The Existence of Evil

Does evil exist and if so what defines it?

'Evil' is a conceptual abstraction of the mind similar to hate, love, God, beauty, truth, etc. It has no existence apart from value based interpretations relative to perceiver or the collective of minds that agree on the continued use of the interpretation. Many minds interpret differently; many groupings of minds (ideologies) interpret differently as well (Christianity vs Buddhist "evil"). It seems 'evil' has no existence outside the mind.

If evil does exist, how do we respond to it?

The world teaches that 'evil' is concrete and actual. Therefore, one must fight, press against, and destroy that which is essentially an abstract invention of consciousness. Because of this, concrete 'vengeance' is the response and, as such, 'evil' then remains concrete and actual. Belief in actual "evil" tends to require action, since ‘action’ is the priority of a material world. Unfortunately, action has never destroyed or eradicated evil simply because both 'evil' and 'vengeance' are abstractions of mind that are pressed into the consciousness through belief and thus, made available to be perceived. if it's 'inside,' then you can be sure it's 'outside,' too.

It seems that only the transformed or ‘evolved’ consciousness can understand the need for abstractions to define a world (that many believe is not concrete, but equally an invention of consciousness,) and dissolve or detach/dissociate from the abstractions. (sadly, my consciousness is not so transformed and I can just as easily condemn and judge the world through my attachment to abstract concepts. However, realizing what we do may be the first step to undoing).

I'm inclined to believe that only by looking inward, can abstraction be correctly evaluated and transformed. Change the meaning and you transform what can be perceived (Murder is murder except in war. Therefore, if we radically transform our concept of 'death' would murder cease to exist?).

Fear No Evil

Our spectrum of fear provides the highest priority to our greatest fears and defines it "evil." Yet, fear is also an abstraction that exists nowhere outside the mind. Evil perceptions can only be transformed through dissolving the abstraction of fear.

Therefore, the question seems to be, can the ‘collective mind’ go within to dissolve abstractions that do not serve the evolution of individual consciousness or the collective consciousness . I think the answer is yes, but a struggle will ensue most likely resulting in centuries of delay (unless, of course, such a transformation is required of only one separate mind/consciousness which could create a "leap" in the collective).

I think Jesus and Buddha were models of this type of profound global transformation of the collective consciousness. However, if it is all "illusion," then I suppose Jesus and Buddha are as much an abstraction as the concept of evil. As opposed to most past wisdom traditions, I seem inclined toward a transformation of the orientation as opposed to transcending or rising above the belief based orientation.

If ‘evil’ is an abstraction does it not still require our attention to its presence in the mind to aid us in living our lives?.

Just like the abstract concepts of ‘God’ and ‘love,’ cognitive ‘attention’ may require transforming the conceptual definitions once previously attached to with regard to 'evil.' Should we be more ‘mindful’ of our abstractions of evil; defining "mindfulness" as the conscious identification and extraction of all abstract fear concepts, that impede the natural presence of love?

But isn’t fear as real as my hand and maybe even less evolved? Even if all things are a mental construction fear is a ‘real’ experience.

It would seem that ‘evil’ is the product or 'response' to the interpretation of fear which can only occur in the mind. To speak of it as ‘real’ is to negate the interpretive component of fear. In what way do you make such interpretations of your hand? You have no transformative capacity to alter your interpretation of your hand in a way that your hand is altered or transformed, or a "chair" for that matter (possibly the consciously 'realized' can perform such feats). However, you can alter your response to fear simply by transforming the conceptualization of the abstraction within the mind.

We do have the ability to transform our interpretations of fear, in fact, radically so, and immediately, if we so choose. If you examine closely the institutions of society you will most likely discern that they are founded on fear. Fear of lack, fear of incompletion, fear of inadequacy, fear of failure etc, etc, etc.

The world screams for love simply because it is so completely immersed and overwhelmed in fear. Fear is the building material that must construct evil as the highest manifestation of fear. It then spirals downward to minimized manifestations of fear such as hate, resentment, repugnance, annoyance, etc, etc, etc. These are all symptomatic of fear.

But, to understand that fear is an abstract "construction" of mind is to advance toward a solution individually and collectively. Due to its completely abstract nature, fear can be transformed and must be for society to progress toward peace.

