Challenging the Perennial Philosophy & Exclusivism/
Embracing Pluralism & A "Participatory" Alternative - Jorge Ferrer
Excerpts:
Embracing Pluralism & A "Participatory" Alternative - Jorge Ferrer
Excerpts:
Revisioning Transpersonal Theory
"Revisioning Transpersonal Theory" had two general goals:
(a) to critically examine some central ontological and epistemological assumptions of transpersonal studies.
(b) to articulate a participatory alternative to the neoperennialism dominating the field thus far.
(a) to critically examine some central ontological and epistemological assumptions of transpersonal studies.
(b) to articulate a participatory alternative to the neoperennialism dominating the field thus far.
The Participatory Turn
The participatory turn proposes to conceive human spirituality as emerging from our co-creative participation in a dynamic and undetermined mystery or generative power of life, the cosmos, and/or the spirit.
More specifically, I argued that spiritual participatory events can engage the entire range of human epistemic faculties (e.g., rational, imaginal, somatic, vital, aesthetic, etc.) with the creative unfolding of reality or the mystery.
In other words, the participatory approach presents an enactive understanding of the sacred that conceives spiritual phenomena, experiences, and insights as cocreated events.
More specifically, I argued that spiritual participatory events can engage the entire range of human epistemic faculties (e.g., rational, imaginal, somatic, vital, aesthetic, etc.) with the creative unfolding of reality or the mystery.
In other words, the participatory approach presents an enactive understanding of the sacred that conceives spiritual phenomena, experiences, and insights as cocreated events.
Why is it important to make qualitative distinctions between spiritual traditions?
At their mystical core, most traditions teach a path going from an initial state of suffering, alienation, or delusion to one of happiness, salvation, or enlightenment. In an intra-religious context, qualitative distinctions, for example among various stages or states of the path, can offer valuable signposts for practitioners insofar as they can inform them of being on the right track, alert them about stagespecific pitfalls, and so forth.
This is why, although a strict allegiance to stage models can potentially constraint the organic unfolding of one‘s unique spiritual potentials, I don‘t see any major problem with them in the context of specific traditions, in which practitioners have committed to a particular spiritual goal.
The problem emerges when one seeks to make the stages of one particular spiritual tradition (say Tibetan Buddhism or Christianity) or orientation (theistic, nondual, monist, etc.) paradigmatic for all; whether naively or intentionally carried out. The consistent upshot of this move is the privileging of one‘s spiritual tradition over all others— an attitude that I discuss below in terms of ―spiritual narcissism.
Inter-religiously, we can also observe qualitative differences among traditions and this is important from both ―positive and ―negative angles. In a ―positive light, for example, some traditions may have developed contemplative awareness more than others, and the same could be said about psychophysical integration, emotional intelligence, social service, or eco-spiritual understandings and practices fostering a harmonious relationship with nature. In a ―negative light, some traditions may be more prey than others to somatic dissociation, sexual repression, class oppression, religious violence, or ecological blindness, among others.
The fact that different traditions have cultivated different human potentials is part of what makes inter-religious cross fertilization fruitful and potent and potentially crucial for a more integral spiritual development.
Moving away from historical rankings of spiritual traditions as wholes according to doctrinal standpoints, my work invites to cultivate a more nuanced and contextually sensitive evaluative gaze based on the recognition that traditions, like human beings, are likely to be both ―higher and ―lower in relation to one another, but in different regards (e.g., in fostering contemplative competences, eco-spiritual awareness, mind/body integration, and so forth). It is important then not to understand the ideal of a symmetrical encounter among traditions in terms of a trivializing or relativistic egalitarianism. By contrast, a truly symmetrical encounter can only take place when traditions open themselves to teach and be taught, fertilize and be fertilized, transform and be transformed.
At their mystical core, most traditions teach a path going from an initial state of suffering, alienation, or delusion to one of happiness, salvation, or enlightenment. In an intra-religious context, qualitative distinctions, for example among various stages or states of the path, can offer valuable signposts for practitioners insofar as they can inform them of being on the right track, alert them about stagespecific pitfalls, and so forth.
