In the video above he shares an interesting perspective with regards to the word “spiritual,” which he is taking a stand against (and really more importantly the misconceptions he sees coming along with the word). His reasoning is two-fold: 1) The word often denotes a sense of “other-worldliness”, that is a world which is separate from our normal existence. This is a problem, presumably, because what we are living is this life, in this world. 2) When something (or someone) is considered spiritual it’s held to an extreme degree of purity, much more so than other things. The problem here is that our ideals, which are in almost all cases off the mark, are being projected onto the object, which can then never possibly live up to them.
This is a prescient critique and one that as a spiritual teacher (of sorts), Ethan must have some 1st hand experience with. That being said, I’d like to explore some other ways of looking at this issue, one’s that may lead us not to simply reject the word spiritual, and problems that it is pointing to, but to actually re-contextualize the problem in such a way that basically eliminates it altogether.
If we take the original problems of other-worldliness and saintly ideals, we can see that these are projections onto the word spiritual, and really onto ideas we have about spiritual development. Another word for spiritual development is enlightenment, and so what we are dealing with are people’s models of enlightenment or spiritual development and authority. What my friend and teacher Daniel Ingram has demonstrated, in a brilliant examination of the different Models of Enlightenment that have existed, is that there are many different ideals that one may have of the spiritual journey, and its fruit, but that are pretty much only a couple that get close at actually, in extremely human and down-to-earth ways, describing what it’s actually about. In that section Daniel presents over 20 models that people can have–including God models, Emotional models, Radiance models, Transcendence models, and Social models to name a few. But only model, he claims that is accurate from beginning to end, are the non-duality models:
those models having to do with eliminating or seeing through the sense that there is a fundamentally separate or continuous center-point, agent, watcher, doer, perceiver, subject, observer or similar entity.
As you may already see, the two things that Ethan doesn’t like about the word spiritual, have to do with two models (namely the God and Transcendence models) that are being projected onto the word itself. And what this meta-view (or meta-model) allows us to do is not just reject these two models, but to actually identify that there are many other such models, each of which tell us something about he spiritual path, but only one of which can tell us what it is ultimately about.
So we take what Ethan’s said and add a whole host of other views that are projected onto the word spiritual, and then using the non-duality models, actually clarify what the word spiritual (or enlightenment if you please) is actually about. By teasing this apart at least two things happen:
- We can see everything that is not the spiritual path, and which are our ideals about what we think it should be, and then begin to re-contextualize spirituality altogether.
- By doing that we are now able to become extremely pragmatic about the goal of spiritual path, and begin to talk about the actual methods and technologies which may help us achieve it. This pragmatic view is so much more empowering for teachers and students, and if we diligently reject the other models this allows us to avoid the extreme projection and weirdness that Ethan was hinting at, then we don’t end up with as much of the personal issues and can focus solely on what should be focused on.
What is so interesting is that once one is able step far enough away from their models about what “spiritual” is, and see all of the common ways that people answer the question, “What is enlightenment?” then common patterns are seen. Seeing the patterns is the first step towards adopting the best of these models consciously, and then from there the words which used to point to so many conflated models can be consciously crafted into more empowering and helpful meanings. Or, we can drop the word, and come up with new ones, but I ain’t go nothing against “spiritual”.
Seems that Ken Wilber has a pretty good general framework here, with his five (?) definitions of spirituality, and also his differentiation between Enlightenment (realized selflessness, Ground awakening) and Self-Realization (development within form, of individual human self and/or soul).
Enlightenment is largely binary, on or off, and doesn’t evolve. It is also independent of any particulars within form.
And Self-Realization, since it happens within form and content of experience, is infinite in its variations, and continues to evolve with individuals and the universe.
Also, I notice something when I read several of your posts. You seem to often assume that there is a particular goal to practice, and you leave out the other half:
That spiritual practice can also be an open-ended exploration, an exploration of the terrain, which includes realized selflessness and the different types of self-realization.
I tend to lean more towards the exploration side of the scale, seeing the exploration in itself as what is important. I don’t care too much about Enlightenment in itself, as a “goal”, but I am interested in it as part of the wider terrain.
Hi Per,
Good to hear from you!
Yeah, I think perhaps there is some difference in how we’re using the terms (esp. enlightenment), and this presents some trickiness in how to respond to your comment. I think it’s likely that we’d need to actually have a discussion and get clear on the terminology, or maybe use Ken Wilber’s four definitions as a starting place…
In any case, I think I see the general distinction you seem to be making with Enlightenment vs. Self-Realization and I think that what I mean to by enlightenment is more toward what you mean by self-realization. Not sure though…
As far as my particular emphasis on the goal of practice, versus the exploration, I think that’s generally true. What I’m emphasizg is the final un-tieing of the knot of perception, or the dissolution of the centerpoint (for good). The reason being that my approach is more to go for this until it is complete, and then turn toward exploration later. This is based on an intuition on my own part on how to proceed, and from suggestions I’ve received from teachers I trust. Obviously, other people (and often times other traditions) emphasis exploration on the way towards that final realization, but I’m more interested in realizaing first and exploring later, and so I emphasis that dimension of it more.
