Fully Human, Fully Divine

Nick:

Great question. I'd like someone with some expertise to address this issues. Are these higher "structures" only accessed at this point in human evolution by one or two extraordinary human beings? Do some only get to "taste" these higher non-dual realities via temporary "state" conditions? Would love to have clarifications on these issues

Greg Mayers

I personally also was confused with Wilber's horizontalizing states and how, in my experience, that horizontalizing muddles his development scheme.  I now view that horizontalizing as an inappropriate element necessitated by the presence of a given in his theory.  For relevant discussion, see here. 

The greater distinction between Eastern and Western enlightenment is one of the more important, but little-noticed changes in Wilber's latest work. As you point out, renaming the higher stages of the model from psychic/subtle/causal/nondual to more general terms is significant.

From what I can tell, Wilber's position is that there is some relationship between horizontal and vertical, but stops short of saying exactly what that is and how it works. Given how few people in the world are at integral (or higher stages), what evidence we do have of a relationship is not very strong.

For me personally, I was much stronger believer in the idea of evolutionary stages to enlightenment before I read Wilber. I think his work is an amazing effort to show that it is real, but if that's the best we can do, it still falls short for me. So I stick with a more orthodox Buddhist view of enlightenment, which I think means there are perhaps some synergies between horizontal and vertical, but no significant relationship of converting states to stages. Which I think also points to endless vertical evolution, no final nondual stage.

 Not to come off as an ass; and I’m not saying that this is simple but,...

When an interior is confused by an other whether it be a subject it can’t seem to get an inside perspective of or an object it can’t seem to grasp, when it fails to understand the other who is to blame for the confusion?

I think this is the question asked here in this series of questions yet the solution seems to be a conclusion of, “If I don’t get it it’s because you are unclear and/or mostly wrong—but probably really it is you not me.”

How can you explain—not just tell—but actually bring resonant truth and compassionate wisdom to someone about things they don’t know yet or aren’t ready to accept? 

I can’t explain to a child without an air of metaphor the love I have for her or to my father the grace that I see in his life even throughout.

You can only understand what you are already understand. 

If you understand integral perspectives it is because you have integral perspectives.

If you don’t have 3rd tier consciousness then any explanation is an abstraction once it hits your ears.

This is not to say that you are behind or that you are stupid or that you need to work hard and catch up. But this dialogue makes clear rather that there is incessant judging with and attempt to figure out out own personal placement of levels, yours, mine, his, hers, and in this space you are insecure about what you grasp and what you haven’t. 

Have a cup of hot fluids, take a bath and relax. If you want to know third tier then get to know second and when have passed through it then look and see what is on the other side.

Big Love