Postmetaphysically Conceiving of Interreligious Resonance

I posted the following blog on Integral Life, and it has started to generate a little discussion, so I wanted to post a copy of it here (and a link to it on IL).

 

~*~

 

Recently, I have been talking with Federico via email about my paper for the ITC 2010 conference (Kingdom Come: Beyond Inclusivism and Pluralism, an Integral Postmet...).  Fede offered a generous, thoughtful "reading" and critique of my paper, and I wanted to post a portion of that discussion here and open up the topic to further inquiry in the IL community, if anyone is interested.  The content of our discussion is, I believe, pretty self-explanatory, and so it is not necessary to read my paper beforehand (though you're welcome to, if you want to!).


The main topic I want to discuss here is the question of whether spiritual traditions ultimately "meet at the top," as the metaphor sometimes goes.  My comments below were prompted, primarily, by Fede's comment that "if you discuss [spiritual realization] with a second tier (or third tier) contemplative Christian, he indeed would agree that the end of Christianity is the same, exactly the same even, of the one in the non dual eastern  paths."


To make this (hopefully) easy to follow, I will post our exchange in dialogue form:


Federico:  I think...that if you discuss [spiritual realization] with a second tier (or third tier) contemplative Christian, he indeed would agree that the end of Christianity is the same, exactly the same even, of the one in the non dual eastern  paths.

I remember I pointed Father Mayer to a video by Father Thomas Keating in which he went as far as to say that, even if it was a Taboo in the Catholic church, the very objective of Contemplation in Christianity was to become God. Not a part of God. Not a remembering of God. Not part of his luminosity.  But to become God him/herself... I found that amazing, because it was that recognition I am speaking about.


Balder:  I understand.  However, I am not convinced that people at the same developmental level will agree across the board on soteriological or spiritual questions, nor am I convinced they are all having the same identical "experience" (of the same "thing").  For instance, look at the broad range of perspectives / views that are concurrently available -- and sometimes in conflict with each other -- among same-stage traditions at various 1st tier stages of development.  There are many people with deep spiritual experience at the Amber and Orange levels of development, for instance; and while Orange Buddhists might find they have more in common, in terms of basic "style" of cognition or reasoning, with Orange Hindus or Christians than they do with Amber Buddhists, you still find (I believe) that fundamental differences of perspective persist both within traditions and across multiple traditions at the same level of cognitive development, even among mystics or contemplatives. 

I do think that having both similar levels of cognitive development and similar state-stage attainment contemplatively, is likely to foster a degree of mutual "recognition" across traditions -- because now at least two powerful "factors" are in relative alignment, e.g. stage and state attainments -- but looking from a postmetaphysical, enactive understanding, I would not be inclined to conclude that these individuals are therefore accessing the same "thing."  I say that for a couple reasons.  One, from a postmetaphysical, enactive perspective, a singular pre-given "object of perception" is not presupposed; rather, the "experience" that dawns as the result of spiritual practice is better seen as an "ontologically thick" enactment.  But the second reason is based just on what I can observe across traditions: Yes, powerful experiences of mutual "recognition" are possible across mystical traditions, or between schools within traditions.  (I've experienced that myself).  But significant differences in interpretation (and "experience") also remain -- differences that I do not believe are reducible simply to differences in developmental level, since these differences can and do persist among contemplatives at the same level of development.  If you look across the vast range of schools within Buddhism, for instance, you will find many subtle but significant differences (say, between Ati Yoga, Zen, Mahamudra, Hua Yen, Ch'an, and other traditions), which members of these schools themselves will insist on (in spite of other cross-tradition commonalities).  If you are committed to the myth of the given, these differences become a problem; but if you are not, then the problem of difference (and the need to insist on essential underlying "sameness") disappears.

(I have to admit that I am still rather sympathetic to the view you are expressing, largely because you appear to be articulating a view that I held for a number of years.  It is a view I am also willing to return to (that higher-stage mystics all arrive at the same "place"), if I can find reason to do so.  But the view I have presented in my paper, and that I am presenting here now, is where I currently "sit," after reflecting on and struggling with these questions for a few years.)


Federico:  I, as yourself, was born Christian, and continued to be so until practically now. A week ago I went with my mother to visit the Basilic of Teresa de Lisieux, and being there I felt how easy was for me to surrender to Christian images, and, in comparission, how difficult it is for me to do the same with Tibetan Yidams, even if I practice the latest all the time and the former never.