Fear is the component of all suffering, interior and exterior. If we wish to transform individual and collective consciousness we can only do so by exposing and deeply examining our abstract spectrum of fear. In my opinion, such an internal exploration is necessary and nothing external to that will suffice. I believe the ego/self demands fear, since fear requires separation, discrimination and continued judgment of threat to the ego/self.

We live in vigilance against the many manifestations that we believe result in our need for fear and thus, we impede contact with Spirit through our self-protective mechanisms which we believe we must maintain to protect ourselves. We live in a perpetual state of self-protection. Let's face it, not to be an ego/self is equivalent to dead and death is laden with fear interpretations. Death or non-existence is our ultimate fear.

It is true that you can change your experience of fear, but you can much more easily change you experience of your hand or a chair by simply closing your eyes.

By closing my eyes I may alter, by terminating sense impressions, my perception of a chair, but do I actually change my experience? The chair must always conform to expectations of what we collectively define as chair, based on our experience of a chair. That cannot change else we would resort to calling it table or a sofa, etc. we do not conceptualize the chair as abstract and it exists as thing-in-itself based on our belief in its material reality. Fear is abstract and closing ones eyes will not alter the experience. Transforming the meaning of fear may alter the interpretation and the experience.

Are abstract concepts such as Love and God and Evil no longer are relevant?

I would imagine that from the dissolution of fear we might then naturally choose to enhance ‘Love’ and ‘God,’ but I can only speculate.

I imagine any discussion of evil will eventually bring one to defining fear. If fear did not exist, neither would evil (and yes, I believe Nirvana, or what we refer to as 'enlightenment ,' is the complete cessation of all fear).

Is there an absolute 'evil'? And even if we do assert an 'existence' of evil as concrete and not abstract, will we then individually define concrete evil by relative degrees based on individual value scales? Would degrees of 'evil' be determined by consensus?

Interpreting actions as evil is inherently dependent on individualized interpretations based on individual and shared beliefs ('group-think'). The world is replete with historical interpretations of "evil" throughout the centuries. Have such interpretations, based on accepted beliefs and worldviews, reduced the incidences of evil actions?

Possibly, increased accountability will evolve from altered interpretations based on changed beliefs. I believe that it was Einstein who remarked that our current thinking must be transcended in order to solve the problems our current thinking has produced. Could this relate to our paradigm of 'evil'?

It seems to me that the belief in 'evil' may in fact be just that type of thinking/belief that need be transcended/transformed in order to increase accountability through a radical change in perspective.

So if I cheat on my taxes, thereby withholding funds from needed social resources, as well as unnecessary governmental graft and corruption-which is my goal, am I perpetrating evil? If so at what level or degree have I performed an evil act? Or do we consider only unjustified murder/death or harm to others as evil? In my above example, I am performing both a bad and a good act. So which value applies? Can "good" acts also encompass "evil"? What about "love"?

If a parent "loves" her child dearly and spanks the child for misbehavior, as many parents do, is that an evil or a good act, IN THE MIND OF THE PARENT and in the minds of observers.

Both "good" and "evil" are relative constructs of the mind with only abstract applications upon a concrete perceived reality that is believed to be 'real.' So many fine lines between the two that it may often be difficult to differentiate. In extreme situations/events your construct of evil could be my construct of good.

But I suppose if these constructs are all we have to work with then we might as well surrender to the mistakes that must occur through the use of such abstractions.

But I'm just saying....

Wilberitis

Of course most guru's never claim to be guru's, nor do they claim to be enlightened. Ken Wilber neither "claims" guru-ship nor does he claim enlightenment. Interesting parallel.

It seems it will always be the followers or adherents to any belief system, or
"map of the territory," (since isn't every belief system mapping some aspect of "reality" yet Wilber attempts to map it ALL) that tend to alter the map to conform to political agendas.

Obviously, KW does not invite this to occur, but he will have little control if it does. Marxism was a belief system, or map, that had value at one time, yet communism co-opted it to conform to distorted political interpretations. I think it is somewhat interesting that this potential is often adamantly denied, and radically defended against, even though history attests to the potential for such abusive alterations to belief systems (good grief, just look at religious belief systems).

I will admit that Integral theory has great value as a "map of the territory" and may continue to add to the discourse as long as the map remains a "map."

