Transform or Transcend: "Human being" as process

I like my new friend Arjun's blog entry regarding "shadow work." Arjun believes we need to do our "shadow work," as he states "...to be free, enlightened human beings." 
 

I think Arjun's discussion is truly excellent and I would only like to piggy-back on some points that he makes because they have touched on some thoughts that I have been rolling around with in the attic (as opposed to Wilber's shadow-work analogy, I don't own a garage).

Arjun states that he believes we need shadow work to be "free, enlightened human beings."  Although part of me agrees, another part considers that it all depends on how you define "human being." This is because, if the definition of "human being" is that which requires "transcendence" through enlightenment, then the definition seems to have negative implications.

However, if "human being" is defined, as that which is involved in a "transformative process" that does not require "transcendence," then I believe we will experience less tension and strain with all that the "process" involves.

There are two terms I often get caught up in when discussing the identification of egoic attachments, or those obstructive shadows that impede our progress to "enlightenment." Those terms are "transformation" and "transcendence." Frequently, these terms are used interchangeably and assumed to be equivalent, but, is transcending the same as transformation? I think, maybe not.

Transcending demands that one "rise above" or "go higher," and "ascend." This thinking asserts a present state as below, or lower then, what we desire to become, as if at some point in ‘time' we once descended to what we now believe we are. We believe we are a "less than"  we could be and that now requires "rising above." Therefore, what is asserted through the use of the narrative term of transcending, is that which is below and requires we ascend or rise above.

In conceptualizing that which I must "do" in my journey to transcendence, I actually posit myself as descendant and as a negation of what I desire to affirm. This is my status that must be "leaped out of" into that higher or new and improved state of being. But in my desire to rise above, what I now believe I am, do I not further press myself down into my egoic conceptualizations of "self"?

Obviously there is the belief that what I am is deficient and lowly; littleness and impotence, much below what I could be, which is much "higher" than I am now. Essentially, there is little acceptance of my present state, though I may give myself "lip-service" to that being OK, although, clearly this is not the "state" I desire to "achieve," which is the "enlightened state." Identified with the ego I am Unenlightened seeking to improve that condition to enlightenment.

So what does transformation assert? I believe that transforming the ego identifications, rather than transcending, allows for more acceptance of what I am and where I am in my "process."

There is no "leap" required, as I am exactly where I need to be in the process of transformation, in fact, I AM the process and I can now define that as "human being." To transform what IS, does not require a "rising above," merely a "seeing differently." For instance, the ego projections I may perform, as "anger," may be necessary in order to review and see it differently and thus it is enfolded within the process. Thus, I make amends to others (which, in the oneness of Being, is making amends to myself) and remain as process. My anger need not be transcended, simply undergo further transformative reviews within the overall process.

Arjun seems to feel that such transformation is an endless process and I have to agree, but I feel this can be seen as a positive attribute of the process. If transformation is confused with transcendence, then, yes, it seems an endless process, since I never really seem to be rising above what I am now. I have NOT reached my destination or achieved my ultimate goal.

Yet if transcendence is left out of the process, transformation is the way of being since it is what we are now IN and it is what we now ARE, as opposed to transcendence, which is what we are becoming. Through a transformative process, there is no expectation of "becoming" because the process is what you ARE and you will never leave IT, simply because it is YOU.

The ego mind loves transcendence, since what we are attempting to rise above is further asserted, with ever greater force, but equal to our ever greater desire to rise above. This is often the constant unrelenting tension inherent in conceptualizing transcendence or leaping above what we now believe we are. Both what is below and what is above is reinforced with ever greater intensity and this is the ever pressing continuum we seem mired in with no real progress and sometimes only continued frustration and disappointment.

Now, there is no desire to be other than what I AM, which is a "transformative process" that can never be transcended and is endless. But that's perfect because it only reinforces that I am infinite and eternally a "process." There is no thing or status to be transcended, only continued process to participate in and with.

I am a transformative process and this is how I conceptualize myself as BEING with no need to BE other then this. I am a process and  "human" being is not an object or a subject but a process encompassing all within it. I am a process FREE of transcendence since nothing must be transcended only accepted as IS and part of the process.

I realize many may contend that this is semantical hair-splitting with no real adaptable potential. However, as a practicing psychotherapist, I do recognize that we define ourselves distinctly through the language we use. I only point out that the narrative we employ to define our spiritual journey may indeed, impede that journey if "transcendence" defines the process as opposed to transformation which IS the process and negates or rises above nothing.

"Human being" is a transformative process that is eternal. We may one day exit the body, as many spiritual masters seem to teach, however, I imagine we will not necessarily "transcend" it, as simply see it differently which will mean that it no longer holds value and will only fade from view. At some point along the way we may change the name of the process (like changing the term "human being" to God), but I suppose transforming labels, or being without labels, is also part of the process. Seeing differently does not demand that we rise above what we SEE, only change how it is SEEN and thereby transform it and make it all part of the process.

What do you think?