Plotinus, Ibn Arabi, and Sri Aurobindo

hi Albert!

To reply to your very intelligent comments:

yes, quite likely language will change!

I agree for the majority it will take decades or even centuries

Wolfgang - i don't know him. 

“God” - yes, a very misleading word!

Sri Aurobindo's followers in their homeland - especially in the state of Orissa, they have done tremendous work in education.  But Tusar (of the ”SELF” family of blogs) is the one to ask here (also on teh questions of politr8ics and culture).  There is a Sri Aurobindo University, there is also Integral Education which has even been established in America. 

Realisations which Integral Yoga community have that other's don't - actually it is not a  matter of “realisations”, partial enlightenments, experiencs and so on , which in the spiritual world are a dime a dozen.  It is the nature of that spiritual path.  For SA & M yoga it is all about the Psychic conversion, about allowing the movemnts of the outer being to be guided by the Divine Center   (Another profound Spiritual path that teaches this is Sufism, though they use different terminology).  And also a certain intellectual discrimination, which seems to be lacking in almost every other teaching.  Thus the devotees of Andrew Cohen justify Cohen's imperfect behaviour, him getting angry and impatient for example, as his enlightened action expressed through his human nature.    But the insights I have gained through SA & M's teachings show me that this is a sham (I do not want to speak for others, i want to emphasise this is my own interpretation of SA & M only  :-)  I'm a pretty confrontational guy in the realm of spiritual idea\s, whereas most in the IY community are more humble and perhaps therefore more spiritual  :-)   

So if your being is still under the sway of “the vital” and its movements like impatience etc, how can this be justified or masquiraded as (True) Enlightenment, no matter how many experiences one has?  Enlightenment only comes when these lower movements of the being are mastered or transcended, as Sri Ramana (one of the real Greats of spirituality) shows. 

Most other popular spiritual teachers in or to the West, who I rather unpolitely refer to as “Pop Gurus”, lack the essential understanding of the Psychic Being, the dangers of the *undisciplined* vital (emotional/astral) being and of the Intermediate Zone.  Very few who call themselves guru have the realisation and self-mastery required to be an authentic spiritual teacher.  Most are probably very nice people, and have powers and experiences, but more than that is required to be a true Guru

Adi Da - I always liked him; he is a powerful figure.  He seems also to be a somewhat dangerous figure, because his “vessel” (his adhar to use the technical yogic term) is not pure, so the Enlightenment that comes through him is mixed with lower impulses (SA calls this the Intermediate Zone).  That is why I don't consider him the equal to Ramana, Nityananda (Muktanada's Guru), SA & M, etc.  But there is no denying he has helped many people (so has Andrew Cohen i am sure, but Adi Da is a much more potent figure).  I mention him in my book; yeah, a fascinating individual.

Esoteric realization of practice like Sri.Aurobindo.  But that's just it.  None of the devottes, disciples, and sadhaks were or are of the level of the Master, or even a tiny fraction of the level.  Who among them was equal to even a small part of the attainment of SA & M? Not one, not even the most senior ones.  Sure they had experiences, sure they evolved spiritually, probably greatly so, being blessed to be in the presence of not one but two Avatars.  But they were still basically ordinary human beings, not exceptional masters and adepts.  Perhaps if they were masters and adepts they would have their own teaching instead, just as Ramana had his ashram not very far from Pondicherry, but the wto were very different, being different revelations and incarnations of the Supreme

Esotericism vs AQAL/SD; well, it is not that one replaces the other.  For example looka t what AQAL/SD has achieved in the world of business and management (thanks to Don Beck's influence).  Esotericism couldn't do that (nor is it meant to).  But AQAL/SD can't do what Esotericism can.  So each pertains to specific levels.  Esotericism being the big picture, the origin of the cosmos, the ultimate meaning and purpose of existence, and yogic self-transformation, and Integral Theory etc the more mainstream consciousness of the West (and helping to the consciousness of the Middle East to develop in this regard as well; I have already mentioned how highly i respect this initiative!) 