However, I do tend to agree that since Wilber created the map, he should be cognizant of the potential for abuse particularly in response to the widespread popularity of his complex postmodern model of spiritual integration. Not to identify and speak of the flaws, and vehemently deride those who do, makes me suspect the map maker's purpose. But, although I have read several of KW's works, I'm certainly no expert (yet there does seem to be alot of experts, in relation to the study of this "map," throughout the internet).

I may not see Wilber as a spiritual leader, however, there are those who certainly do see the man in that light and we cannot just sweep under the rug the spiritual implications of what this "map" proclaims in terms of the evolution of consciousness and 'enlightenment' potential.

Could this be the evolution of a bold new intellectualized postmodern "religion." You laugh, but I sense there may be some truth to this. I suppose we will have to wait and see.

I'm re-reading my Wilber books since it appears that any discourse of spirituality will more than likely involve something of Wilber and there's no denying the guy's definitely on to something, not quite sure what though. But lets face it, Spirituality ain't no walk in the park!LOL!

I don't think that I am being pejorative or disparaging in my comments. In fact, I believe I am using the term 'adequate' in a Wilberian sense, For instance, Wilber writes,

"It's not that the earlier worldview was wrong and the new worldview is totally wrong. The earlier one was adequate, the new one is more adequate. If it's not more adequate, then it won't be selected by evolution. it won't catch the currents of the Kosmos; it will go by the wayside, flotsam and jetsam on the shores of what might have been" (theory of eveything, p 61).

Therefore, it does seem that Wilber advocates that there is an inadequacy with those holding to a worldview that is archaic, magic or mythical. However, what about a merging of worldviews? I tend to hold to a little mythic and great deal more magical and a whole lotta rational with a slight merging of the existential. In what ways is my amalgamated worldview "inadequate" in an integral sense? The "integrals" need to categorize and classify such distinctions seems to me a bit overkill.

Yet, Wilber holds that enlightenment is a process of Selection by evolution! So, how does 'Spirit' incorporate into that view? Spirituality with a Darwinian twist. Well, I suppose only the spiritually strong survive...

I understand that the' integral' perspective allows "states" to be accessed in all levels and stages and this is why I used the concept of "interpret" since the integral perspective places heavy emphasis on adequate 'interpretations' (Wilber's quote above) of an 'experience' of higher states and this is based on worldviews. However, as I have stated above, my feeling is that many spiritual 'seekers' do not necessarily hold to any one exclusive worldview and, like me, tend to seek Spirit through a virtual pot potpourri of methods, theories, tools, techniques, and perspectives which actually combine worldviews. However, it appears that this is NOT evolutionary and may result in a repressive view of the transrational state, according to the "integral" viewpoint.

Integral theory seems to claim that one is not "fully enlightened" until one has mastered and evolved through the necessary 'states and all stages' of spiritual evolution. However, For me, the concept of "fully enlightened" is a real brain teaser. What could that mean? Is there a 'partially enlightened'?

Does the integral model of "enlightenment" come in many shapes and sizes based on the worldview of an ego/self? I certainly can understand the idea that a prerational expression or explanation of my experience may not fit the postmodern external world, but would that matter to Spirit? Does Spirit require that a correspondence with Spirit be in postmodern language based on a postmodern interpretation of a transrational experience? Spirit demands "stage" mastery for which to KNOW Spirit, or is it simply required for which to verbalize and behave in a way that others can learn of your correspondence with Spirit? Maybe "evolution" is an external manifestation of ego mind which demands hierarchies for which to accentuate itself as separate from Spirit?

The integral perspective of "fully enlightened" as an emptiness and a fullness is fine with me. Yet, I continue to find little to support the idea that this will not be "adequately" interpreted by a mind that has not evolved sufficiently enough to make such an interpretation. When the transrational experience is apprehended by the ego/self a transformational process will occur regardless of levels, tiers, states or stages. In fact, as many ancient wisdom traditions teach, the attachment to the mind/body organism, no matter what worldview has been incorporated within the ego/self, will be absorbed completely. Anything less than complete detachment from 'ego/self' modes of awareness is NOT enlightenment at all, but merely glimpses of Spirit and an ego at any stage will repress those glimpses through ego ownership.

