left quadrant. The best evidence available is for a person to subjectively “look” for their self with the “eye of the spirit.” Until that is the case the next best evidence will be the testimony of those that have looked and reported back on what they found. There is more than sufficient evidence of this nature to support the statement. But, this evidence is really only sufficient to determine for oneself if the matter is worthy of their personal investigation.

Regarding the second point, you say that the statement in question “… is a perspective that could enable all sorts of manipulation, energy vampiring, and the like …”and that“it's an idea that could undermine the action part of your wisdom, clarity, action triad.”Is it really fair to say a statement is dangerous because (hypothetically) it may be used to rationalize irrational and possibly harmful acts? If that is the case then how many truthful statements must we eliminate as potentially useful guides along the way? Is there a more complete way to examine the goodness and utility of this statement? I suggest that there is.

First, consider what happens if we believe that our experience in the world is comparable to a “roll of the dice”; sometimes we are winners and sometimes we are losers and life has no meaning and purpose beyond our chance encounters. Or, we can consider the results of believing that the world is an evil place and our purpose is to save ourselves and others from this world. These, of course, are the dominant beliefs of humanity now so we do not have to rely on a hypothetical to determine how well they have served us.

It is only after an honest and thorough analyses of the hazards and benefits of these two positions that we can fairly consider how the consequences of opening up to the possibility that our experience in this world is an act of Love compares. Do the risks outweigh the benefits? I leave it to you to make your own assessment but will be pleased to examine these questions in more detail with you if you wish.

Finally, you say that you don’t think this statement “is considering the evolutionary perspective” But, I say that in saying “all activity (and non activity) you have ever experienced [is] Love in Action and perfectly appropriate” change, purpose and directionality are implied and this is fully in accord with the proposition of “an evolutionary impulse.” In fact, one could say that "Love is Evolution" As to the need for a paradox I agree there are times when this is a more skillful way to speak of the “Great Perfection.” A paradoxical expression not included in this blog, but one I often use, is to say our world is “Perfectly imperfect.”

As to your tangential concern that this all sounds pre-deterministic I can only say that as far as I can tell the question of free will vs. determinism is a red herring; in the end it really makes no difference at all. But, if an answer ever does come you can bet it too will only be adequately expressed by a paradox; maybe something along the lines of "we have no choice but to choose."

Namaste,

Jerry-

It is in the clarity of Conscious Awareness that Truth is revealed.

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

levels of love

Posted December 30th, 2008 by David Marshall in response to Love is evolution

Hi Jerry,

Great points. It's a really interesting discussion, and I appreciate your careful and deeply informed responses. I think this is a particularly important question, too, one with all sorts of ramifications for spiritual practice, meditation, and love in action, so I think it's great that we are going into it. Let's explore it a little.

The best evidence available is for a person to subjectively “look” for their self with the “eye of the spirit.” Until that is the case the next best evidence will be the testimony of those that have looked and reported back on what they found.

Well, that would be a zone # 1 perspective, what you are calling the "eye of the spirit." That's very important of course and not to be dismissed. For it to consititute evidence, however, we have to compare it with the notes other zone #1 adepts and see if other explorers have the same interpretation. If all the zone #1 adepts in all the traditions agree that love is always perfect and nothing inappropriate has ever happened, then we might adopt it as a tentative theory (until a better one came long, as they always do), but it's not the case that all zone # 1 adepts come away with that interpretation.

Also, it may not have been entirely correct to reduce it to zone #1, because I think we are actually taking an exterior view of various processes around the quadrants as well. In other words, a person who adopted the view that love is always and has always been perfect will be doing things like looking back on the holocaust or genocide in other parts of the world and thinking, "Love was perfect even then. That was just what those people or that situation needed." Other perspectives will have to be considered. Someone with a knowledge of genocide around the world might point out, "Look, over here in this country genocide was averted soon after it started. How can we say it is just as perfect here when 7 million were killed? These people over here found a way out of it, or there was an intervention, etc."

The idea that everything that's happened being appropriate leads us to make conclusions that we have insufficient information to make. How do we know that genocide was appropriate for those people who were killed or had family members killed? Do we have a view on their zone #1? We don't. We would have to talk to them to find out what that is. There might be zone #1 adepts among them as well, so we would want to talk with them. I recently read an article about a woman in Iran--a man she had refused to marry threw acid in her face. And it is a relatively common occurence there; such things (honor killings and the like) have far more cultural acceptance there than they do in the United States, for example, where pretty much everyone agrees it is not an appropriate thing to do. And we don't know enough about those people to say conclusively it was appropriate for them to have acid thrown in their face for their marriage refusal or be killed for dating someone of a different ethnicity. To think so would require a leap of faith.

I think that the word "perfection" is not going to help us used in this way. I think we would be better saying something like, "Everything is infused with Evolutionary Love without excception, but there are higher and higher levels of Evolutionary Love. At one level of love you get acid thrown in your face if you're a woman who refuses a certain kind of guy. At another level of love you don't."

Just a short while ago, Andrew Cohen posted a "Quote of the Week" in which he uses the word perfection. Here it is:

An Evolutionary Posture

I believe that the creative impulse behind the evolving universe is, by its very nature, a drive toward perfection. But paradoxically, it is important to understand that perfection can never be realized in the manifest world. You are never going to reach perfection; I’m never going to reach perfection. It’s just not possible. Before anything happened, before something burst out of nothing, we could say there was perfection. Perfection exists in the unborn, unmanifest, unbecome state or place, which is the ground of all Being, in every moment. But the minute that leap was taken from formlessness to form, perfection was left behind. The whole creative process can be understood as the eternal striving for perfection that can never be reached. The entire Kosmos is endlessly reaching toward perfection but destined never to get there. As I teach it, the perfect posture to be assumed by the individual who wants to develop is this: We would strive to manifest that relationship to life in which we are always reaching for perfection, while knowing that we are never going to reach it. What a paradox! Why would you strive to reach something that you could never possibly reach? Because that puts you in the best possible position to evolve.

Andrew Cohen

So, perfection, if we want to use that word, is Brahmin, the unmanifest, not the manifest, for Andrew Cohen. But the perfection of Brahmin is always in the process of being brought into the manifest world, and there will always be a way to improve things.

Is it really fair to say a statement is dangerous because (hypothetically) it may be used to rationalize irrational and possibly harmful acts?

I have seen it happen before. It is not all that far from what Charles Manson said, "Since all is One, nothing is wrong." [Spiritual Choices, p. 257] If love is always perfect and nothing inappropriate has ever been done, then nothing inappropriate will ever be done either. If such a thing were possible--that inappropriate behavior were possible--then we couldn't say love is always perfect. Or, we would have to say something like, "Love has always been perfect over the past 14 billion years, but if you do that, it won't be. It will be the first imperfection! So you better not!" And that would be kind of silly, of course.

Take the case of someone who was abused sexually by their parents. I can perhaps see some therapeutic benefit to framing it in such a way that it can become a source of strength or something that inspired new explorations for the person, but there are at least a couple of problems with that. I believe, first of all, at some stage people need to be allowed to feel victimized, have the crime be acknowledged, feel bad about it, etc. Then later there can be other interpretations if a person likes.

But if we say that love is always perfect and everything has always been appropriate, what are we going to say to a child who is still in that situation? Are we going to say love is perfect; nothing inappropriate has happened to you; go back and be your father's sexual partner? Perhaps a person who really likes the love is always perfect idea but still wants to be reasonable will say something like, "Well, it was appropriate because love is always perfect, but now love wants to help you get out." But even if someone were to say that, they've admitted that if the child stayed there inappropriate action would take place. And sometimes, of course, it takes real hard work to get children out of situations like that and highly developed people to do it. We have all heard of situations where relatively selfish people turned a blind eye and didn't report crimes--how do we know it is perfect in all cases? We don't. To think so would simply require a leap of faith, including for the person with the spiritual eye who believed love is always perfect because the idea is in the realm of interpretation in the first place. It is an idea that is enacted in a certain worldspace.

At any rate, I think levels of love will work better. At some levels of love, the love is quite crude with enormous side effects. At higher levels of love there are fewer side effects; it is better, more efficient. If we want to say that the women who get acid thrown in their faces need to learn more about love, as believers in the love is always perfect idea might say, there are ways for them to learn those lessons in more subtle ways, without having the acid thrown in their faces and having to live with those consequences.

The question of free will vs. determinism is a red herring; in the end it really makes no difference at all. But, if an answer ever does come you can bet it too will only be adequately expressed by a paradox; maybe something along the lines of "we have no choice but to choose."

I don't think it was a red herring because originally you had taken the idea of conscious choice out of the formulation, simply saying that love is always perfect and nothing inappropriate has ever happened in the past, the implication being that nothing inappropriate ever could happen.

Once again, I think it would work better if we used perfection in the way that Andrew Cohen did--something to strive for rather than something already manifest--and think of it terms of levels of love or something like that. One thing that might be happening is people who like this idea are taking zone # 1 experiences that they interpret or language as "perfection" and then try to apply that as a rule of thumb for other quadrants, which would be a category error. It is one thing for a meditation teacher, for example, to say to a student that everything is perfect and always has been as a way of deepening their meditation, but it is an entirely different thing to ask that person to use it as a rule of thumb in the intersubjective.

~David

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Love as absolute and relative

Posted December 31st, 2008 by Jerry Sherwood in response to levels of love

Hello David,

I want to start with a clarification. It involves a technicality of integral theory that has a direct bearing on our discussion, plus it is important that we not confuse other interested readers of these blogs by misapplying important terminology.