“Even Wilber in Guru & Pandit ”

Soryy, I meant Cohen; only just bought the mag at my local Newsagent and hadn't yet read it

hi Albert!

thanks for the kind words!

I haven't heard of the European Integral Academy; it sounds interesting!

to answer your queries

You ask: “Are you personally involved in science? Special background?”

Yes, my specialised field of expertise is in Paleontology and the history of life on Earth.   I don't have a degree but i read University textbooks on the subject since i was a kid.  I've done volunteer work at the local museum, also have woked on educational posters.  Also co-author of Palaeos com website, although i no longer have time to contribute there because my priority at the moment is in writing my book.  But i would like some time in the future to get involved again.

You ask: “Please tell me about one single new aproach in natural science, medicine, brain research, philosophy, social science reconstructive approaches, or whatever which is outside Wilber methodology and really brings something new. ”

Well, as for outside's Wilber's methodology, having read Wilber's comments on “half a wing”, and statements that “nobody believes this any more”, I am tempted (unfairly i suppose, because here he sets himself up as such an easy and tempting target!) to say evolutionary science!  ;-)  As mentioned, this is something i know about; in fact one of the educational posters i worked on was about the evolution of birds from dinosaurs.  So i know what I'm talking about!  Anyway I have already written about this on my website.  Frank Visser, David Lane, Geoff Falk, and others have also made important comments, which Wilber is still unable to refute (instead he resorts to obfuscation, as Frank has shown in his latest comment on IW).  In fact I am still waiting to hear KW's reason for saying “no-one (or in the second edition i think it was “hardly anyone”) believes this any more”.  Because I have never ever met or corresponded with a single paleontologist who didn't accept evolutionary science!

Now, the question may be asked: is Wilber's creationist-style misinterpretation of Darwinian science (and mocking of scientists) due to an error in his model, or simply his own lack of knowledge?  Personally I think it is a problem with his own ignorance and arrogance (sorry to speak so harshly!).  I see absolutely no reason why AQAL cannot accomodate Darwinian science, and Wilber's fixation with ID really puzzles me here.  It is strange that he insists on sabotaging his own project, especially when at all other times he takes so many pains to be acceptable to academia.  
So I look forward to second generation Integral thinkers correcting Wilber's error by showing how mainstream Dawinism is compatable with AQAL (because i would say they are)

But I will mention three things that unlike Evolutionary Science, really are outside AQAL methodology.  These are

o Occultism and Esotericism
o Gnosis
o Supramentalisation

Occultism/Esotericism is the study of non-material forces and pheneomena and their interaction with nature and human consciousness.  But this means that realities beyond the physical plane really do exist.  Wilber instead says that all this must be intra-physical, not supra-physical.  He then places subtle bodies in the Upper Right quadrant.  But subtle bodies are actually “made of mind” so would technically go in the UL of AQAL.  Wilber confuses them because he can't map supra-physical realities in AQAL.  But all he has to do to resolve this problem is to say that AQAL pertains to the gross physical, and there are  further, subtle planes of existence.  I really don't know why he doesn't do this because it is such an obvious step, and would enable his phioosophy to be more inclusive.   I suppose it is because he is trying to be respectable to materialist academia, so he has no choice but to reject supra-physical ontological states.  But why compromise one's knowledge?  Why bow down to materialism? 

Gnosis means higher consciousness.  When I read Wilber, i notice he always writes from a rational-mental perspective.  Apparently he has had many experiences whiuch he describes in One Taste (which i haven't read), but unfortunately he hasn't been able to incorporate these experiences into his theory (because to do so would mean he would have to write from a perspective of gnosis).  In contrast, esotericism is based on precisely this higher consciousness; this higher perspective.  That is why I find it more inspiring.

