Are We "Expressions" of God or Are We God

There are those who feel that we are limited expressions of God. Thus seems a bit stifling to me. It's as if God 'chose' to limit expression or extension of God. Why would Perfection extends limits to Perfection, unless perfection created imperfection, which makes no sense. That would negate perfection. Unless, of course we believe God is conceptually defined as imperfect. If so, then maybe we limit ourselves.

No, rather, I tend to be presently incorporating a belief that we are God in whole, but attached to our own limits as only part of the whole. We limit our 'self' through belief in 'possibility' and 'potential.' This results in attachment to a future actuality that we can only EXPECT will occur and that we therefore live out the entirety of our lives expecting. Therefore, we live in EXPECTATION of transcendence/transformation which must impede NOW (since expectation relies on possibility/potential as actual, rather then NOW as actual)

Therefore, EXPECTATION seems our self-imposed curse and demands we remain compulsively attached to linear identifications of evolving INTO an actuality, but NEVER There NOW. To believe you are God NOW would simply be arrogant and conceited, right? But to believe you are God NOW and thus to ACTUALLY Be God, simply because your "belief" as such is free of all limitations, now that's a bit staggering to the imagination. Maybe that's all that need occur? (only the ego/self requires "evolving")

How to break free of the limits we impose upon ourself through our own minimized conceptual beliefs about or own self-imposed limits?(read that a few times and it may make sense).

How to maximize the ego/self in a way that the addiction to ego/self is healed and "God-ness" naturally rises to the top as the end of all self-imposed limitations?

That could be true. But what if it is simply our "lack of imagination" that limits what we can think and Be, only we limit it to what we can "become"? If theoretical physics maintains its current questioning continuum, we may eventually come to realize that it is simply our limiting beliefs about our 'self' that keeps us pressed down into a limited 'self." Yet, there is no such thing as a limited 'self' and we made it up from fear of what we really ARE.

I don't believe the infinite extends anything less then infinitely. Diversity is our invention and as long as we believe in OUR diversity we will continue to divide and separate through glorification of such. However, the paradox is that we must use diversity to reunify as One, rather then to accentuate our separateness through differences.

Unity or convergence of opposites, contrary to our conflict of opposites, will require that we seek out re-unification and reconciliation through abandoning our constant need to judge differences simply by believing that there can be NO differences. We need no longer SEE it as such.

I tentatively believe that what will be revealed is that there is no "destiny." This was another ego/self invention along the lines of "seek, but do not find." To "become" can be seen as infinite extension, but that would mean we ARE what we are "becoming" and thus Being and Becoming merge as ONE. If we obsess on "becoming" we may miss Being.

So how come we can't walk on water or through walls? Because we simply BELIEVE it is impossible and nothing more than that. 'Belief' is the glue that binds the atomic phenomenal world and it is belief, imposed upon the 'quanta,' or packets of energy, that determine the parameters of the physical world. Belief is everything and everything must be believed.

Our 'belief' in reality has 'coalesced' through the parameters of time/space, to give us what we believe we MUST experience and forces of reality essentially converge on demand. Collective belief within a 'field' of consciousness is that 'force' which shapes the 'physical' dimensions of what we perceive as REAL (can anyone adequately define the term, "real"?).

However, I do sense that there is an individual component to this 'universal belief in reality' that can literally shift reality.

Is Fear Helpful?

Certainly our belief in ego/self runs tandem with the need for a "body" through which to apply space-time coordinates to the ego/self. Therefore, we grant the body all manner of motivations, instincts, unconscious drives, etc, in order to make sense of what is essentially, as the existentialists refer to it, the absurdity of existence.

But note that all mechanizations of the body demand sensory perception. Therefore, since our eyes and ears do not provide knowledge of a deeper kind, we have resigned ourselves primarily to sense data to explain the universe.