When responding to my statement concerning the “best evidence” you said, “ … that would be a zone # 1 perspective, what you are calling the ‘eye of the spirit.’” You are correct that I was speaking about zone # 1 (an interior view on the U.L. quadrant) but you are incorrect in saying that I called this the “eye of the spirit”.

Here is how I introduced that term in my earlier comment, “AQAL integral theory proposes the quadrants as a solution to this dilemma in that each quadrant has its own set of validity claims and methodologies for claim verification. Furthermore, there are three forms of knowledge to be considered, depending on whether it was acquired via the eye of the flesh, the eye of mind or the eye of spirit.” (underlining added for emphasis) These are not my terms but come from Ken Wilber[1] (eye of spirit is also called the eye of contemplation) and they refer to three modes of investigation that can be applied to all four quadrants/eight zones of the integral map.

It was important for me to bring this term into the discussion because we are talking about the resolution of an absolute/relative problem which “we cannot solve … empirically, using the eye of the flesh and its sensibilia; nor can we solve it rationally, using the eye of mind and its intelligibilia. The solution, rather, involves the direct apprehension of transcendelia, which are disclosed only by the eye of contemplation …”[2]

We are in agreement, David, that in the relative world of our daily experience there are “levels of love” to be considered; ranging from the most constricted to the most expansive. (see “Love is”, in reply to Ruth, below) But, the question you are raising is whether or not we should speak of Love in the absolute at all. And, now twice, you have attempted to cut the discussion off at the root by calling the “evidence” for Love (in the absolute sense) into question.

I addressed your call for “evidence” and proposed as “best evidence” an individual, subjective investigation using the “eye of the spirit” (eye of contemplation) and the “second best evidence” as being the reports of those who have so investigated the question. You have rightly pointed out that “best evidence” needs to include confirmation by others who have properly investigated the question. But, you expand on this requirement by saying, “If all the zone #1 adepts in all the traditions agree that love is always perfect and nothing inappropriate has ever happened, then we might adopt it as a tentative theory …” (underline added for emphasis)

This is like saying that in order for a scientific theory to be validated “ALL” scientist in the field must agree with the findings, even if their techniques of investigation are not the same or their terminology may be different. Well, we all know, that ain’t gonna happen. And, if it was the scientific standard by which scientific investigators decided whether or not to proceed science would have been stopped in its tracks long ago. (goodbye Darwin, goodbye Einstein) In fact, it is just this type of reasoning that the creationist relies on in arguments against Darwin’s theory of evolution.

You go on to say that “… it's not the case that all zone # 1 adepts come away with that interpretation” (that Love is always perfect) but, you do not cite a single adept or tradition in support of your contention. Likewise, earlier I suggested, “There is more than sufficient evidence of this nature to support the statement” without citing any sources. So, let me correct that error of omission now.

First, let me clarify that I am speaking about Perfect Love in the absolute sense, as in the Judean/Christian tradition which states that “God is Love”[3] and also that God is perfect[4]

(perhaps a few adepts had some input into these texts?)

There is also this from Gautama Buddha, ““When you realize how perfect everything is you will tilt your head back and laugh at the sky”[5]

Then there is this from Ken at the conclusion of No Boundary, “Everything we tried to do was wrong because everything was already and eternally right. Even what appeared as a primal resistance to Brahman was actually a movement of Brahman, because there is nothing but Brahman”

Tarthang Tulku speaks of “being itself” as perfect[6] and in the context of his writings it appears to me that he is speaks of “being itself” in the same fashion that Ken is using the term Brahman.

These are just a few of the readily available quotes from those or about those that may well be considered to be “adept” at seeing through the “eye of spirit” I am pretty sure I can find Sufi, Taoist, and others with a little more time and effort.

As to your legitimate examples of the many stupid and brutal actions of people that could hardly be called appropriate I would agree. But, I never said that these actions were appropriate in the relative sense. But even this does not negate the proposition that “all activity (and non activity)… [is] Love in Action and perfectly appropriate” from the perspective of the absolute. Of course we can continue to go back and forth on this forever without resolution as long as we continue to pit the intelligibila of the “eye of mind” against the transcendelia of the “eye of spirit”. It is only right though that we keep in mind that the appropriateness of conduct on the relative level has it appropriate place within the absolute as well.

I want to assure you that the very questions you raise here I too have grappled with before being willing to make a statement such as this. But, what I concluded in the end is that the people that argue against it the most are not so much afraid of what they might do if they discovered this was true. They are afraid of what other people might do if they came to “believe” this to be true. But, the fact is with or without such a concept people are and will likely continue for some time doing unspeakable things. The real question is, can coming to “know” this be of help?

The problems you speak of are very real if one simply holds onto this as an idea or “belief.” And, yes, even someone that temporarily sees through “the eye of spirit” can grasp and distort the Truth they see and act on it as a belief, as Charlie Manson did. But this is not the same as “knowing” the Truth. The only way Truth/Love can really be “known” is moment by moment. Love cannot be held as a thought or even experienced as a feeling.Rather, “love is transformation moment by moment.” [7]

It is really a matter of how much of this tremendous Love we can express in our actions in any given moment. And it is the greater capacity for Love in action that seems to be the direction that evolution is moving in.

With all of this said I want to stress once again that in the end, you and I agree. There are levels of Love in expression. At the lowest, most constricted and distorted end of the spectrum its expressions are unrecognizable as Love to the “eye of mind.” At the upper end there is still not perfection, but such expressions are truly inspiring and can serve as a beacon to us all to help us stay on course.

Respectfully,

Jerry

(p.s. I didn't mean to imply that you were intentionally tossing out a "red herring" as a distraction from our discussion when you brought up free will. And I apologize for not making that clear. I just meant that I have found that argument in general to be a distraction. When you get down to it though, it is another question that can only be investigated appropriately with the "eye of contemplation")

[1] Ken Wilber, Eye to Eye, 1983 & 1996 and the Eye of the Spirit, 1997

[2] Ken Wilber, The Eye of Spirit, 1997, pg. 89

[3] Holy Bible, I John, 4:8 & 16

[4] Holy Bible, Deut. 32:4, Psalms 19:30, Mat. 5:48, Rom. 12:2, II Cor. 13:11

[5] http://en.thinkexist.com/search/searchquotation.asp?search=perfect&q=author%3A%22Buddha%22

[6] Tarthang Tulku, Dynamics of Time and Space, 1994, xviii

[7] J. Krishnamurti, The First and Last Freedom, 1975, pg 288-

It is in the clarity of Conscious Awareness that Truth is revealed.

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Why wait?

Posted December 31st, 2008 by Katherine Konner in response to Love as absolute and relative

Well, I'll jump in! Hello David, Jerry, and all.

Seems that the word judge/judgement ought to be used in this discussion, because I hear how it is replacing perfection and the difficulty of it's presence. Did you guys see "The Last Samurai"? Do you remember how Ken Watanabe saw the cherry (?) blossom/s, looking for it's perfection? Not until his last breath did he understand.

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

blossoms in the wind?

Posted December 31st, 2008 by Jerry Sherwood in response to Why wait?

Hi Katherine,

Could you please expand on your first comment? I'd love to hear more on what you hear in this discussion.

I did see the Last Samurai but I am much better with overall impressions of movies than the details so correct me if I am mistaken. It seems to me that the blossoms were taken by the wind as he took his last breath, conveying that the blossom's perfection was only revealed with the completion of its cycle.

Jer

p.s. I will reply to your other inquiry sometime tomorrow when I have more time.

It is in the clarity of Conscious Awareness that Truth is revealed.

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Blossoms of Love

Posted January 1st, 2009 by Katherine Konner in response to blossoms in the wind?

Here is what the impression about judgement is about. When using the Integral Approach, it is one heck of an amazing tool for evaluating... the trick is, that when you make analyses (or simply gather information), it's not (always) about comparing it to what you already know.

Value contains judgement and if I kept approaching new material, experiences, etc. by whether it fits with my present values or not, very likely I'd be waiting and waiting and waiting... I'd need to surrender to my intellectual coat of armor, and surrender to my spirit throwing me out of the water once in a while.... whatever it takes for me to finally realize I live in water, and that it is this water that keeps me alive (the fish story).

Your presentation Jerry provided me with more than an intellectual clue. Within your writing is an actual experience about "love" for the reader. The understanding occurs while reading. So when I read through David's analyses, I noticed the constant use of value comparing, and I feel the resistance through judgement.

I don't know though, if David is partaking in both the role of trying to get Jerry to be a better writer and/or change what he is saying. Because they way this discussion is progressing, the IOS is getting a wonderful workout! Yet according to what Jerry's material is about, according to the first diagram, this analysis keeps remaining separated... whereas the objective of the subject, the element of Love, is meant to bring all these analyses together. So David, I challenge you to find where your material presented, where it comes from, your water. You are a valiant fighter. PS. Please tell me what you are fighting for if it isn't discovering your water!

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

[Comment Deleted]

Posted December 31st, 2008 by admin in response to Love as absolute and relative

This comment has been deleted by the author.

1 Comment

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

IMP, two truths, etc.

Posted January 1st, 2009 by David Marshall in response to Love as absolute and relative

Hi Jerry,

Great discussion. I really love a lot of the things you say. This is a particularly great line:

"It is really a matter of how much of this tremendous Love we can express in our actions in any given moment. And it is the greater capacity for Love in action that seems to be the direction that evolution is moving in."

So let me take your response point by point.

Jerry: “'AQAL integral theory proposes the quadrants as a solution to this dilemma in that each quadrant has its own set of validity claims and methodologies for claim verification. Furthermore, there are three forms of knowledge to be considered, depending on whether it was acquired via the eye of the flesh, the eye of mind or the eye of spirit.' (underlining added for emphasis) These are not my terms but come from Ken Wilber[1] (eye of spirit is also called the eye of contemplation) and they refer to three modes of investigation that can be applied to all four quadrants/eight zones of the integral map."