This is why, although a strict allegiance to stage models can potentially constraint the organic unfolding of one‘s unique spiritual potentials, I don‘t see any major problem with them in the context of specific traditions, in which practitioners have committed to a particular spiritual goal.
The problem emerges when one seeks to make the stages of one particular spiritual tradition (say Tibetan Buddhism or Christianity) or orientation (theistic, nondual, monist, etc.) paradigmatic for all; whether naively or intentionally carried out. The consistent upshot of this move is the privileging of one‘s spiritual tradition over all others— an attitude that I discuss below in terms of ―spiritual narcissism.
Inter-religiously, we can also observe qualitative differences among traditions and this is important from both ―positive and ―negative angles. In a ―positive light, for example, some traditions may have developed contemplative awareness more than others, and the same could be said about psychophysical integration, emotional intelligence, social service, or eco-spiritual understandings and practices fostering a harmonious relationship with nature. In a ―negative light, some traditions may be more prey than others to somatic dissociation, sexual repression, class oppression, religious violence, or ecological blindness, among others.
The fact that different traditions have cultivated different human potentials is part of what makes inter-religious cross fertilization fruitful and potent and potentially crucial for a more integral spiritual development.
Moving away from historical rankings of spiritual traditions as wholes according to doctrinal standpoints, my work invites to cultivate a more nuanced and contextually sensitive evaluative gaze based on the recognition that traditions, like human beings, are likely to be both ―higher and ―lower in relation to one another, but in different regards (e.g., in fostering contemplative competences, eco-spiritual awareness, mind/body integration, and so forth). It is important then not to understand the ideal of a symmetrical encounter among traditions in terms of a trivializing or relativistic egalitarianism. By contrast, a truly symmetrical encounter can only take place when traditions open themselves to teach and be taught, fertilize and be fertilized, transform and be transformed.
Guidelines for Evaluating Spiritual Paradigms:
The Egocentrism, The Dissociation & The Eco-Social-Political Test
I suggest two basic critical valuation guidelines: the egocentrism test, which assesses the extent to which spiritual traditions, teachings, and practices free practitioners from gross and subtle forms of narcissism, and the dissociation test, which evaluates the extent to which the same foster the integrated blossoming of all dimensions of the person.
Given the many abuses and oppressions perpetuated in the name of religion, I later added the eco-social-political test, which assesses the extent to which spiritual systems foster ecological balance, social and economic justice, religious and political freedom, class and gender equality, and other fundamental human rights.
Concerning validity of doctrines, thus, I take a pragmatist approach inspired by the Buddhist teaching of ―skillful means. I posit that spiritual teachings (and practices) are valid insofar as they work and deliver their promised fruits; that is, insofar as they help people become less narcissistic, create wholesome communities, lead to better relations with the environment, and so forth.
As for the thorny question of hierarchical rankings, note that since it is likely that most religious traditions would not rank too highly in many of the above tests, the participatory approach may also lead to strong spiritual rankings. The crucial difference is that these rankings are not ideologically based on a priori religious doctrines, but instead ground critical discernment in the practical values of less egocentrism (not to be confused with ego), embodiment, integration, and eco-social-political justice and freedom. I stand by these values, not because I think they are ―universal (they are not), but because I firmly believe that their cultivation can effectively reduce personal, relational, social, and planetary suffering.
What is your point of view regarding the perennial philosophy?
On a theoretical level, the most influential transpersonal models I encountered in California subscribed to neo-perennialist (universalist) accounts of spiritual diversity that I came to see as both reductionist and problematic. There are of course numerous varieties of perennialism and neo-perennialism (e.g., Neo-Vedantic, Sufi, esotericist, Wilberian, etc.), but, despite their supposedly inclusivist stance, they all ultimately privilege certain religious traditions or spiritual goals over others and result in an oversimplification, distortion, or limitation of the vast and rich possibilities for human spiritual flourishing. For example, I think that the Schuon-Smith hypothesis of esoteric unity and exoteric diversity (which entered transpersonal discourse through the work of both Grof and Wilber) is erroneous and it doesn‘t stand against historical, textual, and phenomenological evidence. Even within a single tradition, disagreement among contemplative practitioners abounds. Take Buddhism for example: Zen and Tibetan Buddhist teachers strongly disagree about the ultimate nature of reality; are they not considered Buddhist esoteric or mystical practitioners? In addition, there are important differences among traditions at their so-called mystical core. For example, when Theravada Buddhists talk about sunyata or emptiness and Taoists talk about the Tao, or Christians talk about God, they are talking about radically different things.