Just as an example, I’ve put off mastering the concentration states (even though I suspect it wouldn’t take too much time or effort) and put off doing a lot of heart-centered practices (like metta) in order to continue allowing insight to unfold more rapidly. I’ve been very happy with that choice, although I still feel called to explore those dimensions when the time is right.
Essentially I see the difference here as one of emphasis, not one of final interest. I too am very interested as enlightenment as part of the wider terrain, I just am focusing on it first.
Hi Vince.
“Essentially I see the difference here as one of emphasis, not one of final interest.”
Seems that we are very much alike there. For me, the emphasis seems to change over time and the exploration just happens to be in the forefront right now.
“What I’m emphasizg is the final un-tieing of the knot of perception, or the dissolution of the centerpoint (for good).”
This sounds like Enlightenment in the traditional Buddhist sense, realized selflessness. (And what Wilber refers to when he differentiates Enlightenment and Self-Realization.)
I think it gets tricky because the two are (may be) at the same time quite distinct and also tightly interwoven. You can have one without the other. (Realized selflessness without much healing/development of the human self, or of soul if you want to include that.) Yet, the development/reorganization of the human self through practice, including insights from practice, seems to invite in realized selflessness.
But who am I to say. These are all just questions.
Yeah, these are great questions, and I think you’re totally right on in everything you say.
I’ll admit, for me to say I haven’t focused on exploration of development isn’t quite accurate, as I definitely have (the fact that I have a fully functional and relatively healthy relationship, I think is a testament to that). It’s just to say that I’ve seen this development and “realized selflessness” as running down slightly different tracks, and find making this distinction extremely helpful.
The tight interwoven-ness you mention works in a unique way, where if enlightenment is focused on to the exclusion of development (or even in a slightly uneven way), one ends up having all sorts of problems and doesn’t do much development. Ken’s whole levels and lines distinction. Same for focusing too much on development and not really getting into the actual realization of selflessness.
This is more of where my post was coming from, and from the angle that if one has confused development and enlightenment (thinking that enlightenment carries with it all sorts of developmental benefits) then they can’t actually get into a frame of mind to do the practices that are themselves counter to any sort of content, but instead are focused on the process of phenomenal reality. I see that misconception so often, even, and perhaps even especially, in integral circles that it seems worth screaming to the high heavens.
So many of my friends are personal development nuts (hey, I sort of am too), and they so often put enlightenment in this category, where it’s nothing like it in so many ways. In order to wake up (in the sense of enlightenment)–and I know you know this–it is so vital to be able to put aside the seeking and striving that underlies so much of personal development, and be willing to look striving for what it is: the energy that is splitting reality into this and that. Again, that isn’t to say that one can’t then re-engage with personal development techniques and develop in all sorts of interesting and important ways, just that they are somewhat mutually exclusive (at least in the beginning), and that appears to be the first big obstacle on the path of enlightenment. Shit, I think I’m rambling at this point, and I’m almost sure you get what I’m saying. I totally see merit in both sides, and I wonder if my emphasis is more a reaction to what I see, rather then how I actually see things!!!
Great comments! I agree with everything you are saying as well.
It seems an almost impossible conundrum to do both, which is why we just have to do the best we can, under the best guidance we can find, and trust the process itself. Seems that there is an inherent intelligence there far beyond what we can come up with in our thinking minds.
And it is probably also why there is sometimes (not always) a “crash” at a point in the process, where attachments to content – including bliss, luminosity, clarity, a sense of a doer, a sense of accomplishment and so on – are worn off. I know that one from (painful!) personal experience. It may also be why I am in exploration mode right now, since I am still at the tail end of that crash. (Aka dark night.)
Ah, yes.
Great point about the dark night and the fluctuation one has toward exploration (and content) during that phase. I’m also coming more into that, I think, where the sense of any kind of experience, including emptiness, is no longer worth striving for. Weird, cause I feel that in a lot of ways there is nothing left to do (so why not develop?), but also the drive to develop is largely absent. I’m finding that a slightly weird situation, one that already seems to be hinting at the remaining subtle dualities… I wonder.
Best,
-Vince
(this kind of dialogue is exactly the realized potential of the web. I am grateful for you and for It.) James