This is not correct. The three eyes--eye of the flesh, mind, and spirit--is really an early version of Integral Methodological Pluralism, an early version of the eight hori-zones, not different modes of investigations within each hori-zone. He translates the three eyes as empricism (the eye of the flesh), rationalism (eye of the mind), and mysiticism (eye of the spirit)--just a very early verson of IMP, with three modes of investigation rather than eight. [Eye of the Spirit, Integral Spirituality] The eye of the spirit (contemplation, meditation) is zone #1; the eye of the flesh (empricism) is zone # 6, and eye of the mind (reason) is basically referring various philisophies in the other zones.

We could also look at it in terms of the Big Three. The following quotes are from A Brief History of Everything:

The Spiritual Big Three:

Beauty (I): "The deeepest recesses of your consciousness directly intersect Spirit itself, in the Supreme Identity. . . 'I am Buddha,' the ultimate beauty."

Good (we): "We are all members of the council of all beings, the mystical church, the Ultimate We. Which is ultimate ethics, ultimate Good."

Truth (It): "And the ultimate objective truth is that all beings are perfect manifestations of Spirit or Emptiness--we are all manifestations of the ultimate It, or Dharma. Which is the ultimate Truth."

So, when you say that the three eyes are occuring in each hori-zone, you are not integrating the Big Three but privileging one, in this case"Truth (It)"--you are moving "all beings are perfect manifestations of Spirit" into the intersubjective and saying every action or relationship is perfect and everything action or relationship has been appropriate (and by implication will be). That's a category error, unless you're really saying there is no free will or choice, that everything is pre-determined, in which case we would have to ask for proof.

Let's drop the three eyes (they're obsolete) and use the Wilber V Integral Methodological Pluralism (eight hori-zones) from Integral Spirituality.

Jerry: But, the question you are raising is whether or not we should speak of Love in the absolute at all. And, now twice, you have attempted to cut the discussion off at the root by calling the “evidence” for Love (in the absolute sense) into question.

That's not the question I was raising. The question I was raising is whether it is correct to say that "all activity (and non activity) you have ever experienced was Love in Action and perfectly appropriate."

Also, I don't think questioning assumptions qualifies as an attempt "cut the discussion off at the root." I would rather call it the root of the discussion! :)

David: “If all the zone #1 adepts in all the traditions agree that love is always perfect and nothing inappropriate has ever happened, then we might adopt it as a tentative theory …"

Jerry: This is like saying that in order for a scientific theory to be validated “ALL” scientist in the field must agree with the findings, even if their techniques of investigation are not the same or their terminology may be different.

Yes, of course. I assumed you wouldn't take that literally. I was being a little facetious.

Jerry: You go on to say that “… it's not the case that all zone # 1 adepts come away with that interpretation” (that Love is always perfect) but, you do not cite a single adept or tradition in support of your contention.

I did cite a source, Andrew Cohen, whose quote can be summarized like this:

"Perfection exists in the unborn, unmanifest, unbecome state or place, which is the ground of all Being, in every moment. But the minute that leap was taken from formlessness to form, perfection was left behind. The whole creative process can be understood as the eternal striving for perfection that can never be reached. The entire Kosmos is endlessly reaching toward perfection but destined never to get there."

All the quotes you gave--"there is nothing but Brahmin" etc.--are simply zone-# 1 expressions of nonduality. They are not claiming that every action has always been appropriate, which is a relative question. The Buddha, for example, stressed right action, right speech, compassion, etc. all of which implies that people can act in less than appropriate ways. The only people who think that every action has been appropriate are the pre-determinists. The question of free will/choice is not a trivial distraction but one of the most important issues.

Integral asks us to hold a paradox rather than latch on to one of the two truths: the Absolute and Relative, the One and the Many, the Perfect and the Imperfect.

Blessings,

David

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

Is Love in Action always appropriate?

Posted January 2nd, 2009 by Jerry Sherwood in response to IMP, two truths, etc.

Hello David,

I have read and re-read your comment. Re-read the first chapter of Integral Spirituality on Integral Methodological Pluralism (and Integral Post-Metaphysics) and consulted a number of other related sources in order to re-assess whether or not the statement in question stands up to an Integral inspection. I have contemplated it all, went about daily activities while lightly holding it and slept on it. I feel now it is time to sit down to write and see what the response will be.

I first want to say that I fully agree with your concluding comment, “Integral asks us to hold a paradox rather than latch on to one of the two truths: the Absolute and Relative, the One and the Many, the Perfect and the Imperfect.” I would also like to point out that the operative phrase here is “… to hold … rather than latch on to …” This does not preclude the recognition or realization of one or the other of these two truths.

Looking back over our conversation so far it does not appear to me that I have in any way violated this Integral request. The statements that, “Love is now and has always been present and is always perfect in its activity. Therefore all activity (and non activity) you have ever experienced was Love in Action and perfectly appropriate” were made in the context of a short treatise on study, meditation and service. As such these statements were given as pointers to the Creative Process. They were never presented as or intended to be a “belief” to be latched onto as some sort of guiding principle.

As to “holding” the paradox, that was the purpose of the concluding statements, “Study, Meditation and Service are practices that point the way to the Heart of Love in Action. It does not take time to enter there, because there is where You are already. However, it may take time for the illusory you to drop the illusion of control.” (underline added for emphasis) While not directly citing the paradox of the Great Perfection of our imperfect world (experience) it points to the “timeless” nature of the Absolute while acknowledging the “in time” nature of the relative. And, it offers no indication that perfection of the relative is even a possibility.

It is always good for us to be fully aware of how we are holding a paradox. Is it grasped with one hand by one end? Or do we let it gently rest in both hands where we can easily feel the texture of both ends and share what we feel with others?

Next, let’s re-examine the “three eyes of knowing” and whether or not they are “obsolete”; simply “an early version of the eight hori-zones”. I agree that there is no mention of the “three eyes” in Integral Spirituality and that one may infer from this fact that they are an “obsolete” notion according to the Wilber V model. But, I do not agree with that inference and do not see that it can be supported. Let me explain.

First, lets consider what you pointed out in reference to the Big Three, in particular the “Spiritual Big Three” – the ultimate Good (We), the ultimate Truth (It) and the ultimate Beauty (I). As you well know the Big Three are a shorthand for the four quadrants and therefore also for the eight-horizones (a further division of the quadrants). The point here is that the Ultimate or Spiritual pinnacle of each of the Big Three is beyond the capacity of the “eye of the flesh”, which is limited to sensory input, or the “eye of the mind” which is limited to rational thought. The Ultimate Good, Truth, and Beauty can only be “seen” with the “Eye of the Spirit” because it alone can directly apprehend the Transcendent. If we are to propose an Ultimate, Transcendent reality for each of the Big Three (which is the equivalent to the four quadrants and the eight horizons) then we must allow for the Eye of the Spirit as an investigational mode in these zones. That is my reasoning. Apparently I am not alone.

Brad Reynolds did graduate work at the California Institute of Integral Studies before studying under Ken for the next ten years. In his book, “Where’s Wilber At” he tells us, “The validity claims of the four quadrants are disclosed with the various methodologies that test the veracity of their claims (Integral Methodological Pluralism), which can at least be investigated with the ‘three eyes of knowing,’ i.e., the eye of flesh, the eye of mind, and the eye of spirit.” (pg 181) This book was published in 2006, the same year that Integral Spirituality came out and his writing not only takes full account of the Wilber V model but points to the as yet unpublished work included in Integral Spirit.

Now, regarding your assertion that I have committed a “category error” I am a bit confused. Perhaps you need to clarify your wording on this a bit. I suspect that you may have left something out. It appears to me that you are saying that the mere claim by me that “the three eyes” are available modes for investigation in all 8 zones is itself a “privileging” of the “Truth” over Goodness and Beauty. (btw, I never used the word occurring and am not sure what that even means) Also, earlier you said that my investigation was a zone #1 affair but now you seem to be saying that I am projecting zones 5-8 onto 3 & 4.

I would also like to ask, "when did non-dual" become "simply a zone #1 affair?" Are you saying that non-dual insights have nothing to say about the other zones? Have we gone from a non-dual universe to an eight fold division?

You have politely corrected me as to the nature of your question by saying, “The question I was raising is whether it is correct to say that "all activity (and non activity) you have ever experienced was Love in Action and perfectly appropriate" and I greatly appreciate this clarification. Later you indicated that the question of appropriateness “…is a relative question.” But, if that is so, how could there be an “Ultimate Good”?

In “The Simple Feeling of Being”, by KW we find this “… the extraordinary and altogether paradoxical secret is that the Final Release is always already accomplished. The ‘last step’ is to step off the cycle of time altogether and find the Timeless there from the start, ever-present from the very beginning and at every point along the way. The great far-off spectacular climax … is right now. ‘The Good’, says Hegel, ‘the absolutely Good, is eternally accomplishing itself in the world; and the result is that it need not wait upon us, but is already in full actuality accomplished.” (pg 95)

Once again, in saying that there is now and has only and always been Love in Action I am pointing to this sense of absolute Goodness accomplishing itself. Does this mean that there is no free will? I will say once again. The question is irrelevant. The fact is that our experience is that we do have free will and that we do make choices – even if we choose to believe that we do not have a choice. The best we can say is that we have no choice but to choose.

The real question is, do we choose to live in an accidental universe which is inherently without purpose and meaning? Or, do we choose to see the directionality of Love in Action in its unaltered evolutionary journey towards a full and conscious embrace of Life as relationship? And, if we do so choose, what are we to do?

