Participatory Spirituality for the 21st Century
Ken Wilber has a new (free) teaching available on the Integral Life website, referred to in some places as "Five Paths to Enlightement" and elsewhere as
I support and appreciate the effort here to identify and correlate common (say, homeomorphically equivalent) elements across disparate traditions, and to situate them in an integrative, trans-lineage view or understanding. However, while I haven't had a chance to listen to the full talk yet, what I've read and heard so far appears to presuppose or suggest one common soteriological end -- one common realization or enlightenment -- for all traditions. In other words, the perennialist view that says that all paths ultimately meet at the same mountain peak. I don't think such a view is adequate, and appears also to be out of step with Integral theory's own integral, postmetaphysical, enactive orientation. What do you think?
I don't know of a Christian mystic who experiences led them to believe that God doesn't exist. Surely, within the academic study of this field scholars would confirm the truth of this statement.
From a Christian layperson perspective, I would think that calling the God experience Unity consciousness would be acceptable. But that Unity spirit within A Christian context still allows for the person of God working within the hearts of human beings. How God does this is a mystery and can't be known through human methods of knowing. IMO., it's the heart where the mystery of God resides; this is what God CARES about. Also, I've talked to thousands of people in my life who do say that they have experienced God working in their life in a personal way. So, who knows? I also like the seven days of agnosticism doctrine!
I was an esoteric Christian mystic* and I no longer believe that God exists.** In this wiki one can see that there was a revival of esoteric Christianity with Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, which was a heavy influence on Rosicrucianism, which in turn was a heavy influence on the Golden Dawn, BOTA and Freemasonry. I was a member of all three of the latter. PF Case was the founder of BOTA, previously a member of the GD. His book The True and Invisible Rosicrucian Order was required reading. Regardie, a member of the GD, wrote My Rosicrucian Adventure, also required reading. The inner order of the GD was called Rosae Rubeae et Aureae Crucis (the Ruby Rose and Cross of Gold) and its lamen is depicted below.
** Or in enlightenment, for that matter.
Well, you are rather unique , sir! I certainly know one now. Do you mind if i ask if there was something definitive that made you move away from various forms of theism or traditional metaphysics?? One of my ex's and I wrote a song called 'it's all bullshit'. Also, are you 100% convinced or 99.9999% ? Is there the slightest possibility within you that would concede gods existence?
I was thinking about the idea of non-attachment and was wondering if there might be the possibility of being attached to the idea of non- theism?
Your second point at the end is worth noting. Kenny still frames the big 3 here in eastern religious jargon. The last thing that most practitioners in CIJ are going to do is convert to esoteric eastern philosophy, so i don't get it. Enlightened atheism might be a better path:)
Does anyone see any utility in this paragraph?
"Are you 100% convinced or 99.9999% ? Is there the slightest possibility within you that would concede gods existence?"
The point is the difference between metaphysics and postmetaphysics. In the latter there is an acceptance of fallibility, that there is always room for progressive knowledge. So it is always open to new evidence and change accordingly. But it also acknowledges that knowledge progresses, hence postmetaphysics is an advance over metaphysics. One of those advances is no longer accepting God as some sort of unchanging essence. And/or creator of the universe. It goes beyond the binary logic of two separate realms of absolute/relative, the former as creator of the latter. We still see this form of logic in kennilingus and the traditional systems he lists above. One can still allow for God in the sense of universals, but not in the metaphysical sense. I equate theism with the latter sense, so in that way atheism is not the equal and opposite of theism but the same advance from metaphysics to postmetaphysics.
But this is also fallible and will progress again with new evidence. Will it likely regress into metaphysics? Unlikely.
Also of note is that the Lingam does not list the sort of process Christianity* of Faber, Keller et al. as one of his paths, and to me this is a much more postmetaphysical form of faith. Unfortunately the only way metaphysical kennilingus can translate this type is as a sort of green relativism when it is in fact popomo.
* But he does list esoteric Christianity, and it is like his other choices metaphysical to the core as I've expounded at length elsewhere. And why I eventually left it when I went postmeta. And which still allows me to accept at least some of the process Christians like those mentioned, and especially Caputo. Although he's technically a de/reconstructive Christian, another branch within my balliwick. Also Cameron Freeman of the latter sort.
Correction. The five paths Kennilingam mentions are not per se metaphysical, just in how he chooses to translate them. I made an extensive case* that Madhyamaka can be interpreted postmetaphysically, but also metaphysically and the Lingam chooses those branches that do the latter.
* In this thread and its predecessor Gaia thread.
FWIW- I line up with your way of thinking on these issues more than Wilber's way. There is to me, something inherently wrong about the way Wilber tries to frame IS to CIJ. It doesn't work! And that is not even bringing up the leave science alone issue. I'm not not sure why a conveyer belt Integral alternate faith won't work. This to me is an easier move for CIJ's than post metaphysical atheism. And it is far less destructive to society than traditional forms of these faiths. I agree with your pomo christian's, too; but not all CIJ's have IQ's over 150. If humanity does survive the next century and I don't think we will, a part of our possible survival will entail religionists becoming non-toxic.
Does anyone see any utility in this paragraph?
If the so-called "Buddhist" is at a barbarian or traditionalist level of emotional development then this meeting will not lead to such agree-to-disagree conviviality. But if the so-called "Buddhist" is at a humanist or higher level of emotional development than such an outcome is virtually guaranteed regardless of the differences in viewpoint.