Sure Wilber says there is the clear light stage and such and such.  But that is all very abstract and it means nothing.  Whereas spiritual masters like Buddha, Lao-tze, Plotinus, Shankara, Abhinavagupta, Rumi, Ibn Arabi, Eckhart, Isaac Luria, Ramakrishna, Sri Aurobindo and the Mother, and many many others spoke and taught from direct experience, and their experience and gnosis is intergrated into their teachings at every level.

Supramentalisation is Sri Aurobindo's term for the divinisation of matter.  This means that the present state of duality is replaced by unity.  So you cannot have quadrants, because quadrants imply a duality (albeit a holistic one).  AQAL may be fine for our present dualistic state, but it cannot describe the state of Supramental Unity.  The nature of the Supramnetal Transformation is explained very clearly in Sri Aurobindo's philosophical masterwork the Life Divine, and also from a more pragmatic level in the Mother's Agenda

In one of my essays on Integral Wiorld i explain how there are many degrees of intermediate consciousness between Wilber's “nondual” state (or i shoudl say state/stage; i like the distinction Wilber makes between state and stage) and the very much higher state (and stage) of Supramentalisation.

You ask “Where in the serious academic communities of these days are real breakthroughs in this way?”

 You know, this is why I support  the Integral Movement!   Because it really is in many ways the leading edge. I see its contributions as very positive, and people like Wilber and Beck are to be commended here.  Also there are many others doing excellent research -  Look up Jennifer Gidley's essay “The Evolution of Consciousness as a Planetary Imperative: An Integration of Integral Views” on the Integral Recview website, where she compares Wilber, Gebser, and Steiner - fascinating stuff!

But the IM isn't the only leading edge.  To give just a few examples, there is the school of Faivre and Hanegraaf on the academic study of esotericism for example.  And there is deep ecology, eco-feminism, animal liberation (Peter Singer), participatory epistemology & spirituality (Tarnas and Ferrer), various other radical initiatives in philosophy.  (Wilber would call them “green”  But i don't share his “greenophobia”; it is just another example where Wilber limits himself, and which hopefully will be corrected by “second generation” integralists).  So there are actually a number of innovative and progressive movements even within academia.

But for me, it is authentic gnosis and yogic self-transformation that matters.  That is why I prefer to write on my own level, without having to justify or be apologetic.  As I said, I feel that Wilber limits himself by trying to be academically respectable, which is a shame, because mainstream academia will reject him anyway.  That is why i would rather write as an esotericist.

Sorry to be strong in my reply (if indeed it was strong, hard fo me to tell).  I greatly support your own work, but i do also express myself in a strong way if there is a disagreement, and similarily welcome criticism or disagreement from others, because how else can one learn?

very best wishes
alan

hi Albert!

Amazing conversation we are having!

You say: “For me all what Buddha and the following -by you quoted masters- say is clearly expressing esoteric insights in the best sense. But we have no reports of their personal realizations in personal realms.. ”

That is a very good point!  Many of these Teachers wrote philosophy and esotericism, and one can understand their experiences from their philosophy (e.g. it is obvious (to me) that Eckhart or Mansur al-Hallaj or ibn Arabi had profound and established nondual Enlightenment because their mioonism is so contrary to the religion of their time).  But you are right, few described their experiences in a first-person autobiographical way.  Ok there are some who did, some of the Christian mystics; unfortunately i have not read much on that and i should.  And Milarepa.  There are also modern gurus like Yogananda and Muktanada and Adi Da who  refer to profound experiences in their autobiographies.  Of course, by far the most potent personal account is Mother's Agenda, edited by Satprem

You said “As KW rightly stated Buddha lived at a blue level of consciosness probably.”
 
Buddha at the blue (traditional religious) level?  What about the iconoclastism?  The realisation of nirvana?  The rejection of social norms?  There is no doubt that Buddha attained a permanent transcendent state of Realisation, to speak with such authority.

You write: “In japan Master Eckart was highly honored by Zen Masters. The same masters indulged in political facism .”