Therefore, no matter what stage one is at, the ego (that Wilber requires strengthening OF, no less) will drag our glimpses of Spirit into the moat of mind-think games (even and especially postmodern), while a full correspondence with Spirit will have no need for interpretive maps whatsoever. "I AM" does not require mapping. However, Wilber's mapping of the "I AM THAT," seems helpful for the exteriors, but I currently see no need for it with regard to subjective interiors which CANNOT be mapped (however, I'm still looking).

Integral vs Existential Movements

There are some interesting parallels between the Integral movement and the Existential movement (following WWII and generally originating in France), both being esoteric philosophical movements and both deeply misunderstood. (I'm sure someones has made this comparison, but I have yet to stumble upon it)

Both involved art and literature and, although neither originated in the university, both were easily assimilated by the intelligentsia and academia. Both had leaders which were subsumed into a "cult of personality' with Sartre the existential front man and Wilber as "integral's" guru of consciousness.

Both were involved in severe back and forth criticism which tended to highlight the personal idiosyncracies and quirks and for Sartre it was Heidegger and Marcel, while for Wilber it is Thompson, de Quincy and a whole host of others.

"Being and Nothingness" (few have ever, or even can, read and fully understand) was Sartre's magnus opus, while I suppose Wilber's "Sex, Ecology and Sprituality" is his great work (correct me on this one).

And of course, the leaders of both movements, as well as adherents and aspirants, lament the lack of understanding the world has accorded the theories. Sartre was basically repudiated and resigned to history through his "existentialism is a humanism" which attempted to take his obscure theories mainstream and it is the only work he regreted writing.

As I read over "Theory or Everything," for the umpteenth time, it seems that this may be Wilber's downfall in his mundane attempts to reach the common man. However, I have yet to consume "Integral spirituality" and possibly his need to adapt Spirit to sequential/equational formulae may indeed turn many away.

Nevertheless, there is no doubt these two giants have, and will continue to, influence generations to come.

With respect to the holistic perspective, Wilber's integral theory easily transcends and includes existentialism. One then wonders what new and profound thinking will transcend and include integralism, since obviously there can be no end. Or can there?

Your Death

Ah, death is a many splendored thing

It is my belief, at present, that any seeking to attain realization of God, or 'enlightenment,' will eventually result in an exploration of death, (more specifically, your own). We can live in denial of this fact, (and many desperately do so), eventually, no doubt, we will be forced to consider it.

It seems that of all the relative truths we worship, death is the most factual and existential and it seems to be the one 'truth' we cannot escape other then birth. Yet, birth may have been entered into with less conscious involvement, while consciousness of death, in certain particular circumstances, may in fact consume our mind. We can avoid death as long as we dare, but eventually we can avoid no longer (Seems the western mind has always struggled with the concept of death)

One primary goal of religion, and many spiritual paths, is to attain a degree of comfort with the fact of death. This leads to all sorts of phantasmagorical conceptualizations which we can neither prove or disprove, only believe or disbelieve, with any degree of certainty. Death requires the press of time, since there is really so very little time available. So we scurry about in our existential need to fill our time wisely and 'fulfill' our needs until death do us part. Productivity in scheduling our life is paramount.

There are many bright minds who claim that the only way to truly live a joyful life is to make peace with your death... while you live. In fact, as a past student of Khubler-Ross there are numerous stories of an intense sense of 'freedom' being attained by those terminally ill who have eventually accepted the immanence of their death and report boundless joy never before experienced. Many having had no religious or spiritual involvement whatsoever throughout their lives.

Is this 'enlightenment'?

Should we live our lives in denial of death and simply seek to fulfill ego needs and desires until the moment we can no longer deny the end of 'existence' (as we know it)? Should we love death as we love life and will that aid with improving life? Maybe we are already dead and an acceptance of the 'life' we experience is simply a charade to avoid the fear of what death really means? Being 'dead' now, maybe we are simply waiting to live, if only we could shake free of our fixation on this existence we call 'life'?

Year after subsequent year, your death approaches, are you prepared?


Many differentiate between a physical death and psychological death or death of the soul. Do we seek death of 'self' (particularly if we link with the Buddhist concept of equating 'self' with suffering) but fear death of the body? We may die to a 'self,' but does that which we become continue to require the body as 'container' of life? And if death is a "change in form," isn't it form that we wish to be free of? Do we not desire formlessness?