Respectfully

Jerry

------------------------------

It is in the clarity of Conscious Awareness that Truth is revealed.

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

translative vs. transformative

Posted January 2nd, 2009 by David Marshall in response to Is Love in Action always appropriate?

Hi Jerry,

I appreciate the thoroughness and care of your posting.

The big confusion here is what Ken Wilber meant by the eye of the flesh, eye of the mind, and eye of the spirit. The real culprit, perhaps, is "eye of the flesh." He did not mean by that sensory input. The eye of the flesh is not the five senses, what we feel, see, hear, taste. What he meant by the phrase "eye of the flesh" is the empirical method. I will give you a quote from page 15 of one edition of Eye to Eye: "Let the eye of the flesh speak for the eye of the flesh--and empirical science was invented for just that purpose." Here is another quote from page 16:

"The epitome of fleshy truth is empircal fact; the epitome of mental truth is philosophic and psychologic insight; and the epitome of contemplative truth is spiritual wisdom. We saw that prior to the modern era men and women had not sufficiently differentiated the eyes of flesh, reason, and contemplation, and thus tended to confuse them. Religion tried to be scientific, philosophy tried to be religious, science tried to be philosophic--and all were, to just that extent, wrong. They were guilty of category errors."

So, the "eye of the flesh" is a very misleading phrase. "Eye on the flesh" would be a little more accurate, but really we don't need it anymore because the hori-zones cover the same thing (differentiating the Big Three) better and in a less ambiguous way.

We could add to that list: meditators tried to be moralists, and to that extent they were wrong. Only boddhisattvas can be moralists. Then after they've done their work they can sit on the meditation cushion and "experience" the Great Perfection. But if they thought that love had always been perfect and appropriate that would include all their past behavior as well, as well as future behavior, they would have no need to get up and be boddhisattvas and improve themselves as boddhisattvas. Because if every action has been appropriate, everyone who ever lived, including each shark, cougar, and bear, was a perfect boddhisattva! The idea that everything that has happened to a person has been appropriate is not helpful in making people better and better agents of Love. It is translative rather than transformative. It might make people feel better momentarily, but it won't help them wake up or be better agents of love. It is really an article of faith that can eventually be discarded.

Ninety-nine percent of your blog was transformative, but there were two or three paragraphs in there where you did offer the idea as a belief, saying for example, that children consider the possibility that their parents have always treated them with love (when they may have exploited them, used them for sexual pleasure, broken their legs or put out their eyes to make them better beggars, etc.). Those three paragraphs--while containing an important part of the truth--were nevertheless out of step with the rest of your great, transformative blog, and that is why I pointed them out. It is very important to see the perspective you offered there and stay out of the victim position, but if we go too far and say every action has been appropriate it implies all their actions have and will be appropriate as well and is therefore translative rather than transformative.

Later you indicated that the question of appropriateness “…is a relative question.” But, if that is so, how could there be an “Ultimate Good”?

"Ultimate Good" simply means that greatest relative ethic, the highest level of interpersonal and interobjective love that we can come up with. It is different than the Ultimate Truth, which is nonduality.

The question is anything but irrelevant because higher stages of emodiment are characterized by greater and greater vigilance as well as greater and greater surrender, finer and finer decision making as well as greater and greater letting go. They are two sides of the same coin. It is paradoxical.

Blessings,

David

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Empiricism and the Eye of the Flesh

Posted January 2nd, 2009 by Jerry Sherwood in response to translative vs. transformative

David,

You say "The big confusion here is what Ken Wilber meant by the eye of the flesh, eye of the mind, and eye of the spirit. The real culprit, perhaps, is "eye of the flesh." He did not mean by that sensory input. The eye of the flesh is not the five senses, what we feel, see, hear, taste."

Then I have to ask ,why in 1997, Eye of the Spirit do we find this quote that I offered earlier: “we cannot solve … empirically, using the eye of the flesh and its sensibilia ..." pg 89 (bold and underline added for emphasis) and earlier in the same chapter (pg 84) we find, "The claim of Eye to Eye is that each of these modes of knowing has its own specific and quite valid set of referents: sensibilia, intelligibilia, and transcendelia."

If there is still any doubt that Ken is clearly speaking about the "eye of the flesh" as directly related to the five senses then look at chapter two, The Problem of Proof, in Eye to Eye where he says " ... when James talks about data in the realm of sensibilia, he uses as examples the direct experience of a piece of paper, a tiger, the walls of a room and so on: whatever is immediately given in the present sensibilia. Now that sensory data may in fact be very atomistic ..."

While it is true that the "epitome of fleshy truth is empirical fact" that is merely saying that an empirical fact embodies or is a prime example of fleshy truth. This in no way says that empiricism defines the eye of the flesh rather than the sensibilia (sensory data) that the eye can see. But, even if it does then it should also be noted that empiricism specifically refers to that which is "verifiable by the sense experience" (Eye to Eye, pg 23; Shambhala, 1996, paperback edition)

So, I strongly disagree with your assertion that a better term might be "Eye on the Flesh" because you are implying here that any science that studies zones 5-8 would therefore be empirical science but this is clearly not what Integral theory and AQAL puts forth. Again, from Eye to Eye pg 72,:

"By 'science', let us explicitly mean any discipline that conscientiously folows the three strands of data accumulation and verification, whether in the realm of sensibilia, intelligibilia, or transcendelia.
When the data comes from , or is grounded in, the object domain of sensibilia, let us speak of empiric-analytic or monological ... sciences ...
When the data comes from, or is grounded in, the object domain of intelligibilia, let us speak of mental-phenomnological .... sciences ...
When the data comes from, or is grounded in, the object domain of transcendelia, let us speak of translogical ... sciences"

While the horizones do provide for a more detailed account of the various perspective available and the methodologies appropriate to each they do not provide the needed detail to account for the different "levels" within each zone. For, even if you are correct that the zones do not include the absolute (and you are since the AQAL map is a map of the relative only) that still leaves "spheres or worlds" beyond the physical. Take for instance when speaking of the "three bodies"; the gross body, the subtle body and the causal body. Only the gross body can be "sensed" with the eye of the flesh.

As it stands right now you have failed to provide me any convincing evidence that supports your conclusion that the three modes of knowing are obsolete and replaced by the eight horizones.

I will consider the remainder of your comment and respond as time permits.

Thanks

Jerry

It is in the clarity of Conscious Awareness that Truth is revealed.

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Where is the paradox in transformation?

Posted January 3rd, 2009 by Katherine Konner in response to Empiricism and the Eye of the Flesh

I'm looking into translative. It means the process of translating from one type of language to another, or something different, like a beam me up Scotty, where something is transferred from one place or person to another. So at my level of understanding, if I were to suggest something which then basically, imposes the notion of a (constant as a) belief, for another person to construe as absolute, this is translative? And whereas, if I create or write the idea of any particular truth(s) as paradox, this is transformative? (Because it allows for multiple 'alities?) Also, it seems that the way you describe translative David, it's purpose is for an excuse, whereas when you use transformative, it is for action.

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

transformation and translation

Posted January 3rd, 2009 by Jerry Sherwood in response to Where is the paradox in transformation?

Hi Katherine,

Strange coincidence, you were posting this while I was writing a response to your other comment and in that response I explained the difference between changes in translation and transformational change. I won't repeat that here but I would like to say something about one of your questions. Dave can respond too when he answers your other questions.

It is true that you can change how you translate your experience by adding ideas or attempting to replace them. But, this is not a very effective way to grow. In fact it usually only adds to inner conflict and confusion. Fortunately this is not the only way to make changes in how we make meaning (translate) of the world. I write extensively on this in two other blogs, An Open Door and Feeling Fully if you want to check them out.

Later

Jerry

-----------

It is in the clarity of Conscious Awareness that Truth is revealed.

Please Login to Add Comments
Report Abuse

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

translative, transformative

Posted January 3rd, 2009 by David Marshall in response to Where is the paradox in transformation?

Hi Katherine,

Yes, the word translative used here is a little confusing. What it means in this context is a teaching or practice that might make a person feel better but doesn't actually transform them. For example, if someone were to say, "Don't worry about anything. God will take care of you and always has taken care of you. There is nothing to worry about and nothing to do because God has it all under control," that would be a translative teaching for people at integral or higher, generally speaking. It might be just perfect for a 10-year-old child or thereabouts.

So, when we translate a book from one language to another we are not changing anything about it. It's the same story. The Odyessey in French is pretty much the exact same story as it was in Greek, at least with a good translation. In a spiritual context, it means a teaching that won't help a person evolve vertically, to use Wilber-V language. For example, the Green American neo-Advaita world is full of teachers who won't even discuss ethics; they will just talk about nonduality. So even if one of their students becomes a nondual master, they might not have evolved one iota vertically--they might well simply have deepened their meditation without changing the way they related to the world at all.

We can see this illustrated in the Wilber-Combs Lattice:

So, a translative teaching would, at best, move a person to the right on this lattice but not up. A really translative teaching might not move them anywhere but perhaps make them feel a little better, put them in a day dream state or something.

Thank you for writing,

David

Please Login to Add Comments
Report Abuse

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Wilber V

Posted January 3rd, 2009 by David Marshall in response to Empiricism and the Eye of the Flesh

Hi Jerry,

People employing any of the 8 methodologies (hori-zones) will be coming from a particular altitude or level. So coming from the Zone-#1 perspective we can have pre-rational phenomonologists (Red and below), rational phenomonologists (Orange), post-rational phenomonologists (Green and above), etc. And then coming from the Zone-#6 perspective we can have pre-rational scientists, rational scientists, or post-rational scientists, etc.

