The Integral Map of Enlightenment

I'm not adverse to the Wilberian model of Spiritual evolving that he labels "integral" and his right quadrants, and possibly even the bottom left, can clearly be empirically studied (yet, I feel intersubjective interiors are as open to interpretation as subjective interiors), however, the subjective interiors cannot be 'perceived' and thus his "map" is moot, but interesting, nonetheless.

Yet, the scientist (and KW definitely wants to be a "scientist") must rely on sense data. KW proclaims that we have the data and the guru's have informed us of the highest levels of the interiors, so we must trust. Yet the guru's also say, "reject what I teach and find your own way." Could be valid, dunno...but, it does seem a little suspect to validate states of consciousness through the empirical and rigorous scientific method.

I have always had difficulty with the Buddhist truth theorem, which I recall from Plato's "ideal forms" (correct me if I'm wrong). That which is NOT the Ideal form can only mimic or imitate since only the ideal is true, yet the ideal, or whole, is in all the parts.

With the Buddhists, it seems that compromises are made with illusional reality in order to have some of 'relativity' be true while other aspects are false or not true. Seems to me that there should only be truth and not levels to truth. But I do understand how the Buddhists and integral theory require some conventional forms of 'reality' to be 'true' in order to arrange the conditions for attaining enlightenment, but that's if you believe conditions can be so arranged. I'm not so sure...

I do believe from my readings that Wilber has done wonders in intellectually formulating his theory of enlightenment to the evolutionary/developmental properties of the illusion (although I feel there are some missing links, like how can the thing-in-itself that has no 'self' to transcend, seek to transcend?). But if only pure consciousness is 'real' why should I need to study what is NOT 'real' in order to transcend it and return to pure consciousness?

One of Wilber's great insights is that "enlightened" individuals can have very different worldviews

I understand that KW feels this is important in relation to correctly interpreting an 'enlightened state.' Seems this is significant in relation to expressing a definition of the enlightened state in the teaching of others. I'm not so sure interpretation is all that significant and once again, many 'masters' advocate seeking one's own individual path and not relying on the interpretation they provide, which KW seems to greatly rely on. It seems, based on the teachings of many ancient wisdom traditions, that a glimpse of the non-dual is NOT an experience that allows intellectual interpretation anyway. Maybe that's why most discussions finally results in the fate of all non-dual discussion being 'silence.'

Are we sure we want to call that enlightenment?

And that seems to be the paradox, how to define an 'experience' that cannot be contained by intellectual reasoning. I tend to feel that Wilber's strong desire to attach scientific definitions to an experience that cannot be intellectually grasped tends to minimize the experience. However, I understand the integral perspective is only a 'map' like any other map and has applied value accordingly. Yet, the mapmakers "fingerprints" are all over the place.

One reason is that people's ability to realize non-duality is greatly affected by some of those "not real" things.

But, how do we KNOW that, other than that it certainly seems to fit nicely with the illusional paradigm of external reality and it makes complete sense in relation to our agreement in the mutual experience of that 'reality.' But does that make it TRUTH?

Certainly it does seem that our belief in a body/mind organism requires we maintain that organism effectively (I'm not clear on the legal and economic systems as necessary in relation to developmental enlightenment), however, I'm not sure I can relate to "a body is necessary." Did we mean to say that we have collectively, intersubjectively agreed upon the body being necessary as FACT?

The intergal perspective has great value in negotiating with and merging the right quadrants, however, the concept that those empirical quadrants MUST be part of my ability to glean the infinite seems to make the infinite simply another aspect of the illusion we wish to transcend.

Clearly, the effective study and use of the right quadrants to create a better world cannot be denied. However, "enlightenment" may inform us that it does NOT matter and it never did. But I can't prove that this is correct, however, it seems Wilber can 'prove' that it isn't correct.

Maybe he's correct. Nevertheless, I remain skeptical...

I am somewhat familiar with a few of the western advaitists or post-modern teachers of non-duality, such as Balkesar, Liquorman, Adyashanti, Nirmala, etc. I feel that there is a distinction between understanding the "paradox" (which I'm not certain how who can identify those who do and those who do not 'understand the paradox') and teaching the way to 'understanding the paradox.' Even KW emphasizes that teaching need begin at the students level (I wish I could find that essay since I think he was using Rinpoche as an example).

Therefore, based on the student, the teacher may need to fluctuate between the many and the one and it will be the task of the student to consciously integrate what is taught since teaching requires words and concepts. This integration will be based more on the consciousness that is learning, then on the curriculum taught. However, it may not signify that the teacher does not understand the paradox although it may. Nevertheless,That distinction will be the students.

Wisdom vs Compassion

The sage will naturally employ wisdom as the springboard for compassion since there would be no need to differentiate between the two, since they are one and the same in the mind of the "sage." Yet the teaching may need to differentiate for the mind that continues to "exist" through distinctions and the seeking out differences.

In all honesty, I do tend to fluctuate back and forth between the two perspectives which I suppose is indicative of my NOT understanding the paradox. Yet, I certainly see the need for an integrative perspective. However, there are many schools of thought that teach that you cannot arrange the "conditions" through which such an integration will occur.

Often many mistake my drive-to-question as contentious and obstructing of the Truth (cap 'T'). Yet, I tend to feel that complete overzealous adoption of any belief system may impede the 'knowing' that may only be available in detachment from all belief systems. This is why I can relate to Balkesar, Liquorman, Maharshi, Nisargadatta, Ken Wilber, etc, in part, but never in whole. I tend to feel that adoption of any "map" in whole, may inadvertently distract from what the map points to, thereby making it the territory. Integral devotees can be just as easily become unconsciously victim to this impediment.

The consciousness that can frame the paradox to achieve 'realization' will accept the teaching that consciousness provides and naturally reject what is not integrative or conducive, regardless of whether the teacher is regressive or evolutionary in curriculum.

The teacher does not matter to the advanced consciousness that essentially teaches itself.

I keep wanting to find a way to incorporate KW's ideas, in relation to interior states, with regard to spirtual experiences, but fail to find any means of accurate validation. Even his intersubjective "we" quadrant, in relation to experiences of external reality, leaves much to be desired since it is contingent on "consensual validation" of inner processes, "hey did you have this experience?" "Yea, I experienced that too, and so did they, therefore it must be REAL!"

That seems more akin to the rule of the majority in relation to my interpreting my own personal spiritual experience. Therefore, a "truthful" experience is based on ways that others have interpreted and defined their own spiritual experience. What if others have failed to fully grasp the implications of their experience and have relied on historical egoic representations as passed down through the "texts." Would I then take my unique spiritual experience and adapt my interpretation to conform to some consensually agreed upon interpretation that some "master" has taught is correct and that the spiritual community accepts on face value? What if he, and they, are flat-out "wrong"? (this seems almost equivalent to religious fundamentalism).

Wilber's "fingerprints" are all over the map in relation to his desire to demonstrate that scientific proof of individual and collective experiential modes of knowing can be validly studied.

Can there be such a study of collective "experience" or interiors even in relation to external reality or what we have agreed on as "real"?

I am skeptical...