Balder:  Yes!  That happened to me as well.  After a number of years of trying to work with Tibetan yidams, I was surprised to find how much easier it was to connect, and surrender, to the images of my (abandoned) Christian tradition than to the (aesthetically beautiful but still somehow less compelling) Buddhist images.


Federico:  And, even though; even having a very strong faith in god; it doesn't seem to me as problematic to think that the end of the Christian path would be to become one with God (while, as I argued to Bonnitta, paradoxically continuing to be his child; a simple, tiny human being)... What I am trying to say is that even if I follow your BRILLIANT argument and I was amazed by the coherence in it (and at least one of the very purpouses of it, which was as I understood it a compassionate intent of making Integral teachings non agressive to christians or other non-eastern religions).... However I feel that, at least for 2nd and 3rd tier people, the 3 perspectives of God theory accounts for the experience of Spirituality. And even if there are (as you argued) philosophical problems with that, I still feel "it's true". You quoted for example the use of Ken of the terms One Taste, Non Duality, Godhead and others interchangeably... Don't you feel that is indeed correct when 2nd or 3rd tier people discuss spirituality?


Balder:  I believe the "three faces of God" idea is ingenious.  I think it has the potential to integrate and unify several primary "types" or "strands" of spiritual experience in a beautiful way, and I think it is, for that reason, likely going to be a lasting feature of "Integral Spirituality" for some time to come.  But I am a little hesitant to read it in a way that would suggest that it actually gives access to pre-existing "realms" or "things" -- God, Emptiness, etc -- that other traditions were somehow "missing."  Rather, I see it as a new enactment, giving form to a new spiritual vision and a new, unique potential for soteriological fulfillment.  This is one reason I argue in my paper that one approach Integralists could take would be to just develop "Integral Spirituality" as a unique path in itself, which could then engage constructively with other traditions, rather than holding the Three Faces convention as a universal, neutral description of reality-in-itself to be applied normatively to all traditions.  Other traditions might also adopt something like a "three faces" approach -- Cobb offers something similar, for instance, which I discussed in my ITC presentation; and other thinkers do as well -- but there is no reason (in my opinion) to expect uniformity (in terms of distinctions, experiences, insights, soteriological potentials or "results," etc) across traditions (at the same or different stage(s) of development), even if they do so.

I think various AQAL components can help explain why there is mutual "recognition" among mystics across traditional lines -- having to do with stage, state, lines, type, etc, involved -- but when this is postmetaphysically and enactively framed, this recognition does not (and should not) lead to the conclusion that they are all grasping the same "thing" or "object."  In a blog I posted a year or two ago (Of IMPs and Elephants), as well as in other writings over the past few years, I have argued for the plurality of enacted objects -- based, in part, on Wilber's writings in Appendix 2 of Integral Spirituality, but also on perspectives offered by a number of other thinkers[1]; and Sean Esbjorn-Hargens has also recently beautifully articulated a similar perspective in his recent paper on ontological pluralism, which I recommend.

(I plan on updating my ITC 2010 paper, and when I do, I will include some thoughts on how we can understand the "recognition" and fruitfully deal with the "overlap" we encounter among traditions, drawing partly on hermeneutic tools offered by Raimon Panikkar, without falling into the myth of the given).


Federico:  Something like what I feel happens to beings like the Dalai Lama or Tenzin Wangyal, that can have tremendous complex conversations taking hundreds of perspectives, but when it comes to interpret spirituality still cannot just overcome certain dogmas (I saw Tenzin saying that Buddhas don't have thoughts. You may well ask why. Because that is what is said in the tradition. See my point?)


Balder:  Yes, I understand you here, and agree.


Federico:  Woudn't you agree that the final realizations of at least the non dual schools and the higher contemplative traditions of the Theistic religions are indeed agreeing and speaking of different perspectives of the same "thing"?


Balder:  Based on what I wrote above, no. From my perspective now, I don't think they are taking different perspectives on the same thing; rather, I believe we can account for the similarities dynamically, enactively, without having to assert a singular underlying "object" or "experience."


Federico:  I have seen you and others struggling to avoid any methaphisic in trying to keep with a clean post-methaphisic orientation. Also I see that many are highly critical of anything that Ken could had left in his system that "smells" like methaphysics.  Still, if I understood Integral Spirituality book correctly, he doesn't present post-methaphisics as a prohibition of methaphisics, but as the suggestion that we should keep as less methaphisical givens as possible in the theory.  As less as possible is different from "none methaphisics", which appears to be the project of many and also the exigence many have now with Integral Theory.