So, we can have an empricist using Illumined Mind (Indigo), Intuitive Mind (Violet), Overmind (Ultraviolet), Supermind (Clear Light)--but none of those involve simply saying "nonduality" or "everything is perfect" and walking away (that would simply be delivering the absolute half of the two-truths doctrine). It would also be confusing states and stages.

Also, the Ground of each of these stages, quadrants, hori-zons, types, lines, etc. is nondual Suchness--that is also part of the AQAL map. But a mistake many people make is misapplying the absolute truth. The absolute truth that nondual Suchness is the Ground of Everything is hardly ever a good answer to a relative question.

The really big thing I think you have to understand about Eye to Eye is that the stuff in there is Wilber IV at best--he was still mixing states and stages at that point. This is also really confusing things. Please stop reading Eye to Eye!!!! Read Integral Spirituality! It is Wilber V. He came up with Wilber V because Wilber IV led to many of the confusions we are having now (such as the three eyes being levels).

Thank you for the discussion. It is very interesting, and I am learning things,

David

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Eye to Eye

Posted January 3rd, 2009 by Jerry Sherwood in response to Wilber V

Hello David,

Indeed, this has been a very interesting conversation and I am very happy to have finally teased out from you the eye opening explanation and suggestion that was needed to cut me loose from "translative content" that was continuing to cloud my thinking. For, although I read a good deal of Integral Spirituality in pre-release form and was among the first to order and receive its finished form, which I promptly read, there were some aspects about it that had not yet penetrated to the point of being "observable" truth. I had not been able to detect this because of a subtle "identification" with a central idea that was finally being addressed in its fullness by Ken. I am speaking about the myth of the given.

As soon as I read your reply and noticed some "chafing" at your suggestion (after all, I have read all of KW's major works and some of his smaller pieces) I knew I was hanging on to or resisting something. While I coach using various techniques for seeing into and resolving various types of resistance the techniques themselves are just "doorways" if you will. Now, all that is required for me sometimes is a slight "shift" in conscious attitude which is best described as aligning with my "curious" nature. I then picked up Integral Spirituality to see what it might have to offer, thinking perhaps I will just read it cover to cover for the third time.

But, instead the book just fell open to appendix II, on Integral Post-Metaphysics and I began to read. I was no more than one page in and I knew I was seeing it a bit different. The words were the same but now I could see how the "Great Chain of Being" had so thoroughly and subtly formed the basis for virtually all of my thinking on spiritual matters. Meanwhile your presentation above was echoing lightly through my mind with its excellent (I now see) explanation of levels of "seeing" by researchers at various altitudes utilizing what I would now describe as a naturally arising "eye of contemplation" in their work. I know this is a clumsy way of expressing it but bear with me. It all actually dovetails right in with some of my other writings that I have yet to finish and now I see what they lacked, from an integral perspective. (oops, got sidetracked)

Anyway, to keep from making a short story too much longer, let me simply say that I finally "get" the myth of the given as a truth rather than as another "idea" subtly competing with other conflicting ideas in an unconscious struggle. I can clearly see how this has affected my reasoning and writing as I translate the world I see into words and concepts that functionally fit and can be shared with others.

That being said I would like to make one final observation. I never proposed that the statement in question was a "rule" or a guiding "belief". It was and remains a very helpful pointer in the context in which it was presented. Let me expand on the context. What you see above is a slightly edited transcript of a short experiential program I present as part of my coaching work and is actually part the advanced work. I had published it briefly on my web-site but was "led" to take it down later. So, this is only the second time it has been published for the general public.

I want to thank you again for the opportunity to Integrally examine this work in public and for your persistent patience in not allowing me to "cite" you away from what you were trying to say. You have been of great assistance to me and I will never forget that. In fact, I am getting ready to expand on this question of the relationship between translation and transformation and you probably already notice we will differ on some points. I invite you now to join the conversation when I offer it up more completely in an upcoming blog.

Eye to Eye,

Jerry

It is in the clarity of Conscious Awareness that Truth is revealed.

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

involutionary and evolutionary givens

Posted January 4th, 2009 by David Marshall in response to Eye to Eye

Hi Jerry,

Thank you for that amazing response and also the invitation. I try to be very careful about who I am direct with and when, and considering the other posts of yours I had read and our interactions I thought you were a good risk! You turned out to be the best ever! I learned that if I am direct with someone who is into self-actualization it will not be helpful for anyone. The person has to be into self-transcendence or have covered that ground and integrating it for it to be evolutionary. (Integral Psychology, p. 212).

I still go back to Integral Spirituality as well, and in fact just yesterday I also started reading the appendix on post-metaphysical spirituality! I thought that was where this was headed. Have you read Ken's article on evolutionary and involutionary givens (footnote 26) ? I was going to talk about that with regard to the "accidental universe" you mentioned earlier, as well as the general subject we have been discussing. I don't believe in an accidental, random universe, but the really cool thing about Ken's spirituality, of course, his givens, is that they are based on evolutionary science, as well as deep spirituality, western developmental studies, etc. You have probably read that article I just linked, but I will give a couple of short excerpts since it is long and there are other people reading:

"Most physicists today believe that when the Big Gang occurred, it seemed to be following certain physical laws described by mathematics. These mathematical matrices therefore must have been present at or before the Big Bang (i.e., as involutionary givens), and not something that came into being after the Big Bang and were then inherited by the future (which would be an evolutionary a priori for subsequent moments, and which do indeed exist; but these mathematical forms appear to be involutionary a priori--not anything created in the past but present all along).

"So it certainly seems that there are at least some forms of involutionary givens. I would call these "archetypes," but that term has been so abused as to be perfectly meaningless. So let's call them "prototypes," or simply involutionary givens."

Ken's twenty tenets of holons are also among his involutionary givens.

He goes on: "But two points: be as careful as you can that you are not confusing evolutionary givens--which are not eternally given but are created by temporal, chaotic, evolutionary history and bequeathed to the future as habits that are then givens or a priori in a temporal sense--and involutionary givens, which are what you must have before you can have anything else, and which therefore appear to be exist at or before the Big Bang."

So it makes sense to me--especially given the creative impulse we can see arising in our awareness--that there was this evolutionary intelligence from the beginning. And then love as we know it emerged about 5,000 years ago with Amber and gets better and better with each new emergence--which in time will become increasingly stable kosmic habits--culminating in boddhisattvic compassion and one taste (Integral Psychology, p. 198). That said, I think the second face of Spirit (which I think is related to what you said about love) is probably important to integrate and perhaps even necessary for a third-tier, self-transcending emergence. What do you think?

Yes, I can see that you didn't offer that statement as a guiding belief or rule. That is especially clear after looking at your website, which looks great and which I plan to look into some more. I am really interested in learning about your techniques for resolving resistance. I love the one about "making a slight 'shift' in conscious attitude which is best described as aligning with my 'curios' nature." I will remember that; it sounds perfect. Obviously they work for you. I also love the line about "translate[ing] the world I see into words and concepts that functionally fit and can be shared with others."

Well, I look forward to the new blog and more discussions with you,

David

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Agape and Eros as given

Posted January 4th, 2009 by Jerry Sherwood in response to involutionary and evolutionary givens

Hello David,

Actually, I had not yet read the footnote you linked to, nor the article. I appreciate the link and look forward to reading the whole article.

I do find it interesting though, that in the second paragraph of footnote 26 we find this:

“Here is a myth that is sometimes useful in suggesting notions that cannot be grasped dualistically or conceptually in any event: As Spirit throws itself outward (that's called involution) to create this particular universe with this particular Big Bang, it leaves traces or echoes of its Kosmic exhalation. These traces constitute little in the way of actual contents or forms or entities or levels, but rather a vast morphogenetic field that exerts a gentle pull (or Agape) toward higher, wider, deeper occasions, a pull that shows up in manifest or actual occasions as the Eros in the agency of all holons. (We can think of this "pull" as the pull of all things back to Spirit; Whitehead called it "love" as "the gentle persuasion of God" toward unity; this love reaching down from the higher to the lower is called Agape, and when reaching up from the lower to the higher is called Eros: two sides of the same pull). ”

I added the underlining at the end to emphasize that Agape (as the attraction) and Eros (as the responsive activity) are "two sides of the same pull". This statement says, in essence, the same thing that I stated which generated much of this discussion. Here is that statement once more with parenthetical clarifications:

“Love (Agape) is now and has always been present and is always perfect in its activity (Eros). Therefore all activity (and non activity) you have ever experienced was Love (Agape) in Action (Eros) and perfectly appropriate (in relationship to the pull of the need of the evolutionary moment)”

What do you see?

Jerry

It is in the clarity of Conscious Awareness that Truth is revealed.

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Wilber, Evidence, Functional Fit, Clarity, Openness

Posted January 5th, 2009 by David Marshall in response to Agape and Eros as given

Hi Jerry,

1) Wilber. First let's look at what Ken has said. He hasn't said that every occassion in the history of evolution has been perfectly appropriate. He has just said that there is a morphogenetic gradient, a "tilt" toward greater complexity, union, integration, etc. He has simply stepped back and taken a wide-angle look and said there is a general tendency to evolve. That is not the same thing as saying every single occassion has been perfectly appropriate. In fact, he characterizes evolution as "messy, chaotic, turbelent," and "nonpredictable." [1] In addition, he believes very much in pathology, that the agents of evolution, holons, can become distorted and therefore not engage in evolutionary behavior. [2]

2) Evidence. So Ken is not saying that. Why are you saying that? What evidence can you present? What evidence can you present that, say, the boy in Iraq who was doused with gasoline and set on fire was helped by that, that his development was encouraged by that? What evidence can you present that the serial killers have actually helped their victims? If you can't present any evidence, we would have to say that the kosmic address of that idea is Amber, mythic. Ken has given a lot of evidence that form evolves into greater levels of complexity and union, and then as a way of describing that, or making conceptual sense of that, he spins the eros/agape myth, which again doesn't go so far as to say that every single action that has happened has been perfectly appropriate. The main reason I linked that article was for the distinction between involutionary and evolutionary givens.