I disagree that fear is healthy and, in fact, fear is what obstructs our going deeper in order to learn who and what we are. However, employing fear as a cue to seeing the world differently is certainly beneficial. But to ignore the cue would be detrimental to going beyond fear and may in fact intensify our fears as is often the case.

There are no "instincts." Only our belief in the need to manufacture such processes to explain what we cannot make sense of. However, the collective mind seems to believe that what the eyes and ears inform is true. Thus, in that non-spiritual, manifest world sense of things, instincts are real.

I think we are all trying to get beyond what the senses inform so that maybe we can makes sense of our belief in our death which we certainly believe is one day certain.

A complete absence of fear would seem to require a change of "monumental" proportions, individually and collectively. However, for me, that does not negate such a potential being actualized as experience. Is it possible at present? Well, I know many spiritual folks who seem to rhapsodize about "being in the present," although mostly it seems to crumble into a heap of platitudes.

Yet I believe that being in the NOW, is nothing BUT a complete absence of fear which then opens one up to the love of Source, which fear can only obstruct. If you mean can this be experienced in this century, then I can only say that if collectively we believe it is impossible then collectively we may be sealing our fate and the absence of peace. Or, at the least, prolonging our suffering and our failure to experience that which the "masters" have referred to as pure, unadulterated BLISS, incomprehensible to the mind protecting itself from fear.

I do not deny that fear has served humankind, nor do I assert the inverse. However, I think there is some level confusion because if our reality is "illusory," as many eastern spiritual ideaologies seem to assert (I am inclined to agree at present) then what do we mean by "instinctual" if all is illusory? What, of all our drives and motivations, has any relevance if the world is illusory?

Our belief in a dualistic world requires that we percieve a conflict of opposites directly related to the chief dualistic interpretation of life and death. Above and beyond anything else you can be, you are either alive or dead and since we have no certain definition of death (good or bad) we attach to and identify with the believed certainty of "life," since our "living" seems certain to us.

Therefore, anything that threatens that current "certainty" must be protected against and fear is that which aids us in the construction of protective measures to protect what we believe is most certainly our one and only "Life."

Fear demands protection and we seem to live our "lives" within our own self-imposed wall of protection. We must protect the body and, now we have evolved to where our belief in "self" must also be protected at all costs. We die for honor, freedom, justice, liberty, "truth", (the American Way) etc, etc. Therefore, we will risk death to protect abstract concepts of who and what we are, even though we have no certainty as to who and what we are, just a package of beliefs we refer to as "self."

So if you believe with certainty that you are a ego/self in a body ("skin-encapsulated ego," as Freud labeled it) then you must insure that your embodied entity survives because you have determined that it is YOU.

But, the problem occurs if all that..... is NOT really YOU. Then all your protective strategies may have served for nothing but to keep "you" from what is really YOU. The YOU that is not a body and is not an ego/self demanding to "survive." In fact, if you were never really an embodied self, then your self-protective strategies may have only reinforced your belief as such.

Therefore, maybe the goal is to let go of and cease identification with the fears that keep you from knowing who and what you ARE. But only when you arrive at the point where you no longer believe who you thought you were, is who you really ARE.

Who here is at that point, raise your hand!

The End of Suffering?

So if "all is not well," as many seem to declare, then should we continue to see it as NOT well? Images of starvation have been around for centuries long before images could be recorded, and the images remain the same. No change here.

Do we once again demand that by making others witness to suffering, see the graphic death that we perpetrate upon ourselves, that then suffering will cease? Will experiencing more "sadness and fear" create a better world even though the world has been steeped in sadness and fear ever since the world existed?

I agree that the images cannot be denied and I feel that only the most heartless sociopath could not experience some level of sadness. But what difference will it make and what difference has it ever made to see it?

If I see the starving child and know to some degree that I am at fault for the suffering of the world because I do nothing, or do little, to stem the tide of suffering that seems everywhere, then clearly I must be guilty. And aren't we all guilty, since suffering has not ceased?