On a practical level, I gradually became aware that neo-perennialist visions were neither sensitive enough to the diversity of individual spiritual needs, dispositions, and developmental dynamics, nor generous enough to the infinite creative potential of the mystery (understood, not as a reifiable spiritual ultimate, but as the generative power of life, reality, the cosmos, and/or spirit). In other words, many spiritual seekers were struggling to make their spiritual experiences conform to a pregiven pathway aimed at the particular spiritual goal that those visions presented as most enlightened or spiritually evolved, thereby unconsciously sabotaging the natural process of their own unique spiritual unfolding and constraining the creative potential of the spiritual power that can manifest through them. Although fruits can be obtained from a commitment to almost any spiritual practice, the final outcome of these endeavors was often a spiritual life that was devitalized, stagnated, dissociated, or conflicted.
Although my work advocates for the existence of diversity at mystical, cosmological, and metaphysical levels, I also believe that we can legitimately talk about a mystery out of which everything arises. The problem is that as soon as anyone ―essentializes the mystery in terms of particular qualities (e.g., empty, personal, nondual, etc.), the challenges of spiritual pluralism reemerge. And, it is important to consider that such mystery may be also evolving with us through cocreative participation; for example, nondual consciousness might be the origin of things, but that doesn‘t mean that that‘s where we may want to go spiritually speaking. Taking such origin as a goal might be actually regressive in an evolutionary context. We might be able to access such supposed foundation, but my question is, where do we want to go with that today?
Thus, can we embrace the world‘s irreducible spiritual diversity as something positive? Can we entertain that different traditions may have found unique soteriological solutions for the human dilemma, and that they may be advancing the creativity of the mystery in different evolutionary directions? If we accept this view, there may be overlapping qualities among traditions, but we don‘t need to come to identical truths or principles.
Critiquing Religious Exclusivism And Its Associated Spiritual Narcissism
Too often, religious traditions and practitioners look down upon one another, each believing that their truth is more complete or final, and that their path is the only or most effective one to achieve full salvation or enlightenment. I believe that a way out of this predicament is to uncover, expose, and ultimately overcome the spiritual narcissism underlying such religious exclusivism, which is unfortunately pandemic in human spiritual history.
Put simply, spiritual narcissism is the conscious or unconscious belief that one‘s favored tradition or spiritual choice is universally or holistically superior.
Spiritual narcissism should not be confused with psychological narcissism, since one can be mostly free from the latter and still be prey of the former. Consider, for example, the Dalai Lama‘s defense of the need of a plurality of religions. While celebrating the existence of different religions to accommodate the diversity of human karmic dispositions, he contends that final spiritual liberation can only be achieved through the emptiness practices of his own school of Tibetan Buddhism, implicitly situating all other spiritual choices as lower—a view that he believes all other Buddhists and religious people will eventually accept. That the Dalai Lama himself—arguably a paragon of spiritual humility and openmindedness—holds this view strongly suggests that spiritual narcissism is not necessarily associated with a narcissistic personality but rather a deeply seated tendency buried in the collective realms of the human unconscious.
In addition to impoverishing human relations, both spiritual narcissism and religious exclusivism play an important role in many interreligious conflicts, quarrels, and even holy wars. The rhetoric of religious exclusivism or superiority is widely used across the globe to fuel fundamentalist tendencies and justify interreligious violence.
As an antidote to this global malady, I have proposed that different religious worlds and spiritual ultimates are cocreated through human participation in a dynamic and undetermined mystery, spiritual power, and/or generative force of life or the cosmos. Such mystery is alive and dynamically creative versus having a static or pregiven nature that spiritual knowing must somehow access or mirror. I believe that this account is more generous with the inexhaustible creativity of the mystery, which in this light can be seen as branching out in multiple ontological directions.