An analogy often used is, if water evaporates is it "dead"? In the sense that the body is dead, as in 'gone.' Yes, I would say the water is dead. On the other hand, we KNOW that the death of water is simply a change in form, and we know with certainty what "form" it has changed TO. We are not afforded such certainty with regard to 'mind.' (although we do know the awful fate of the flesh). This is the fear factor that religion/spirituality attempts to assist with.

I have worked with individuals who must experience a consideration of death and many needed to live with that knowledge for some time prior to their demise. Some were given a second chance and remission was a gift. These experiences radically changed their beliefs and altered their perception of life. They seemed to no longer suffer through the time-oriented control dramas that we, the living (in denial of death), seem to suffer through.

It seems that an intense experience of freedom is attained by many who are forced through terminal illness, to cognize and consider their death. A sense of freedom that seems unavailable to the living, conscious of living, (at least not without some hard searching) because of our indoctrinated beliefs about being alive and what we should or should not DO in order to accentuate that living.

If the ego is at one end of a "continuum" and oneness with everything at the other end, is the paradox that the oneness of everything must include both poles which means the ego as well? In fact, I sense that if we cease to villanize the ego we may have a better go at gleaning the "oneness of everything." Poor little ego, all it wants is to be loved!

Therefore, is the consciousness of the dead within the consciousness of the living? I sense this interpretation to be highly valid. If the objects of consciousness exist only in relation to the intention to perceive such objects (and this based on belief that they must be perceived, or the world exists because we -collective/individual- intend it into being) then it makes sense that consciousness of the 'dead' is accessible to the 'living' since there is no distinction but in the mind of the distinguisher. Deep correspondence with this belief may in fact cause our belief in death to implode in on itself. HA! Wouldn't that be fun!

And this would point to the certainty of our infinite nature. Being able to attach to such certainty, as opposed to belief, but we lack certainty and this allows room for fear to occasionally seep into our interpretations of death. In a sense it seems the spiritual path is a path to certainty and the end of 'belief(s)." Imagine attaining the certainty, of a Buddha or Jesus, that there is no death or end to me/you/us. What could we fear in absolute certainty as opposed to our current relative belief?

Of course, I'm sure you'll agree that discussions on spirituality cannot always be sweetness and light. Life has a dark side that cannot be ignored. I just thought that the fact that people suffer and die seemed worthy of spiritual discussion. An entire western philosophy of 'existentialism' grew up around the dread, and anguish of death, so I thought there might be an interest, even though the discussion may induce a degree of fear in some sensibilities.

Death signifies an ending to life and that may be a "large problem" for many, incorporating a great deal of intense suffering. In fact, if we were never conscious of our impending doom and the fact that we will die, could we suffer at all whatsoever? I believe that in one way or another, all our life projects and activities are directly related to 'time' and time would NOT exist if it were not for DEATH or the end of our time. Therefore, although we may repress any conscious focus on our death, unconsciously it is there, deep down, indirectly informing every decision we make because it seems we have so very little time.

My feeling is that any spiritual path that does not incorporate a dialogue (internal-self or communal) regarding death may not suffice to relieve and enervate when the 'time' comes.
Many may be averse to this topic, however, eventually one may need to incorporate a story of 'death' into their story of 'life.'

It is interesting that we demand 'choice' be available in every aspect of our life but death. The fact that I'm NOT simply '"OK" with that is the impetus for my seeking. However, I do envy those who profess to be "OK" with death and in all honesty I hope to one day be 'OK,' too! In fact, this may make all the difference between a life lived in hell and one immersed in heaven.

Love Concepts

In my travels, I have met many individuals who are more inclined to "love by nature" and this means that they are less restricted by self-imposed 'protective measures' (pysho-emotional) which we all set up to avoid hurt or suffering. However, these folks tend to be somewhat surprised by the imposing of "conditions" by others. In my opinion, these "love by nature" folks tend to exhibit higher development within the social sphere.

Often the problem is not only that we are conditioned to adhere to multiple 'concepts of love' within our own minds, but we must then try to merge our variable concepts with the variable concepts of others. This is often exhausting and painful. (just look at the divorce rate!)

It seems we have a different concept of love for every type of "relationship" we engage in and this may result in confusion (and suffering), our own and others. There is a "special" love for the beloved and an exclusive love for our children. There is parental love and sibling love and extended familial love. There is a love for pets, a love of nature, I love my job , I love my car, I love what you say and I love that music, etc, etc.