Maybe we do not actually just go about "seeking selfish joy" as some would complain. Maybe what we really do is seek ways to ease our guilt since it certainly seems clear that suffering will never end. Therefore, we feel we have no choice but to offset our guilt, else it has the potential to overpower us and consume us. Maybe that's a good thing.

Somehow we need to see suffering differently or else be consumed by guilt. And Isn't guilt suffering?

I understand that my "questioning," may be discerned as a commitment to seeing things "one way." Yet, I am committed to nothing but continued questions.

Yes, I agree, most people likely experience compassion, maybe some guilt, a little hate (in relation to agents of power), maybe even fear of what the world is "becoming." However, it seems that many see others as "cocooning." But, do they not suffer? Is there not "suffering" inherent to all living?

I do not advocate we "turn our backs on it." Actually, I only asked IF it could be SEEN differently. This may have been taken as an avoidance strategy, which was not the intent of the question.

Maybe what we see and react to are DEGREES OF SUFFERING?

I know a wealthy woman who's 12 yr old daughter has been diagnosed with brain cancer and no treatment has helped and she may eventually be terminal. This mother's suffering is beyond what you and I can imagine, until we are "thrown" into such suffering ourselves. I also know a 50 yr old, upper middle class man who has intense debilitating pain in even the simplest movements and he suffers intensely. Or the middle class woman who's husband left her and 3 children for another and this woman suffers with her future. There is the 16 yr old foster child who was brutally abused (unspeakably) by his own alcoholic parents in early childhood. This youth suffers with his past and may suffer for many years to come, if he so chooses.

None of these individuals are starving, yet they do suffer. Do these people "turn their backs" on the suffering of the world? Make no mistake, I suffer in my way, maybe you do too?

Are these examples of suffering less than or equivalent to the suffering of the starving child? Is there a hierarchy to suffering? Is physical "pain" real, while suffering is only a personal construct of the mind and thus, has no basis in "truth"? In that sense, does the starving child "suffer" or merely experience the pain of starvation?

I have also know hospice patients of varying ages who have terminal illnesses of varying kinds and many live in extreme physical pain. They know that they will die very soon. Many do not suffer at all and extend joy to all who come in their presence.

But, how can this be? Shouldn't they suffer since they are in pain and clearly they will soon be dead?

Does the gazelle in the jaws of the leopard "suffer" or do we merely project our own personal construct of suffering onto that image as well? Is peace from suffering available only through acceptance of death? Has the starving child made peace with suffering and accepted death similar to the gazelle and the hospice patients?

Do the dying correspond with a deeper truth unavailable to the 'living'?

Maybe the starving child does not suffer at all. Obviously, that statement will be extracted from this entire post as my avoidance of the 'truth.' Then so be it. I only look for a way to SEE it differently.

I feel compassion for suffering. But I also feel that this is not enough. I have worked toward relieving suffering. But, again, I feel that this is not enough.

Nothing on the 'outside' seems to relieve suffering. It disappears here, only to reappear there. Moving from place to place suffering is omnipresent. So if it's 'everywhere' and 'always,' why do we resist? Simply because we want it GONE. I believe it can be gone.

"Can I eliminate suffering in the world?" I say YES. But, if the answer cannot be found outside, then maybe its "within." I just need to find the right question to take me 'there.'

I have spent the last 25 years of my life working directly with suffering in all the billions of ways it is manifest (and this is in addition to approximately 46 yrs of my own renditions). Also, I have spent many years studying the 'mind' in order to better serve these individuals. Sadly, it has been only recently that I have begun to see that all my educational degrees and all my studying has been for nought.

There is NO truth "out there." If there was why have we not found it? When will it be found? Who will find it, "science"?

To rely on what science teaches is to rely on sensory perception and what the body teaches because science is pure sense data. I relied on this for many years and found the sciences to be essentially useless (particularly and specifically the psychological sciences!!).