Balder:  I hear you, and this is something I've noticed and reflected on as well.  I agree that Wilber's position is "minimal metaphysics," rather than "no metaphysics at all."  This makes sense to me because I think, if we are going to create a theory or make any definitive statements about reality, we will not be able to avoid having some metaphysical commitments (even in all that I articulated above).  But I think we can strive to be self-conscious and critically aware of our minimal metaphysical commitments, holding them lightly and with a willingness to drop them or change them as we grow and change.  And this holding lightly comes into play, in my view, particularly when we are entering that frothy territory of interreligious relationship and "correspondence."


~*~


To summarize, my main suggestion above (and one of my suggestions in my paper) is that, when you adopt the postmetaphysical, enactive approach that Wilber has introduced in his recent work, I believe this leads us in the direction of a sort of "integral pluralism," which leaves wide-open room for broadly inclusive, integrative enactments -- and leaves plenty of room to argue passionately for the value of such broadly inclusive approaches -- without having to presuppose a pre-given metaphysical ultimate which all traditions must ultimately and inevitably "realize" (and without falling into older, problematic "inclusivist" strategies, which was an issue I explored in my paper).


Best wishes,


Balder


[1]  Authors such as Henryk Skolimowski, Jorge Ferrer (his latest work more than his earlier work), Raimon Panikkar, A.H. Almaas (his notion of the "logoi of teachings"), Tarthang Tulku (his notion of the "intuple," integral multiplicity), etc.  Not all of these writers are necessarily writing from a Turquoise CoG, but their thought has nevertheless been influential on my own attempts to unpack the implications of the view Wilber puts forward in IS.

Views: 23

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

correct me if i'm wrong bruce but i thought this essay by visser touched on some of the points your making......

http://www.integralworld.net/visser7.html

fwiw., it's been interesting to witness the loosening of most if not all metaphysical commitments in my psyche over the last 30 years....with the exception of a couple of original conspiracy theories that i've come up with over that time!lol
As I've wondered countless times before, postmetaphysicality (PMP) also calls into question that there is a "thing" like a stable center of gravity or general altitude (self) from which we can make such same or cross-level comparisons. There's a hidden metaphysical assumption about this that I explored at length in the real and false reason thread looking at the model of hierarchical complexity as one example. Such models are the exemplars and rationale for a lot of this "levels" stuff.
Ed, I don't think the "levels" issue is the main focus of my post. I know you've already read by ITC paper, so you know I share your concerns about the "power issues" related to a hegemonic inclusivism. The question I'm addressing is the belief, among perennialists but apparently also among some Integralists, that all religions "meet" at the top, that they are all (at their higher levels, at least) up to and after the same thing, and contact or realize the same ultimate "thing." This is something I challenged in my paper, and which I tried to discuss further in the post above. Do you have any thoughts on that issue? I think the general point I've made would stand even if you problematize the "levels" issue. (I think even if you do challenge it so it can no longer be seen as a valid sort of distinction -- something I'm not convinced about yet -- there still remain clearly discernable differences in meaning systems or meaning-making activities among various groups and traditions which can be discussed along the lines of what I was saying above.) How would you approach that?
It's difficult not to apply the levels issue since "at the top" explicitly states they meet "at the highest level." As if there is such a thing in the first place? So I agree with you that the assumption of meeting at the same "thing" is problematic, that likely they are all enacting different things contingent on numerous other factors. But we must ask why such an assumption in the same "thing" arises, and the levels issue is key since this "thing" goes hand in hand with "the highest level."

I think it's also related to some other threads we discussing now, like the nature/nurture issue. I quoted Lakoff in that thread that he no doubt thinks "reason" is universal, but not in the transcendental sense but rather through neurophysiology and environmental development. He even sees "levels" of hierarchical development but the levels referred to in religious contexts seem not embodied but metaphysical, of the type of transcendental reason that Lakoff denies. And such metaphysical, transcendental levels are of a different breed and arrive at ultimate things at the top.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

What paths lie ahead for religion and spirituality in the 21st Century? How might the insights of modernity and post-modernity impact and inform humanity's ancient wisdom traditions? How are we to enact, together, new spiritual visions – independently, or within our respective traditions – that can respond adequately to the challenges of our times?

This group is for anyone interested in exploring these questions and tracing out the horizons of an integral post-metaphysical spirituality.

Notice to Visitors

At the moment, this site is at full membership capacity and we are not admitting new members.  We are still getting new membership applications, however, so I am considering upgrading to the next level, which will allow for more members to join.  In the meantime, all discussions are open for viewing and we hope you will read and enjoy the content here.

© 2024   Created by Balder.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service