If this is so (and i haven't studied this subject but i am sure you are right) what it shows is that even though they have experiences and realisation they have not truly integrated them.  Shankara was a nondual enlightened being, yet he wrote with hatred about the Buddhists, who mind you he borrowed heavily from (see Mugdal - Shankara, a reapraisal).  He had attained nondual enlightenemnt but his lower being hadn't been transformed.  Contrast this with Sri Ramana, who had no hatred for anyone

You said: “I have read ONE TASTE. And I have personally had experiences as Wilber. I am speaking from very personal processes I have gone through in context of sangha. Thats relevant for me. The LIVING teacher, the LIVING sangha and the LIVING Dharma.”

That's excellent!!!

You asked why did Satprem leave?

As I understand it, Satprem left because of a conflict with the Ashram authorities and senior disciples over the Agenda Material.  Satprem wanted to publish it unedited, they wanted it carefully edited first.  I am totally with Satprem on this. 

You say: “The psychic and subtle transformation and ultimately the supramental ones…al these were themes in Adi Da Community too. In fact Adi Da had a great understanding as much of Sri Aurobindo as of the whole great tradition, especially Ramana Maharshi and Advaita. ”

Adi Da attained the nondual, and possibly the Higher Mind (sensu Sri Aurobindo , NOT Wilber's misinterpretation), but his adhara (personality, vehicle) was not strong enough, so he fell into inflation.  There is no Psychic Transformation (in the defintion of Sri Aurobindo - Psychicisation, bringing the influence of the Personal Divine Center (“Psychic Being” to the fore) anywhere in Adi Da's teachings; or in those of any other pop gurus.  And without Psychicisation there can be no Supramentalistaion

Adi Da is a powerful and impressive teacher, but he lacks Ramana's purity.  Ramana was (and eternally is) an avatar, there is no narcissism, no inflation anywhere.  So even if Ramana and Adi Da both describe the nondual state, for Ramana the revelation is untainted. 

You passionately write:  “Many have no significant amount of meditation experience. in a sangha. With teacher.  They have no understanding of the cycles of meditation as described for example in Engler/Brown/Wilber book “TRansformations of Consiousness” . They wer never tested in fiery ordeals. Hairs are not on fire…

The often so called third tier work is a small seed. One could ask: Who at Zaadz is really in it? Who has understood what KW described in One Taste? Especially the cycle about skin Hunger? Its meaning in the context of advancwed practice? Who of the many budhists who even did the famous three year retreat came out transformed in a sustainable manner?”

I like the way you write Albert!!!   I like it a lot!!!

But a question: What do you mean by “skin hunger”?  It is conventially the need to be touched and held by others in loving, caring ways.  But you seem to be saying something different…?

You go on to say: “Its a profound comunication necessary. This is NOT possible at this time with people who are only reading books. Its demanding as an Himalaya Expedition. And closed core groups need months to go into specific injunctions and then share their insights.Crossverification would be needed too.

Thats what I expect. This is a dicipline and demands a devotion and commitement most people cannot even imagine! Indeed next 10 years will reveal who has what it takes at THIS frontier. Not forgeting the healing of broken zones all the way. ”

Wow, that's amazing stuff!!!  And maybe what you are saying has never been done before!  There are individuals, yes.  There are monastic communties.  But at the level you are talking; that is absolutely fascinating.  Inspiring.  I need to incorporate this idea into my book!

For me, once my book is finished i intend to travel a lot, on a personal nomadic spiritual journey, to connect with Nature and my Spiritual Center, tro face my subconscious and transmute it.  So maybe at the end of that I'll have some experiences and attainments of my own, of the sort you are talking about when you ask where are the people living these experiences now.

You say: “One word to shadow. it has become talk of the day in certain integral circles. Its only ONE aspect..”