I agree that compassion is not enough, But is 'action' the only thing that matters? Does compassion drives action? Does inaction result in guilt?

Essentially you can't lift the pinky finger on your left hand without "thinking" about it first (however, we have chosen to ingnore many types of "non-reflective" thought or the type of thinking were we don't reflect on ourself as the one thinking).

As someone famous once said, "The journey of a thousand miles doesn't begin with the first step, but with the first...thought."

We have centuries of "action" and little to show for it. The mind is the final frontier and we are only beginning to plumb those infinite depths (they specualte that we use only 10%).

Yet, there is much in the metaphor of "coming from the heart" that points to the type of thinking that, if permanent, complete and all-encompassing, will most certainly produce actions that are aligned with such thinking. I suppose that when our actions are aligned with infinite compassion that knows no end, suffering may no longer be SEEN. Until then suffering seems to be a part of living that demands compassionate actions.

But I do believe there will be a time when the concept of "compassion" will be lost forever since the mind's natural inclination is to experience and manifest love and/or God, ALWAYS.

I believe we are seeking a return to that natural Being that produces the cessation of suffering from a natural state and manifestations of Mother Teresa will be infinitely apparent for all to see. Actually, on second thought, such manifestations may NOT be seen at all, since it will be the norm and business as usual.

If we are all Mother Teresa's who will assume the role of sufferer?

Should We Love the Ego?

The two types of "knowing" most spiritual paths seem to identify are intellect and intuitive. Many spiritual circles seem to point to the intellect or mind as bound up with ego. Are we then saying that the intuitive is separate from the mind? (the mind being the seat of the intellect and the seat of "self") Or is intuitive "knowing" just another form or layer of ego, but less reliant on sensory perception? And maybe more attuned to other ways of knowing?

I have heard theories which place the intuitive understanding as within the whole body and even on a cellular level. That may be from where the intuitive originates but do we not experience intuitive knowledge in the mind? Could we not, in fact, say that all "experience" is of the mind, since clearly we identify with the mind as "self," much more than the body (although the body is seen as a part of "self," the mind is more quintessentially the "I am that" of awareness). Could we not say that if all experience is of the mind and the mind is ego, awakening is of the ego? Possibly we need to move away from this tired old worn out label of "ego."

So yes, perhaps the ego is allowing transformation. In fact, I tend to feel that it must be that way.

What is the ego? Is it simply a "package of beliefs" that I invest in as my"self"? In fact isn't it merely my belief in that I am something as opposed to nothing, since it is the nothing that I fear which caused me to form a "self" or ego? Therefore, the very idea of transcending the ego seems to me absurd since all my beliefs are ego, good and bad. The most I can do, if I am so spiritually inclined, is to transform the ego in order to align my beliefs with the intuitive, which may be a deeper more esoteric understanding of self and world, yet it is still ego. This may then be an arranging of 'conditions' so as to allow for revelation/realization/enlightenment, etc, etc. But of myself I cannot in any way facilitate awakening since I am ego and not to be ego is not to exist, or pure nihilism.

I can never be NOT be an ego even in my deepest spiritual practices an ego must be the practitioner. Although the ego seeks to transcend itself it cannot negate itself no matter how hard it may try since that would be non-existence. I could say, "but my true self is not an ego." But who is saying that? The ego seeking true self?

It's like a vicious circle in which the ego tries to essentially consume itself but finds that it can only get so far since it is both the prey and the predator.

The general "idea" as presented through many ancient wisdom traditions is that ego must, in some way, be transcended in order to "awaken." I would advocate that if one is attempting to transcend any particular, speciific part of self, or self /ego as a whole, then one is not awakening through that transcendence, one is merely imagining all manner of phantasmagorical experiences that IS of ego/self and maintains attachment to self and body (the ego loves flying around on varying planes/levels of consciousness and engaging in all manner of "beyond normal" experiences since IT is the ONE doing or experiencing IT).