Neverthless, It is true that we "inhabit bodies" and this seems to be the chief conditional factor in relation to the many "forms" in which love is expressed. Although this may tend to limit the expression, it does seem to be required in relation to the "bodies" we express love TO, through the meanings we attribute to all our varied and numerous relationship. ( I recognize we see significant others as more than bodies, my only point is that the bodies do tend to get in the way, spiritually speaking)

I have found that one of the most significant factors in most successful relationships is a deep love and secure relating with one 'self.' As the old adage goes "YOU are the only one who YOU will never lose or who will never leave YOU." If the relationship with 'self' is fragmented, this will be apparent in our relating with others.

Seeking a "wholeness" with regard to one's relating with 'self' seems to make a significant difference in how one relates to others. Therefore, 'whole' people tend to attract 'whole' people. These "wholistic" individuals seem to present a picture that expresses "I WANT you as an addition to me, but I do not NEED you to complete me as I am already complete."

On the other hand, "fragmented" individuals tend to seek out partners in regard to NEED. They present a picture of "I NEED you to complete me and thus my intrinsic value (ode to Wilber) is inherent in your NEEDING me, to complete YOU." This results in a particular imbalance in relation to NEED for completion, as opposed to WANTING you as addition to my already deeply secure and whole self. (in fact, I tend to believe that it is our underlying belief in our incompletion that results in desperate seeking outside as opposed to "within")

Wholeness does NOT need completion. The fragmented 'self' demands completion and seeks others as the means of that self-completion. Others may demand particular forms of love be expressed, but if I am secure, or seeking security "within" through my own wholeness (belief), the imposition of conditions by others tends to not distract me. If one "loves by nature" others may attempt to alter that love to fit their own conditions which come from a fragmented relationship with 'self.' However, a love expressed from 'wholeness' actually gives that love strength, making it essentially impervious to conditions set by others.

When you 'love by nature' there is little conscious recognition of the forms of expression and attention is applied only to content -love. We live in a world of forms and the content will naturally mold to the form (type of relationship) we are participating IN. As forms change the content will naturally unfold to meet the changing form.

I realize this is a bit cerebral, LOL! But I hope maybe it aids in some little way...

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...

Christian Non-Duality

If Jesus was crucified and died, but proved that you cannot die by resurrecting, then he proved that there is no sacrifice and no sacrifice will ever need be made.

If you do not die as Christ did NOT die, and death is the ultimate sacrifice we believe can be made, then we may have missed or distorted the message of the resurrection and become fixated on the sacrificial message of the crucifixion and death as ultimate sacrifice.

This may mean that 2000 years of Judeo-Christian preaching has taught the opposite of what the message was really meant to teach: You cannot die (although your belief in a body ends), there is no sacrifice to be made because you are eternal/infinite.

Therefore, we have nothing to fear and can finally live in peace, joy and love to the fullest since we need no longer be concerned with any belief in an ultimate sacrifice. Yeah!!!

Not only did he know he was like God (or is God?), I believe the message was that we are no different than him. There is a sense of non-duality in parts of the biblical message if you choose to interpret it there (which I have done sporadically). The message touches on the paradox of the one and the many. This includes God, the son and the Holy Spirit as One. Christ is the "holy spirit" through the message of Christ Mind which is "within." Jesus gave the message (as did many other eastern and western messengers) and because we worship the messenger we may miss the message 'within.' This seems opposite to the Buddha in which the message takes predominance.

Judeo-Christian ideology seems to focus on the messenger as being beyond our ability to emulate or model, thus the messenger is worshiped as God, which tends to press us more deeply into our own sense of inadequacy and impotence and the belief that we could never attain Christhood. Even though, as I state, his message was that we are God and not, 'I' am God.

"he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do."

The Judeo-Christian dogma has held sway as a controlling factor for many centuries and western life was morally ordered through these beliefs. I saw a poll that indicated that a growing segment of the American populace was indicating a stronger inclination toward 'spirituality' as opposed to 'religion,' and I think someone wrote a book about this and was interviewed on Jon Stewart - I'll have to find it (and I suppose this is related to a certain extent to the Tolle-Oprah factor and of course, Ken Wilber and his minions). It will be interesting to observe the new morality which emerges from this wave or movement, since morality is the foundation of all legal and economic systems (as well as other institutions).