Yes, i agree, and i wonder how many really have the courage or ability to descend into and transform their deep unconscious, the way that Sri Aurobindo and the Mother did (they use the term “subconscient”).  It seems that “shadow-work” really refers to a very superficial and insignificant part of the Subconscient; i guess it is derived from the American Human Potential Movement that developoed in the 1960s (which is intrinsic in the New Age and also the mainstream Integral Mocvement)

You add “So much to say. And in the next 10-30 years every aspect of these discussions will become relvant. Then we will see who has done his homework. And where the new frontiers are. ”

haha!  Yes indeed!  Well put!  :-)

You say: “Please inform me when your book will be published. I am highly interested in reading and recommending it.”

Thanks for the kind words!  If you are interested you can read the provisional material that is written so far, although it is still being revised

warm regards
alan
 

hi Zak!

isn't Wilber's “stage” his equivalent of “station”?  I understand him as defining stage as a permanent developmental level, as opposed to state which is a temporary experience.  Or by “station” do you mean a strata of consciousness (hence 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc tiers).  Obviously, Sufism isn't my strong point!

By the way, SA never mentioned “Third Teir”, that's a Wilberian interpretation.   Wilber of course has no understanding of SA's philosophy or teachings, as he equates Overmind and Supermind with Buddhist concepts of Clear Light, Adi Da's Seventh Stage of Life and so on.  Obviously the Wilberian and Daist states/stages pertain to much lower levels of consciousness.  Wilber's “3rd Tier” is equivalent to what I call the “nondual” reality or hypostasis (see my previous blog entry dated 5 December), which also includes much of Sri Aurobindo's “intermediate zone”, and many other states and experiences and dimensions of existence besides.  In my book IM&T I interpret SA's Overmind and Supermind in terms of comparitive esotericism.

I don't think Wilber is downplaying the difference between his stages and the insights of SA, Sufism, etc.  Rather, i think he doesn't realise there is a difference.  Although he is sincere - and even, as Albert points out, has genuine experiences - he simply doesn't understand SA, or any other form of authentic esotericism.  And, not understanding them, misinterprets them in a well-meaning but still unfortunately narcissistic manner in terms of his own intellectual philosophy.

It's sort of funny though, if not for Wilber's own efforst, I may not have become motivated enough to write my book.  So I am very grateful to him  :-)   Originally when writing, i wanted to correct his errors and present my own alternative version of Integral philosophy.  But since then the book has taken on a life of its own, and Wilber will only play a more minor role in it (although i will still mention him, in a favourable way where I agree with what he says, and criticising where i disagree).  The primary orientation of the book with be SA & M's Integral Revelation (Supramentalisation), but also in the context of comparison with esotericism, occultism, science, develiopmental stages of human consciousness (as described by Steiner, Gebser, Wilbver and others) and so on

best wishes
alan

hi Zak!

In answer to my query (on stations and stages) you explained: “Remember Wilber's “stages” are based on spiral dynamics meme's, and a loose interpretation of the chakras. Spiral Dynamics states that memes change through evolution…is no such thing as 1 level of enlightenment, and a second, and third.”

Right !  I agree, one cannot speak of Enlightenment the way KW does in terms of stages (the “Clear Light” stage and so on).

You comment:  “This, by the way, doesn't in my eyes contradict SA's idea of overmind, and supermind. Though, this topic is somewhat too complex to discuss here in detail.”

Yes I agree.  There is Enlightenment in the sense of Realisation of the Absolute, which uis the same everrywhere.  But there are also “further” stages SA speaks of.  These are not “more enlightened” - from a  transcendental point of view Ibn Arabi, Ramana , SA, etc are all equally enlightened.  But in terms of dynamic action in the world,  SA is the most progressive.  I generally haven't made this distinction very well in my essays (between there being only one Enlightenment and many progressive manifestations of it in the world) but will do so in my book.  So KW error is to say that the first aspect (one Supreme everywhere - the perennial truth - Enlightenment) is actually the second aspect (progressive realisation through stages of silent mind, higher miond etc to Supermind and beyond).  This is an essential error in his whole philosophy, and therefore in all mainstream Integral thinking.  It comes imho from Wilber's being equally sympathetic to Adi Da and Buddhism on the one hand, & SA on the other, and then trying to create a mental synthesis, not using gnosis but only the ignorant surface mind.  So while he is sincere and means well, he does not understand SA, because to understand SA means that he can't read do it by skim/speed reading 3 books a day, but he has to sit down with the Life Divine or Synthesis of Yoga or Sarvitri and really read small parts of it a paragraph at a time, and then dialogue with the Integral Yoga community to make sure he isn't narcisstically imposing his own ideas on what SA says