The practice of identifying and isolating and then, essentially, villifying an aspect of self or, in fact, self in toto, since the ego is the self. Here is a part of the whole that I must in some way break with, transcend, seek other then, be other then, move away from, etc, etc. Awareness is the whole, but the moment a "part" is differentiated as undesirable in any slight or subtle way, the whole is LOST.

The problem is the more we attempt to "transcend," the more we solidly we press ourself down into it and become more deeply invested in IT (and this seems to occur on subconscious and unconscious levels - I believe many are unaware of their role in this ego maintenance). Therefore, all these "experiences" that we call "awakening" are merely wonderful flashes of light and sound (and whatever else) signifying movement along the path, but not full awakening, to God. How can that happen, when you have identified a "part" that YOU have decided is unwelcome? Does God or Universal Source not accept ALL of you?

We may try desparately to be pleasant to the ego/self and thus limit our seeing it as unworthy, but in our efforts to transcend IT, we are positing an ultimate desire to end its "life." No matter how we choose to describe our endeavor to awaken, we are essentially an ego/self seeking to be other then what IT is.

This is the antithesis of oneness and unity that is of Source Mind or God. Advocating that "you are not your ego" is easily incorporated into "egoness" and the ego enjoys transcendent processes that simply allow it to essentially assume other "forms" of itself.

Make no mistake, in seeking to transcend the ego you have consciously and unconsciously determined it is NOT desirable to you and what you resist, must persist. You may enjoy the seemingly transcendental experiences of this path, but totally transcend you will NOT.

Many may state that you should still find worthiness in the ego in your attempts at transcending IT. However, the differentiation has been made and thus, pretending to love the ego while trying to transcend the ego is inauthentic and the ego knows this and easily rolls with it.

Accept that you are an ego and love IT, not some pseudo-love, but truly love your ego (past, present and future) and in so doing, seek to transform its essence and not transcend its presence. Embrace it as the whole and the totality of perfect peace.

Do not in any way villify or seek to separate from parts of the whole since as such the whole will elude you entirely. In this love of "wholeness," transformation is indeed available to wholeness but only as wholeness. No need to differentiate or judge since that only presumes "parts" and thus parts are what you will continue to experience.

Yet, in the end my words are useless and in any path to God/Source you will need to find your own way by relying on "self" and nothing else.

Fearing Fear Itself

The conceptual understanding that thought creates emotion is correct. This is particularly true in relation to levels of fear and the type, intensity, or level of fear one experiences would be based on one's unique individual interpretation of the perceived situation or condition. The physiological responses, i.e. "surge of adrenaline" and increased heart beat would be based on that level of fear we interpret as necessary to the threat that is perceived, no matter what that threat actually is. However, physiological reactions cannot be relied on since the same reactions could occur from levels of positive excitation. (This is why I feel spiritual experiences cannot be objectively studied).

A threat to body-mind organism or that which we believe as "self," would be directly related to individual interpretation. I'm not sure what level or type of fear would relate to a "calming effect"? Would that even be defined as 'fear"? But I do agree that it is purely intrepretive and all fear is directly proportional in many respects to our belief in DEATH. Therefore, if there is no belief in a "self/ego," as who or what I am, then there is no belief in a self/ego that will, or even can, DIE. If I finally come to believe that I cannot die, what reason to fear anything at all? I am invulnerable to attack of my body or to my belief in a "self" since I believe I am none of that. I am completely free of even the potential for destruction or death. Wow! what a feeling!!

Cognitive-behavioral psychology makes this direct premise and bases all therapeutic approaches on the concept that - "it is not 'reality,' in and of itself, that disturbs you, but your unique 'interpretation' of reality that disturbs you." Yet it does not deny that you are an ego or a body that cannot die and it pretty much subscribes to that conventional belief of death. Damn those "conventional beliefs"!! LOL!