3) Functional fit. Whether it is true or not isn't really the point at the end of the day. Sometimes it serves evolution not to tell the truth; parents, for example, do this all the time. The question is: Will this idea serve evolution? We can agree that there is a hierarchy of ideas, right? Some ideas are more evolutionary than others. Some people advocate ideas like intersubjective compassion; others advocate ideas like ethnic supremacy, hate of certain ethnic groups, genocide.

Why is this a good idea? How will it help holons evolve into greater complexity and union? That greater union would include greater and greater levels of intersubjective care and greater and greater levels of fairness in the LR. How will the idea that everything that has happened has been perfectly appropriate serve that evolution? It seems to me that at best it's a translative idea that won't encourage evolution and at worst an idea that will actually inhibit evolution, because if everything a person has done has been perfectly appropriate (implying that everything they will do will be perfectly appropriate) why should they evolve ethicallly?

I think it's good to encourage trust in the process and that there is good reason to trust the process but that it's not necessary to go quite that far conceptually. I think true trust comes beyond the conceptual mind anyway and is more of a felt sense than a conceptual idea.

4) Clarity. “Love (Agape) is now and has always been present and is always perfect in its activity (Eros). Therefore all activity (and non activity) you have ever experienced was Love (Agape) in Action (Eros) and perfectly appropriate (in relationship to the pull of the need of the evolutionary moment)”

I think this is just going to put people into a mythic day dream. Even if it is true, I can't see it encouraging clarity.

5) Openness. I also think that the idea that every action has been perfectly approrpriate puts a person too much in the position of already knowing (since there is no evidence that it is true). Here is a quote from Andrew Cohen's Embracing Heaven & Earth that explains what I mean by that:

“The greatest peril of the path for those who seek enlightenment is not leaving enough room inside themselves for what they do not know. And the greatest peril of the path for those who already enlightened is neglecting to leave enough room inside themselves for what they do not know… .

“Not knowing is synonymous with enlightened consciousness because not knowing automatically creates infinite room for the unknown, which is experienced as consciousness liberated from any sense of limitation. Humility is the human face of enlightened consciousness precisely because that face has been freed from the arrogance of already knowing. Humility is the direct consequence of always first not knowing in relationship to all experience. Arrogance or ego is the human face of unenlightened consciousness because it is the direct consequence of always first already knowing in relationship to all experience. In not knowing there is always infinite room for the unknown, but in already knowing there never could be.

“But the nature of enlightenment is paradoxical. Its perfect continuity rests upon a delicate balance of opposites. On one hand, enlightened consciousness is a direct consequence of abiding in a state where there is always infinite room for the unknown. And on the other hand, the very stability of that consciousness equally rests upon a doubtless conviction, a knowing of the ultimate nature of reality that is unshakeable. So therefore, the tremendous challenge for all true seekers of enlightened perception lies in finding that perfect middle place between knowing and not knowing and, having found it, staying there.”

~David

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

The Greatest Peril

Posted January 5th, 2009 by Jerry Sherwood in response to Wilber, Evidence, Functional Fit, Clarity, Openness

"The greatest peril of the path for those who seek enlightenment is not leaving enough room inside themselves for what they do not know." Andrew Cohen

Hello David,

I returned to this matter because even though we resolved the issue of the three modes of knowing to the point that we could move beyond them we still have a few loose ends that it seems wise to tie up. On seeing the above quote from Ken I saw a nice tying together of the intuitive insight that ignited for me the statement in question. I started to simply re-write my statement and had almost finished when “my fingers did the talking” and with a few strokes of the keys we ended up with something that you to could sink your teeth into. Why? Let’s see if we can discover the answer to that question.

First of all let me point out how much I agree with what you have said. I agree that the quote from Ken said nothing about the idea of “perfection” in the activity (Eros) of Love (Agape) let alone that it was appropriate. I agree that it is essential to see that our communications in these matters are functionally fit through skillful application. I agree that there is a “hierarchy of ideas”. I agree that genuine trust (faith) is deeper that any conceptual idea. And I fully agree with the wonderful quote from Andrew on knowing/not knowing.

I only somewhat agree that I have presented no “evidence” to support the notion of perfection and appropriateness. I will agree that we may not view the evidence in the same manner. But, I have no need to convince you or anyone else on this matter in this place, at this time. It is something that one can investigate further if they can only open up enough to do so. And that brings me to the central question regarding this statement, one I posed to you earlier on and now you repeat to me, “is it helpful in furthering human evolution toward greater complexity and inclusiveness?” Or, is it a hindrance?

First, I would like to point out that this is not really a new idea at all. It is merely the most explicit statement on this matter I could possibly make. As I pointed out previously the notion that God is perfect and God is Love is not new. And combined with the ideas that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent the whole picture can set anyone that is capable of rational thought into a tizzy fit. It is not very hard to connect the dots. In fact I remember doing so by the time I was twelve.

I was raised in the Southern Baptist tradition and I do not mean this in the casual sense of simply attending Sunday services. So, for me to even consider these questions was earth shattering and it did indeed eventually throw my life into a state of chaos that would play out in a sometimes tragic, sometimes boring and sometimes fascinating manner over the next 28 years. (see purpose in life inquiry and Feeling Fully for some sketchy details). I mention all of this to make the point that this question is not something I have come to lightly and is certainly not a shallow and glib reaction to life to rationalize despicable behavior. (been there, done that, lousy results)

In my 39th year there was a major turning or transformation (whatever you want to call it). Through all the ups and downs, hell and heaven, deaths and births, gains and losses, chaos and beauty, light and darkness, tragedy and comedy had emerged something that I had never imagined possible. Yet, looking back I could see how everything, everyone, and all events had played a role in bringing me to that point and I knew, in my heart, that if I had it all to do over again, I would not change a single thing. Indeed, I laughed in awe as I saw the perfection of it and I remain amazed to this day as I watch the continual unfolding of it all both as an individual and collectively.

Now, what has all of this to do with the central question of whether or not the statement I made is helpful or not? Starting in infanthood the conditioning “belief” that “God is Love” was implanted in my consciousness (think of the song, Jesus Loves You). Early in my youth, around 10 maybe, this sparked an “inner knowing” that served as the seed for a deep sense of Trust in Life (at that time, Trust or Faith in God). By the time I was twelve I was entering the rational stage and the next five years culminated with the abandonment of all mythical beliefs and images of the God in the Sky. But still, something remained. It was this deep sense of Trust.

In fact, this Trust or Faith had actually begun to take root and break ground at twelve because with out it I would not have been able to have the courage to doubt and question in the first place. (hell is an important “belief” with the Southern Baptist) But, it was almost thirty years before this deep Faith would truly mature and blossom with the realization of the Perfection of Love in Action.

It is this depth and breadth of faith that allows one to abide “in a state where there is always infinite room for the unknown” by providing the stability through “a doubtless conviction, a knowing of the ultimate nature of reality that is unshakeable.” So, as you see, for me at least, seeing this and knowing the truth of this does not “close me down” rather it frees me to be completely open to any and all possibilities that lie even beyond my imagination because I can fully Trust in the Ultimate Truth, Goodness and Beauty of the Life that forms and informs us.

The point of the lengthy story is this. There are definitely “stage appropriate” ideas that may spark the seed of this faith in one’s heart and others that will nurture and nourish it but, it is never the ideas themselves that grow and blossom. Ideas alone are all corrupt and no matter how noble, well intentioned or skillfully crafted they are subject to abuse and misuse. But, when and where they serve to create the space necessary for the growth (experiential realization) of Faith the result is not something that is subject to abuse because it is not a “thing” at all.

If someone were to grasp hold of this “idea” that I propose to rationalize and justify their lackadaisical and self centered lifestyle that they imagine to be what they want they will be sorely disappointed because it will indeed lead them to the gates of hell on earth. But then, far more people have been turned around at the gates of hell than from the gates of heaven. And, in the end neither gate leads to the Truth.

In conclusion, to determine if a statement is functionally fit we must ask, “to whom is it being directed?” You have said before that Integral ask us to hold the paradox, and I certainly do agree. Hows that going for you?

With Love

Jerry

--------------------------------------------------

It is in the clarity of Conscious Awareness that Truth is revealed.

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Intermission

Posted January 7th, 2009 by David Marshall in response to The Greatest Peril

Hi Jerry,

Great post. I really want to respond, but I have suddenly gotten very busy. I am just writing this to let you know that I intend to respond but that it will probably be a few days before I get the chance.

Best,

David

Please Login to Add Comments
Report Abuse

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

And now we return to our regularly scheduled programming

Posted January 30th, 2009 by David Marshall in response to The Greatest Peril

Hi Jerry,

Sorry for the looooooong delay.

I think you make some great points, particularly about trust. I think growing up in a culture like yours, Southern Baptist, can certainly help with even the highest structure. Trust is very important. Without it people won't go beyond ego in action, though they may in meditation.