In other words, in contrast to spiritual visions holding a single return to the One or nondual awareness, I take the view that the mystery, the cosmos, and/or spirit unfolds from a primordial state of undifferentiated unity toward one of (perhaps infinite) differentiation-in-communion.
This participatory account immediately frees religions from the assumption of a single, predetermined ultimate reality that binds them to exclusivist dogmatisms. Why? Because seeing the various religious worlds not as competing to match a pregiven spiritual referent but as creative transformations of an undetermined spiritual power effectively short-circuits their competitive predicament. Closely related is my contention that there is a plurality of salvations, enlightenments, or spiritual goals that cannot be hierarchically arranged (even if, as discussed above, in the context of a single tradition, certain hierarchies of spiritual states may be valid). This recognition frees us from the deeply seated belief that there must be one single spiritual goal for all humanity, which too often conveniently resembles the one described by my favored tradition. More positively, the proposed indeterminacy of the mystery invites to cultivate an attitude of spiritual humility that overcomes self-deceptive certainties and fosters a surrendering to a mystery that can never be fully comprehended by the human mind and its conceptual understandings.
If we accept this approach, it will then no longer be a contested issue whether people endorse a theistic, nondual, or naturalistic account of the mystery, or whether their chosen path of spiritual cultivation is meditation, social engagement, conscious parenting, entheogenic shamanism, or communion with nature. (Of course, each path can be complemented with practices that cultivate other human potentials).
The new spiritual bottom line, in contrast, will be the degree into which each path fosters both an overcoming of narcissism and a fully embodied integration that make us not only more sensitive to the needs of others, nature, and the world, but also more effective cultural and planetary transformative agents in whatever contexts and measure life or spirit calls us to be.
Two spiritual sources—"immanent life” and “transcendent consciousness”—as “two sides of the same coin:”
I see immanent life and transcendent consciousness as two energetic states of the mystery. Immanent life is undifferentiated in the sense that it contains all the potentials of such energy yet to be manifested. When this energy undergoes a process of transformation, it differentiates into all the concrete manifestations of reality we are familiar with (e.g., physical, vital-energetic, emotional, mental, and so forth).
In human reality, immanent life shapes our sense of vitality, sexuality, creativity, and instinctive wisdom, and transcendent consciousness our self-awareness, discernment, and contemplative wisdom. Even though spiritual traditions tended to privilege transcendent consciousness over immanent life (often leading to what I call a “heart-chakra up” spirituality and even dissociated spiritual practices and understandings), I see both spiritual sources as equally fundamental for the cultivation of a fully embodied and genuinely integral spirituality—a spirituality that grounds us firmly in our embodied reality while simultaneously opening us to the transcendent without needing to leave or escape from our everyday lives. This ―double incarnation of immanent and transcendent spiritual sources naturally fosters a sense of interpersonal communion with other human beings, nature, and the cosmos; it also enhances the creative vitality and inspired discernment necessary to effectively guide our actions in the transformation of the world.
In a context of spiritual aspiration, this distinction is important for the following reason: Since for most modern people the conscious mind is the seat of our sense of identity, an exclusive liberation of consciousness can be deceptive insofar as we can believe that we are fully free when, in fact, essential dimensions of ourselves are underdeveloped or in bondage—as the unethical interpersonal or sexual behavior of so many spiritual teachers attest. The participatory perspective I have articulated in my writings seeks to foster the harmonious engagement of all human attributes in the spiritual path without tensions or dissociations. To achieve this, a consideration of the distinct but equally fundamental role that immanent and transcendent spiritual sources—or life energy and consciousness—have in spiritual development is crucial.
After many years of Buddhist practice, both during meditation retreats and in everyday life, I tasted the joys, lures, and shadows of an exclusive liberation in consciousness—a typical goal and outcome of the ―heart-chakra up spirituality I referred to earlier. Eventually, I resolved to focus more on what I came to call spiritual individuation (i.e., the process through which a person gradually develops and embodies his or her unique spiritual identity and wholeness) than on traditional goals of enlightenment (many of which I also came to see as limited and even dissociated).