Nevertheless, even psychology is proclaiming that we have more choice then we currently believe in determining what levels of fear we believe we MUST experience. In fact, if fear is purely a product of interpretation and has no existence other then as a product of thought, maybe we have nothing to fear at all, not even fear itself. Therefore, our bondage to fear is based on our own interpretive belief in a body that can die.

Seeking Perfect Peace

Just to be my old confounding self, I would add to the mix here in stating that it is neither happiness nor joy that we seek, but perfect peace.

The "conflict-of-opposites" that the world represents demands that we differentiate what is best, purely based on all the opposites we have available to choose FROM.

Therefore, with all the opposing choices, we just need to pick the correct one. Why is it we never seem to make the right choices in order to experience a state of permanent "happiness"? ( in fact, what we usually do is simply chalk it up to the belief that permanent joy or happiness is impossible and this just pushes further in seeking ever greater experiences of momentary pleasure through the choices available).

Our choices simply extract from the world "moments of pleasure" and nothing more experiential than that. Therefore, I believe it is peace that we truly seek, since "happiness" is related to choices, while peace is related to no longer having a need to make a choice.

When I no longer need choose from the world of opposites, or make choices contingent on what is outside my mind, my mind can be free of conflict and such peace is an incredibly joyful and happy experience.

The peace "within" does NOT require an "outside" world to be experienced and is contingent on nothing but the choice TO experience. Ahhhhhhhh............

But, just saying...

Ken Wilber and "knowing" ancient wisdom

Nowadays, it seems like you can't talk about spiritual concepts without needing to consider Ken Wilber. Many years ago I read several of the Wilber books and found them to be quite interesting and worth adding to the discourse. However, I never imagined that his “theory” would become so monumentally crucial to the spiritual journey of so many. And make no mistake, although both interiors and exteriors of experience are charted, it is the interiors, or our experience of reality (individual and collective), that we all want to improve.

Seems like any discussion of spiritual beliefs or principles that does not include the integral "map" tends to be interpreted as invalid. So I pulled down my dust covered copy of "Eye of Spirit" in order to ascertain what it is that I essentially missed in my initial readings (and it appears at this point I will need to return to “Theory of Everything,” “Atman,” and some of the others, when my time is less limited). I tend to apply my own editing style of highlighting, underlining and writing in the margins and I noticed that I had really worked over the pages of this book. However, in reviewing the author’s passages in relation to my own previous editing, some issues began to glare out at me.

KW writes that "Paradox is simply the way nonduality looks at the mental level"(p45) Okay, I can roll with that, although I would question what nonduality would have to do with levels at all, yet, I guess that sits OK with me for the moment. He states further, "Spirit itself is not paradoxical; strictly speaking, it is not characterizable at all at all." Again, this sounds plausible enough for me and many of the wisdom traditions teach as much. We can only know it through paradox, but it cannot be “characterizable,” through forms requiring sight, sound or even mental images as in linguistics.

However, though Ken has explained that it is not “characterizable,” he then seems to advocate that it can be KNOWN through forms when these forms are evident in stages, "We have said that when transcendental spirit manifests itself, it does so in stages or levels - the great Holarchy of Being” Well, now wait a minute, if we are to realize “stages or levels” then there must be “characterizable” aspects manifest to sensory perception. But, I thought he just said that Spirit cannot be “characterizable”? It has no character traits so that the senses cannot know it as such, since sense impressions must have form. So how do we SEE “nonduality” through levels and stages as manifest?

Ken then goes on to say “But I’m not saying that Spirit or reality itself is hierarchical. Absolute Spirit or reality is not hierarchical. It is not qualifiable at all in mental terms (lower-holon terms) – it is shunyata or nirguna, or apophatic – unqualifiable, without a trace of specific and limiting characteristics at all. But it MANIFESTS itself in steps, in layers, dimensions, sheaths, levels or grades – whatever term one prefers – and that is a holarchy.”(p.45, italics mine) Once again he states that it is not “characterizable” nor is it “qualifiable.” However, he then goes on to say that it can be MANIFEST. In addition, it is manifest in a way that we can know of it in its stages, dimensions, forms, etc, etc. Whaaa? So it is not qualifiable or characterizable, but it is still “manifest.”