There seems to be some distaste or disdain with eastern dogma over western by many Christians. I feel the two have many similarities and the recognition of those perspectives is the perennial philosophy since the similarities are there for all to see throughout the centuries.

These are shared insights and Integral Theory has aided in extracting these truths.
The problem with the integral map for me is that much of the Judeo-Christian traditions are neglected or ignored as archaic/mythical and not predisposed to our "evolving path" as a collective. Integral seems to focus exclusively on the eastern truths and this may be a part of the backlash many Christians experience to this "idealistic" worldview. (however, the Judeo-Christian worldview is as "idealistic" as the eastern)

However, although I seek out the similarities and look to a merging of eastern/western, I do not simply focus on "advaita" (one can look to the ideas of Buddhist/Hindu/Taoism and Judeo/Christian/Islamic) as that would be too limited in scope. The perennial insights/truths are there in all ideologies and dogma. You must simply separate the wheat from the chaff and this may need to be done individually as the 'church' may continue to be mesmerized by the chaff.

In fact, I do not necessarily agree that the church truly represents the communal aspect above the individual. If you look closely the 'church' is founded on exclusion and any communion of individuals requires 'membership' in a whole that may exemplify separation. The church tends to emphasize communion, but of members or 'believers.' Focusing on the whole and acting from that deeper truth will not require inclusion within any exclusive ideological enclave.

There may be evolving a global church of mind that relies on perennial truths and requires no such membership or inclusion. In fact, various forums on the internet may be a model for such a worldwide inclusive communal dialectic.

I'm no religious historian, but clearly any study of world religions seem to be replete with the strands of Jesus within all the created dogma. Even Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, etc, etc, exposes mythological renditions of Christ that compare equally with the more modern Christian representation of personal salvation (and then, of course, there is Gilgamesh and the whole "ark" thing).

The parallels are staggering and may point to the fact that Jesus NEVER existed except in our own disillusioned collective mind. Somebody needed to transcend the hell that is reality and all religions require that transcendent "being," since any transcendent being must be personified in order to teach unified transcendence.

In our mythological archetypes we teach ourselves how to transcend, since essentially within the universal collective consciousness we have always known the truth, yet fear obstructs our seeking and delays learning. So we cloak the truth in myth in order to hide it from ourselves. Transcendence/salvation can only be known as a past phenomena that allows us to anticipate salvation as a future event. Never NOW, always past and future. Religion encapsulates this fear of the NOW by demanding we study the past as the way to a better future.

Could it be that Jesus is an anthropomorphic myth of the collective conscious which imagines an archetype to teach us the parameters of salvation demanding that such knowledge can only be revealed through sacrifice?

Does Your Belief System Limit You

Belief is the underlying foundation of your physical and psychological existence as well as your spiritual evolution. Belief is the springboard for thought. It frames your reference point and shapes your interpretations.

This is the starting point of all introspection and self-analysis. When Voltaire (18th century pundit) stated that “the unexamined life is not worth living,” he was speaking about the examination of your beliefs.

Beliefs can shackle us or set us free. Even the monolithic, somewhat dogmatic, medical establishment is beginning to understand how beliefs can promote healing or cause debilitating disorders or dis-ease. The power of belief has been known for centuries, but often denied in the face of "reality."

The contingent conditions of reality require you believe only what the senses can prove. Beliefs based only only on what can be proven can oppress and limit you.

“If we think distress we get distress; if we think success, we get success. When we entertain destructive thought we set up a chemical action that checks digestion, which in turn irritates other organs of the body and reacts upon the mind, causing disease and sickness; when we worry, we churn a cesspool of chemical action, causing fearful havoc to both mind and body; on the other hand, if we entertain constructive thoughts, we set up a healthy chemical action.” (Charles Haanel, “Mental Chemistry, p.13)

Identifying the beliefs that oppress you will improve your spiritual development. Every successful psychotherapeutic approach deals on some level with changing beliefs, however, usually the focus is on improving your "functioning" and not on your increasing awareness of "spirit" or that part of you that does not rely on sensory perception.