I think what you say about perfection might be helpful to people in helping them out of a victim mentality as long as they realize that God's love is only as perfect as God's creatures, us. For example, if a person hasn't learned basic addition and subtraction and thinks that 2+2 =5, we wouldn't want that person balancing our checkbook. :)

I think one reason I had trouble with what you said was because I had stopped really thinking about it, whether people, God, life had treated me well or not. "Freedom has no history," is another thing Andrew Cohen has said; he has a book with that title (one of his early books, not representative of his current teachings, though perhaps helpful in some way), and I think there's something to that.

Of course it is usually necessary that people make peace with their past one way or another. Forgiveness would be another option here rather than thinking that forgiveness was not necessary because everything had been right, but I do think that the idea of God's love is important. It's a paradox, isn't it? What would be the best way to encourage trust now?

Best,

David

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

on Love and Forgiveness

Posted February 2nd, 2009 by Jerry Sherwood in response to And now we return to our regularly scheduled...

Hello David,

I didn’t get an email notification that this comment had been submitted so it wasn’t until I realized that since you were contributing again in the I-L community blogs I should probably check my “watched posts” to see if you had returned as promised. I see you have and I am delighted. This is particularly so because of the beautiful turn the conversation can now take with your last observation concerning forgiveness.

You see, I don’t really see that insight into the fact that since “Love is all there is, therefore all is Love in Action” would be very useful at all in helping people get out of the victim mentality. As we have both already said, the usefulness of this information is very stage-specific. When it is offered too early as an explanation of the nature of our paradoxical universe there will be dire consequences – for the one who was prematurely informed, the informer (through karmic responsibility) and society. Indeed, this panoramic view is useless to an individual until after the relationship of victim/victimizer has been psychologically resolved.

The realization of the universal nature of Love in Action provides a perspective broad enough to hold the paradox that was posed to the rational mind by the fact that there is good and evil in a world whose Loving nature has been felt in a state experience. That is to say that the resolution was of a rational dilemma, not an emotional one. However, before there could be a “felt” experience of the Loving nature of the Universe there was an emotional dilemma that had to be resolved. That emotional dilemma is the relationship of victim/victimizer.

This is not the time or place for me to get deeply into my theories relating to the source of this dilemma. But a brief sketch of my view is necessary before proceeding further in this conversation.

I think it is safe to say that human beings are emotionally confused and conflicted by cultural, social and personal expectations and demands, on both conscious and subconscious levels. At the root of this confusion are our feelings of shame and guilt. These feelings are not imposed on us; rather they arise as an instinctual reaction. They are feelings that evolved out of necessity to facilitate social order conducive to the survival of most mammalian species.

However, as the human intellect evolved in complexity, the interface between instincts and intellect that originally brought greater clarity through insightful precision began to generate confusion through conceptual illusion. In this instance our feelings of shame and guilt became attached to our false stories of causation and responsibility and the judgments associated with those stories. No longer did these feelings simply arise and dissipate; rather they were continually activated in the sub-conscious and susceptible to being triggered into consciousness by persons, events or memory. To one degree or another everyone is afflicted by this troubling cycle. Without some form of forgiveness there can be no relief.

Magic cultures attempted to remedy the problem with animal or human sacrifice as a payment for unclean and unjust acts by individuals and the collective. In mythic cultures people participate in rituals based on mythical characters who somehow “paid the price” for one or more of our human foibles. The re-enactment, remembering or telling of the passion of Jesus Christ is one such ritual based as it is on the doctrine of vicarious atonement of humanity by the death of Jesus on the cross – a Pauline doctrine. The power of Christianity as a religious tradition that can open the door to deep spirituality is in its twin teaching of Love and forgiveness.

The spiritual stream of development must follow through these first two stages in one form or another prior to taking up contemplative practice. In fact, in my opinion, an individual will find contemplative practice intolerable until they have derived at least some sense of forgiveness for themselves first. Otherwise their efforts will not result in a stillness which reveals their inherent goodness but will be filled with the unbearable condemnation and ranting of the super-ego.

So, I believe that forgiveness is the key to progress on the spiritual line. And I see the realization of the Universal Nature of Love in Action (as a realization not an intellectual “idea”) to be directly related to development of this line beyond the rational levels – modern and post modern.

I am working on mapping out the "conveyor" belt of spirituality and may post something on that soon. But, it seems to me that there will be some different forms of affirming forgiveness for self and others and that the question of Love may become more significant as it may help to form a bridge from mythic to modern.

Does this make any sense to you?

Thanks

Jerry

It is in the clarity of Conscious Awareness that Truth is revealed.

Please Login to Add Comments
Report Abuse

Please Log in to Vote.

2 out of 2 members found this useful.

question

Posted December 29th, 2008 by Ruth Henriquez Lyon in response to Evolutionary Love

what is love?

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

Now there's the question.

Posted December 29th, 2008 by Jerry Sherwood in response to question

When there is no answer the search is over.

--------------------------------

It is in the clarity of Conscious Awareness that Truth is revealed.

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

When there is no answer the search is over.

Posted December 30th, 2008 by Ruth Henriquez Lyon in response to Now there's the question.

I am not searching, though; I have a visceral understanding. I just wonder what your visceral understanding of it is.

Curiously yours,

Ruth

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Love is ...

Posted December 30th, 2008 by Jerry Sherwood in response to When there is no answer the search is over.

Hi Ruth,

Yes, I sensed that it was your "visceral understanding" of Love that prompted your question and thus my answer. So, I’m sure you understand that there are no words or concepts that can fully express what Love is. In fact words can get in the way of discovering Love as it is. Love can be “known” but never defined. Still, there are ways of speaking about Love that can serve as useful pointers.

One such way is to speak of Love as being all inclusive; which would mean that the ultimate expression of Love would not exclude anything and would allow for everything. This provides a means for measuring the degree of Love that can be expressed through any particular form; the more inclusive the form the more Love it expresses.

You could also say that Love is the fundamental “note” from which all other notes in the ongoing symphony of Life are derived. Some notes are harmonious and resonate with the fundamental note of Love, others are dissonant. But, all notes contribute to the whole composition.

As a felt sense Love speaks to me through its expansiveness. If I am paying attention Love informs me as to the truthfulness of my perceptions. When I feel contracted and cut off I can be sure that my perception is limited and that limits the information I can receive. When I feel expansive and connected I know I am better informed. So, on a personal level Love is my inner guidance.

Finally, I see Love as the foundation for Faith which sustains Hope.

But, to be true to what I actually "know" all I can say is "Love Is"

May your curiosity never cease ...

Jerry

It is in the clarity of Conscious Awareness that Truth is revealed.

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Love the Ride

Posted December 31st, 2008 by Katherine Konner

I was wondering if you would write more about the part where the fork in the road becomes a simple matter of continuing, without hesitation. Finding evidence from the 3 types of the 4 quadrants, etc. inherently. Standing at the fork, figuring things out, would mean I'm evolvING, whereas, seeing the fork ahead, and inherently continuing, would mean I've already evolvED. Love works.

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Riding On

Posted January 3rd, 2009 by Jerry Sherwood in response to Love the Ride

Hello Katherine,

As usual, I find your probing questions and observations most interesting. I value them highly as they prompt me to look deeper and then find the forms that might express what is discovered.

What comes to me first is the need to clarify what the role of study, meditation, and service is in the context of integral theory. This will serve to minimize the possibility of misunderstandings when we look closer at what it means for the Heart of Love to see, choose and act in one smooth unbroken motion and how that might show up in everyday activity.

As you may know AQAL Integral Theory proposes two types of change, horizontal and vertical. Horizontal change refers to a change in the way we translate or make sense of our experience. Translation is primarily characterized by the “content” of consciousness which can change radically or gradually and follows no sequential growth or development patterns, other than as they may be affected by changes in structures of consciousness; that is vertical change or transformation. Structures in consciousness provide the scaffolding that supports the content of consciousness. Or you might also say they provide the parameters that define the complexity of forms the content can take. Transformation is sequential development that occurs in stages.

The culmination point that I speak about in Study, Meditation and Service; when clarity, wisdom and action are able to flow forth in “one unbroken motion”, is available at any stage of development. That’s because it is a direct result of gaining “clarity” in translation relative to the current stage of cognitive development. That is to say that the degree of clarity will be limited by cognitive capacity.

Since this is the case it would not be accurate to equate the culmination point of integrating Study, Meditation and Service as having “evolved”, since evolution is related to vertical or transformational change, not changes in translation.

That being said let me see what comes as we consider what it means to function as being/doing in relationship to the four quadrants.

One clearly sees, understands and responds to what is occurring in the psyche (UL)
One’s behavior (UR, LR) is based on actual events rather than stories about the events and conditioned reactivity.
With awareness unclouded by projections and inner psyche less burdened by personal and cultural conditioning ones emotional response and conversation are based on an accurate understanding of what others do and say, (LL)

How this plays out in daily life will vary depending on the level of cognitive development.

It is in the clarity of Conscious Awareness that Truth is revealed.

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

clarity

Posted January 4th, 2009 by David Marshall in response to Riding On

Jerry, I really like those bullet points. That seems like a great way to frame it to promote wakefulness and authenticity.

Do you ever find it useful to notice which chakra ideas are related to? It has seemed to me that conditioned reflexes will tend to emanate from the lower chakras to some degree, as we would expect they would, and be imbued with all those lower-chakra emotions.

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

chakras and behavior

Posted January 4th, 2009 by Jerry Sherwood in response to clarity

Hi David,

If I understand your question correctly you are asking if I relate specific ideas to specific chakras (please correct me if I am mistaken). The short answer is no, I have not tried this.

However, if you are asking if I see a relationship between our conditioned responses and the chakras I would have to say yes, and sometimes it can be useful to note this for myself or a client.