The important distinction to be made is that whatever way the UNcharacterizable and Unquantifiable (in other words, unmanifest reality) is MANIFEST and it is clearly in ken’s mind, MANIFESTED and that manifestation is not real. “The whole point is that these are levels of the manifest world, of maya.” [remember, it is all illusion]. But, note this interesting point he makes in regard to maya, “When maya is not recognized as the play of the divine, then it is nothing but illusion.” What could that mean? Is he saying that the illusion is real if projected by Source/God? Divine Mind wants us to see that Divine Mind made the illusion. This would be an important distinction in terms of the origin of our manifest illusion. So I need a true integralists to come to my emotional rescue here and help this novitiate understand the “play of the Divine.”

He then adds, “Hierarchy is illusion.” [of course, everything is, even a holarchy!]. “There are levels of illusion, not levels of reality. But according to the traditions, it is exactly (and only) by understanding the hierarchical nature of samara that we can in fact climb out of it, a ladder discarded only after having served its extraordinary purpose.” (p45).

In Wilber’s view it seems that he is clear on the fact that our belief in reality is belief in illusion, “samsara,” “maya,” etc. The wisdom traditions have informed us of this. However, Wilber feels that the illusion has a purpose. In other words, what is not real is not real for a reason and that reason is so that through studying the illusion we can transcend it (ah, so science is necessary!). And any study of illusion is a study of its “hierarchical nature” that it in fact does NOT HAVE. Make sense now?

Therefore, I ask you, what is it that we study? In addition, we can only study it if we believe it is the “play of the divine”? Does he mean that the Divine Mind is playing with our heads and if we study this illusionary game we will learn the rules and then we can break them or follow them or transcend them or who knows what?. And the point is that nobody knows, since all we can know is manifest illusion. Nevertheless, Wilber appears to know and he has learned the rules and mapped them out for us. It is not a hierarchy, although it manifests as such (read above), it is a "holarchy" and all of it is important to our study so we can win the game, which is to transcend the game of Divine Play. But, once again, only if we study the levels and stages of what has no levels and stages. Yet the important quote most crucial to grasping an understanding of integral theory is that “there are levels of illusion, not levels of reality.”(p45). In other words, the divine is free of the limitations of hierarchies, but is manifest to us through hierarchies that we must see as holarchies.

Wilber sees the illusionary world that we all see and that the great wisdom traditions have taught IS illusion and Wilber also sees, as do we, that a major aspect of the illusion is that it “evolves.” Who gave it that quality we have yet to learn (maybe we did), yet clearly we can all agree that the illusion evolves. Therefore, he teaches that we must evolve with the illusion in order to know Spirit. Thus, his whole theory seems to demand stepping up the “ladder” to spirit, although many wisdom traditions advocate stepping down and returning to spirit in the remembering that you never left, or lost, what you have always been. Yet he does indicate that Spirit is always IN everything. However, he is saying that the only way we can be aware of this is if we actualize a stronger ego through an evolutionary developmental process. That same developmental process that is illusional, yet, since we believe it is real we need to egoically unfold with it or in a sense, ride out the ego’s storm.

Therefore, it seems that when we feel bereft of spirit that is simply because we are invested in the evolving processes of the illusion which demands we move forward through some illusional existence that demands we graduate through ever more levels and stages of illusion. Yet, we can only do this evolving within the illusion, as Wilber claims, in reliance of a strong ego in order to adequately adapt to the illusion (or what does not exist), “That is, you must develop a strong and secure ego before you can transcend it; and whereas the great traditions were superb at the latter, [that is, helping us transcend ego and egoic attachments] they failed rather miserably at the former” [helping us strengthen ego and ego attachments] (p33).