Thanks also for your other very insightful and informative comments!

You write: “Wilber says himself that enlightenment is FAR over his stages, Therefore he understands this now, or if he always did, then he was deliberately misleading”

I don't think he deliberately misleads.  I think rather he has a huge ego so when he discovers he gets something wrong he can't admit it, but rather pretends he new it all along (this seems to be what happened with his response to Meyerhoff's critique - i have a footbnote someone on one of my essays (A Fourfold Critique), and possibly with Darwinian evolution as well (in which is trying to backtrack his creationism by saying he agrees with materialistic scientists but only seems to be getting moere confused).

Wilber's problem is that he either totally lacks gnosis or if he has some insight and gnosis he isn't willing to put it into his theory, for fear of offending mainstream academia  In One Taste - which i haven't read - he describes his experiences; although perhaps it is possible to have mystical experiences and yet be totally ignorant about what they mean.  And converesly to have no fancy experiences, but a  profound cosmic insight taht si quite and simple and always there and leading and informing and teaching.

You say: “I believe that when Wilber [as you do yourself about SA] makes errors in technical things, he should be corrected.”

Oh - absolutely!  Absolutely!  Otherwise falsehood is allowed to flourish.  But I do feel he is sincere and has good will, even though he, as we have both pointed out, gets things wrong

You say: “this is probably the best Wilber does [and he should be credited, as I wrote in good, bad, and ugly] that is inspiring people to seek higher knowledge. Bless his soul for this, eventhough I have to admit I get pissed when I read Wilber's stuff that I know is incorrect.”
 
hehe - you and I are exactly alike in our assesment and feelings on this matter my friend!!!  :-) 

You ask: “what do you think of Hugh and Kay Martins ADAPT theory that is now on Integral world. I personally think it is very good.”

I have to admit that when I saw it i was immensely impressed by the huge mass of information presented.  It seems that they have taken Wilber as a starting point but gone beyond the limitations of his own simplistic philosophy (simplistic in that every stage and so on in every line and quadrant etc has to match up exactly in a  very stylised and over-formatlised linear manner.  Steiner - whom i greatly admire - seems to have made similar errors).  But I would have to read the ADAPT material more closely to make a better assesment.  My only criticism for now is that it is hard to understand because there is simply *so much* detail there!

best wishes, and have a great new year!

alan

hi Robert!

Yes, hopefully my book will be finished by the middle of this year!  Then another year before it appears in print.  So early to mid 2009 i suppose (wow - time is marching on!  I remember when i was a kid reading sci fi - 2009 would seem like some futuristic bladerunner world.  But the future never turns out the way it is expected)

You are right, the mind is limited and reality is infinite, so no mental maps can be authentic.  And add to that the subjective distortion and misinterpretation you mention.  But still these cosmologies can be useful in pointing the way.  i follow in part the “perennial philosophy”, in part comparative esotericism and in part Sri Aurobindo in my metaphysics.  But i also say that no-one shoudl believe something just because I wrote it (or because anyone else writes it).

I'm glad to see your Multi-Dimensional Science is getting attention.  As with any new idea, it takes time to get recognised and build up momentum, but then it really gets going!

best wishes
alan

hi Sandra!

signed copy - for sure, will send you one!  :-)

A lot happening with me, but i'll write more in a new blog post

love & light
m a