I now firmly believe that the cultivation of spiritual individuation may be more effective than traditional paths to enlightenment in promoting not only the fully harmonious development of the person but also holistic spiritual realizations. This may be so because most traditional contemplative paths cultivate a disembodied, and potentially dissociative, spirituality even while providing access to such spiritual heights as classical mystical visions, ecstatic unions, and absorptions. Reasonably, one might ask whether the path of spiritual individuation may render such spiritual heights less likely—perhaps— but I wonder aloud whether our current individual, relational, social, and ecological predicament calls us to sacrifice some 'height‘ for breadth‘ (and arguably, 'depth‘). Put bluntly, in general it may be preferable today to shift our focus from those spiritual heights in order to 'horizontalize,' or pursue spiritual depths in the nitty-gritty of our embodied existence. Even if slowly and making mistakes, I personally choose to walk toward such uncharted integral horizons rather than the road more traveled of disembodied spirituality.
I see immanent life and transcendent consciousness as two energetic states of the mystery. Immanent life is undifferentiated in the sense that it contains all the potentials of such energy yet to be manifested. When this energy undergoes a process of transformation, it differentiates into all the concrete manifestations of reality we are familiar with (e.g., physical, vital-energetic, emotional, mental, and so forth).
In human reality, immanent life shapes our sense of vitality, sexuality, creativity, and instinctive wisdom, and transcendent consciousness our self-awareness, discernment, and contemplative wisdom. Even though spiritual traditions tended to privilege transcendent consciousness over immanent life (often leading to what I call a “heart-chakra up” spirituality and even dissociated spiritual practices and understandings), I see both spiritual sources as equally fundamental for the cultivation of a fully embodied and genuinely integral spirituality—a spirituality that grounds us firmly in our embodied reality while simultaneously opening us to the transcendent without needing to leave or escape from our everyday lives. This ―double incarnation of immanent and transcendent spiritual sources naturally fosters a sense of interpersonal communion with other human beings, nature, and the cosmos; it also enhances the creative vitality and inspired discernment necessary to effectively guide our actions in the transformation of the world.
In a context of spiritual aspiration, this distinction is important for the following reason: Since for most modern people the conscious mind is the seat of our sense of identity, an exclusive liberation of consciousness can be deceptive insofar as we can believe that we are fully free when, in fact, essential dimensions of ourselves are underdeveloped or in bondage—as the unethical interpersonal or sexual behavior of so many spiritual teachers attest. The participatory perspective I have articulated in my writings seeks to foster the harmonious engagement of all human attributes in the spiritual path without tensions or dissociations. To achieve this, a consideration of the distinct but equally fundamental role that immanent and transcendent spiritual sources—or life energy and consciousness—have in spiritual development is crucial.
After many years of Buddhist practice, both during meditation retreats and in everyday life, I tasted the joys, lures, and shadows of an exclusive liberation in consciousness—a typical goal and outcome of the ―heart-chakra up spirituality I referred to earlier. Eventually, I resolved to focus more on what I came to call spiritual individuation (i.e., the process through which a person gradually develops and embodies his or her unique spiritual identity and wholeness) than on traditional goals of enlightenment (many of which I also came to see as limited and even dissociated).
I now firmly believe that the cultivation of spiritual individuation may be more effective than traditional paths to enlightenment in promoting not only the fully harmonious development of the person but also holistic spiritual realizations. This may be so because most traditional contemplative paths cultivate a disembodied, and potentially dissociative, spirituality even while providing access to such spiritual heights as classical mystical visions, ecstatic unions, and absorptions. Reasonably, one might ask whether the path of spiritual individuation may render such spiritual heights less likely—perhaps— but I wonder aloud whether our current individual, relational, social, and ecological predicament calls us to sacrifice some 'height‘ for breadth‘ (and arguably, 'depth‘). Put bluntly, in general it may be preferable today to shift our focus from those spiritual heights in order to 'horizontalize,' or pursue spiritual depths in the nitty-gritty of our embodied existence. Even if slowly and making mistakes, I personally choose to walk toward such uncharted integral horizons rather than the road more traveled of disembodied spirituality.