So, Ken’s saying we can finally HAVE our cake and eat it too! This seems to be a clear proclamation favoring self-development strategies to strengthen the very thing (ego) that got us into this mess in the first place. Is it any wonder why so many personal development teachers are jumping on the “integral” bandwagon since the great Wilber has blessed the process of ego development? And damn those great wisdom traditions that were not educated in Freudian principles. In relation to this evolutionary process of “transcendence,” Wilber quotes “In Jack Englers memorable phrase, ‘you have to be somebody before you can be nobody.” Whatever happened to the Heideggerian “Ground of pure Being”? No, Wilber’s theory requires that you be something first so he seems to posit that the “I AM that...” precede the “I AM” which, of course, is how we experience our existence. But this is as it should be according to Wilber.

The world is illusion. Nevertheless, Wilber, the scientist, maps out the way to transcend the cause of our suffering. Notice he is not interested in the transformation that relates to NOW. No, you silly fool, you have not the means of adequately interpreting NOW. Although you must transcend to the NOW to be free, the only processes you can employ to do this transcending requires belief in developmental evolution and demands you actively attend to your levels and stages in this illusion. He requires you strengthen the very aspect of “you” that causes all your problems (ego/self). In addition, you should make no mistake in that the processes you will use to evolve to Spirit are based on the “science of psychology.” Even though the science of psychology adheres to the premise that the ego DOES exist and so does the world.

Seems like another example of the blind leading the blind.

The Road to Excess Leads to Wisdom

An interesting phenomenon of reality is our individual compulsive obsession with parts of reality, or sensory perception, which we often refer to as addiction.

My theory is that these fixations merely serve to distract from the chief fixation and that being God/Source. This is because, in a material world in which truth is based on sensory understanding, any fixation on our Source/God is obscure, while fixation on apects of sensory perception (sex, food, drugs, money, power, fame, etc, etc) are much more easily assimilated into the mind as available resources. God/Source is also an available resource, yet not so easily assimilated due to the reliance on sense impression as the ultmate source of what is true or false.

I have spent many years working with drug addicts and alcoholics (which resulted from my own addictive experiences). One thing I have found quite remarkable is that once the compulsion is surrendered, an extreme fixation on God/Source seems to naturally come to the fore. Notice the 12 steps of AA/NA and step number two which, after admitting we are powerless over our extreme compulsion, requires that we make "a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him." The addiction to God replaces addictive substances as the extreme fixation and the road to recovery.

Thus, the poet Blake's statement, "the road to excess leads to wisdom." Of course, this makes sense as we surrender the extremes of sense data for the extreme of God data. Either way you cannot extract yourself from an extreme of some type since this seems to be the natural tendency of the mind to fixate on aspects, or parts of reality (as Freud demonstrated). Although we seem to strive for balance in our lives (and, in fact, often fixate on attaining that) I believe this to be essentially impossible since, as the needle tends to fluctuate between two poles, we are never fully balanced, but simply fluctuating back and forth between extremes (which are defined as whatever we have determined are meaningful to us) allowing the illusion of seeking balance.

I believe that by "wisdom" Blake is pointing to the aspect of God that is our very Being. Thus, as he seems to point out, going to the extreme in discovering that aspect of "self" must eventually occur for true freedom (from the extremes of sense impressions) to be experienced. Lackadaisical attention to God/Source will only result in continued bondage to the suffering of sensory perception which easily lends itself to compulsion/addiction. We only have available the choice of two extremes so go ahead and pick one. Eventually the choice will be God and many report that this is certain, so why resist. The important part is that to attain "wisdom" the fixation must be to a personal intuitive resonance (the poetry of Blake reflects this) and not some scriptural interpretation that reveals someone else's fixation.

Just some thoughts for critical review...