Cognitive Therapy, as developed and codified by Aaron T. Beck, isolates the thoughts that impair functioning. From the examination of thoughts, the counselor then aids the patient in identifying the beliefs from which these thoughts originate. These are the “themes” of your life and are labeled “rational,” if they are realistic interpretations of your reality (sensory) or “irrational” if they conflict with sensory perception and what the world believes is "real."

You must focus on changing your beliefs to reflect what you want to experience, rather then what you “believe” you should experience based on what the world teaches. This process of improving your life through identifying beliefs is highly effective as demonstrated by the universal applicability and popularity of this as a therapeutic approach.

However, if you go to a therapist with the desire to uncover the beliefs that obstruct from experiencing Universal Consciousness/God and becoming one with that Consciousness, you would most likely encounter the limiting beliefs of the therapist (“Good grief! Not another Messiah Complex!? Nurse, get the restraints!).

You could become involved in religions and meditative practices, but often these have limiting factors that result from the need to learn and adopt an ideological perspective relative to the religion or practice. This may result in paradigm conflict and the inability to merge opposing ideologies (e.g. eastern philosophy with western competitive values)

All religions (including eastern) encourage the neutralizing of current beliefs through replacement with the dominant beliefs of that particular system of thought. With Judeo-Christian religions we need to accept the polarity of heaven and hell as being separate distinct places each “ruled” by a distinct positive or negative personality (God and Satan). With Buddhism, Hinduism and Taoism we need to dissociate from physical reality and attain a state of “Being” that transcends our reality.

With all religions (and their derivatives and denominations) we are either worshiping ascendant principles (surrender to God) or descendant principles (we are God). They all require your adoption and the living-out of a particular belief system. However, within a "healing" perspective these are all effective paths to God.

All religious belief systems started out “pure” in ideology but were finally overcome by the need to accommodate our sensory perceptions and the strength of sensory impulses (I can imagine a place called heaven, but my senses reinforce my beliefs about the world I see, hear and touch as "facts," and this becomes the only information I now desire). Sensory perception trumps imagination.

The belief in attracting or creating your "reality" through a connection to Universal Consciousness/God is also a belief system. This belief system is descendant because God is in you and not out or up “there.” You need to seek within for “the kingdom of heaven,” since that is where it resides (belief). Once we “dwell” in “the Kingdom” we are then in an experience that, in itself, will change what we believe about our physical reality and thus change every experience of that reality.

To know this “kingdom” is to know the Truth. To know the Truth is to experience “Love” beyond belief (as we know it now) and that is a Joyful experience and will radically alter any and all contrary beliefs. Every instance of experiencing this type of Joy, no matter how brief, results in detaching, little by little, from your limiting beliefs.

This belief system (as taught by A Course in Miracles and other spiritual paths) resonates with me because it’s simple. Why should it be hard, unless you believe it should be so, as many do. There is little to suffer through when the predominate belief is that you are a manifestation of joy.

Personally, I enjoy being in the process of seeing things differently through the application of these principles. I like that I can do all this “on my own damn couch.” We don’t have to get into any pretzel like postures or drink the “blood of Christ” or “empty” our mind, pour ghee over the Buddha, wear the Virgin Mary on a chain, separate beads on a string, sing devotional chants, give up modern conveniences, wear only black and white, shave our head, or do any other esoteric practice that we are instructed will lead to a state of mind that many call “enlightenment.” However, you can incorporate these approaches if you so choose, in part or in whole.

The primary objective of any religion based belief system is the reframing of interpretation. This is because nothing means nothing beyond the interpretation or meaning we have applied to it. Our interpretation comes from what we believe. The principles I am learning promote a belief system in which you are attaining, in essence, “enlightenment” through realizing that you are God and that God wants you to realize this fact.

Since our beliefs are deep within the subconscious mind (causing us to live in "auto-pilot") it can be difficult to identify what fear-based belief we adhere to that obstructs our connection to Universal Consciousness/God. In fact, it is often virtually impossible. So don’t bother.

However, you can neutralize limiting beliefs simply through the adoption of alternative thinking. It takes approximately 30 days to develop a habit (though time is not that important). If you practice consistently holding thoughts of connection to Universal Consciousness/God, and these thoughts are intensified through powerful positive emotion, you will develop this habit of thinking and it will become belief. This belief will result in the experience because you will always experience what you believe you MUST. In time connecting with Source/God will be only a thought away and thus, instantaneous.