I also find the chakra system as it relates to the evolution in consciousness to very helpful. In particular in regards to the expression of clarity relative to our development in consciousness (cognitive capacity). I see this as a good option because the chakra system can serve to remind us that the earlier levels of development are still available and active. (whether we like it or not and are conscious of it or not)

Later,

Jerry-

It is in the clarity of Conscious Awareness that Truth is revealed.

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

[Comment Deleted]

Posted January 4th, 2009 by admin in response to chakras and behavior

This comment has been deleted by the author.

5 Comments

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

chakras and conditioning

Posted January 5th, 2009 by Jerry Sherwood in response to [Comment Deleted]

Hello Anne,

You bring up some very important points with regards to the chakra system and how it might relate to clarity in translation and vertical transformation. Some of your questions depend on whether one sees the chakra’s symbolically or as a physical (albeit subtle) reality. I will start with the symbolic because virtually everyone can relate to that without getting sidetracked into the more debatable question of physicality.

To a certain degree I like the way Ken relates stages of consciousness to the chakra system in Integral Spirituality (pgs 12-14). He relates them to the first three stages from Carol Gilligan’s stages of moral development, although he is not saying by this that they only represent one line of development. It is just easier to break them down into three groups and probably more accurate than trying to align the spiral levels with them:

Chakras 1, 2 and 3 (food, sex, power) are “roughly” stage one; egocentric
Chakras 4&5 (relational, communication) are “basically” stage two; ethnocentric
Chakras 6&7 (psychic, spiritual) are “the epitome” of stage three; world-centric

Notably he does not relate any of the chakras to the “integrated” or stage 4 level. Of course there are some chakra systems which denote “higher” chakras beyond the crown but I prefer to think that Ken may be subtly suggesting that all the chakras function as one whole at the integral levels.

What I don’t particularly like about this presentation is the very basic and limited description of the chakra drives or psychological correspondences. What he offers fits his purpose very well but leaves something to be desired in addressing more complex questions about the interface of inherited, familial and cultural conditioning. But for a short answer to your questions it should be sufficient.

Regarding the lower chakras you ask, “Rather than [simply] a conditioned response, can [they] not also be included in being/doing in relationship to the four quadrants?” In my opinion, yes they can. In fact I see the free and open functioning of the lower chakras as being vital to maintaining clarity. That is to say that the lower chakras represent the bulk of our inherited conditioning. Plus, these are the first levels of consciousness to be conditioned as a result of our interactions with our family and the environment. The lower the chakra is the longer its inherited lineage and the earlier in childhood that the family and cultural conditioning process was begun.

Most of conditioning at the first two levels will be preverbal and both of these levels will form the basis for further conditioning at the level of the third chakra. This means that a good deal (if not all) of our conditioned reactions and associations will be rooted in our feelings, not our thoughts. It is at the level of the third chakra where our thought constructed stories and images of our self begin to come into play and these, in turn, can provide thought related feedback into the lower chakras adding layers of verbal conditioning over the pre-verbal.

All of this can be likened to muddying the water in which we are swimming. The longer we swim in and adjust to the muddy conditions the less we are aware of them. If it is the only “water” we have ever known we actually have no idea of what it would mean to swim in a “clear pool of water.”

Formal sitting meditation can be helpful, if we are still long enough for the debris in the water to settle down we can experience a glimpse of what our “clear” swimming pool can be like. But, as soon as we start swimming again we stir it all up and clarity disappears.

In the blogs I have written on Genuine Security and Feeling Fully it is this process of conditioning on which I focused and the means to clear it away through attentive awareness. I also discussed it in more detail, with you, in an Open Door.

Over the years I have had some experience with energy workers or healers that work with the subtle bodies. The most notable being a Qigong (Chi Gong) master that provided a long distance healing for my injured back and arm that could appear to others as miraculous. I have not asked anyone to work directly on the centers or chakras. My personal opinion is that if we do not learn to properly attend to the conditions that caused the malfunctioning to start with then any restoration of flow will only be temporary at best.

So, as you can tell, I do consider the chakras as vital energy centers with actual locations in the subtle and causal bodies. And, I do see the evolutionary process as the capacity for the free functioning of these energy centers on the various levels of being from the physical/etheric to the spiritual.

Jerry--

It is in the clarity of Conscious Awareness that Truth is revealed.

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

[Comment Deleted]

Posted January 5th, 2009 by admin in response to chakras and conditioning

This comment has been deleted by the author.

1 Comment

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

clear them and they will change

Posted January 6th, 2009 by Jerry Sherwood in response to [Comment Deleted]

(I see this post did show up so I will also post my reply here for the sake of continuity) jls

Hi Anne,

I think that if we can ever get the child rearing thing down, we will see a much different adult human being than we do now. I have suggested here and in other posts that the only natural limit on clarity is one’s cognitive capacity. Simply observing the behaviors of other animals should provide proof enough for this. I suspect that should an ape or chimp exhibit the neurotic behavior that characterizes most humans it would be deemed a severe pathological condition. Unfortunately, neurotic adults will inevitably raise neurotic children. It will take a lot to change these cosmic habits.

I mention this because, in a very real sense, it speaks to your question. But, it is not so much a question of the evolution of the chakras (or states of consciousness) it is a question of returning them to their natural function.

For instance, (1st chakra) distortions may result in insufficient energy in the center which will not only mean a lack of physical stamina but also emotional stamina. (as you say, chakras build on each other) Rather than feeling safe and secure in the world there is worry and anxiety. Or. you can be out of balance with an overemphasis or fixation on material possessions, security or sensual thrills.

Compare that to a naturally functioning first chakra which can provide for a real connection and acceptance of the earth and the life it nourishes. You are able to have a deep trust in life as you perceive the earth as a place that can adequately provide for food, shelter and security.

And, this is the way it is through all the chakras or levels of consciousness by which we experience this world. When they are fully functioning and there is the free movement of energy through them we are optimally served by them. They do not need to evolve; they only need the freedom to blossom.

It would be a mistake to see the analogy of “clear water” that I offered as a reference to “still water”. Rather, the point is that once the water is clear we can more fully appreciate its movement without our vision being obscured.

And yes, it seems to me that when there is the full, free and natural functioning of all levels of consciousness (chakras) then there is no differentiation between them; there is only the One Flame.

Jerry

----------------------------------------------------------------

It is in the clarity of Conscious Awareness that Truth is revealed.

Please Login to Add Comments
Report Abuse

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

Lineup

Posted January 6th, 2009 by Katherine Konner in response to chakras and conditioning

Chakras are depicted hierarchically (sp) and are stages, like the Wilber-Combs lattice. Energetically, what is occurring in any particular chakra has everything to do with the way you interact in/with the world, and yourself, including what you know and don't know, and the manner in which you approach either, from any standpoint (emotionally, psychically, physically, etc). As you move from the location of the chakras in the body, the structure of consciousness changes. And we label this direction in the body, up the chakras, as going to a "higher" consciousness too. For instance, the first chakra pertains to what you wrote about Jerry - basically, the tribal mindset. Everybody does what has been instilled by the tribe, for the good of the tribe keeping itself together by the rules it has set. I'm sure you have all experienced what it is like to be the first person to step outside a particular way of the tribe. But eventually, there are times when the tribe must adjust to the times, as even the Queen of England once did.

What does uncertainty and the unknown have to do with chakras? If we are in balance, if the chakras are attuned to each other, and what we term, open, we are better prepared for uncertainty and dealing with the unknown. Chaos can throw people out of balance very easily because their stamina for staying balanced is limited. People are limited by their own selves, not their situation. How much can you allow to happen simultaneously without being affected?

The term self-transcending emergence I think would fit nicely here. Am I close by thinking that this is about being able to be with not knowing, knowing that possibilities exist, don't exist, and the openness for allowing creation to occur, such as emptiness into form -- and then taking the step into all of it, so that you live it all, as it is, as yourself, fully?

Here is what is coming out of fingers for you:

Some people can handle more stress than others. Some people smile more. Some people learn that it is best to smile more. Some people like to write and smile with unseen readers.

Growth is constant, even if it is tried to be denied. Because energy can change form, and still maneuver.

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

[Comment Deleted]

Posted January 5th, 2009 by admin

This comment has been deleted by the author.

1 Comment

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Cleaning them will change them

Posted January 6th, 2009 by Jerry Sherwood in response to [Comment Deleted]

Hi Anne,

And yes, it seems to me that when there is the full, free and natural functioning of all levels of consciousness (chakras) then there is no differentiation between them; there is only the One Flame.

Jerry

-- -------------------------

It is in the clarity of Conscious Awareness that Truth is revealed.

Please Login to Add Comments
Report Abuse

User login

Quick Links

The Archives

Study, Meditation and Service

Evolutionary Love

Love is evolution

levels of love

Love as absolute and relative

Why wait?

blossoms in the wind?

Blossoms of Love

[Comment Deleted]

The perfect blossom

[Comment Deleted]

Thanks for sharing

IMP, two truths, etc.

Is Love in Action always appropriate?

translative vs. transformative

Empiricism and the Eye of the Flesh

Where is the paradox in transformation?

transformation and translation

translative, transformative

Wilber V

Eye to Eye

involutionary and evolutionary givens

Agape and Eros as given

Wilber, Evidence, Functional Fit, Clarity, Openness

The Greatest Peril

Intermission

And now we return to our regularly scheduled programming

on Love and Forgiveness

question

Now there's the question.

When there is no answer the search is over.

Love is ...

makes sense

Love the Ride

Riding On

clarity

chakras and behavior

[Comment Deleted]

chakras and conditioning

[Comment Deleted]

clear them and they will change

Lineup

Free fall

[Comment Deleted]

Cleaning them will change them