I've been re-reading alot of Thomas Troward lately and I came across a quote that I thought I would post:
"No man can prove that God has spoken to him; the only possible proof is the inherent truth of the message, making it appeal to our feelings and our reason with a power that carries conviction with it. The Spirit of Truth shall convince you, said the master; and when this inner conviction of Truth is felt, it will invariably be found, that, by thinking it out carefully, the reason of the feeling will manifest itself an intelligible sequence of cause and effect. Short of realizing such a sequence, we have not realized the Truth.

It is a principle that no great system can endure for ages, exercising a wide-spread and permanent influence over larges masses of mankind without any element of Truth in it. There have been, and still are, great systems influencing mankind which contain many and serious errors, but what has given them their power is the Truth that is in them and not the error: and carful inquiry into the secret of their vitality will enable us to detect and remove the error." (Troward, Bible Mystery p.136).

Troward was a Science of Mind advocate and proclaimed that the power of Jesus, through Christ Consciousness (or Buddha Mind, take your pick), is available to all. However, this quote tends to highlight the idea that all major, or mass appealing, religious or spiritual belief systems tend to resonate that Truth (cap T meaning the one and only). Problem is most of the belief systems passed down through the centuries are also chock full of many erroneous holes. Because of this we spend a great deal of time examining and seeking out the holes and missing the Truth that the belief system initially was constructed from and this for some, becomes the focus of a lifetime.

Yet, it  is not the holes or errors that inspire and move us, but the Truth contained within the thoughts and beliefs of the system. In other words it is up to us to separate the wheat from the chaff, dwell with the nutritive substance within and be inspired. In fact, sometimes we need to ignore the holes in order to absorb the wholeness.

I like what Ken Wilber and the Integralists have done in relation to identifying the holes in many of our religious-spiritual belief systems. Problem is, it seems that such deep penetration into the errors has sapped the vitality of the Truth as well. So much so, that it might be missed in the constant search for error.

Integral just doesn't move me. Oh sure, it's pretty damn smart, as intellectual systems go, but where's the inspiration?

I just finished reading Integral Spirituality and I felt like I did after completing my college statistics and research class - utterly exhausted and 'spent.'

I agree with Troward in that it will be the reasonable system of belief, one that resonates with the rational mind, that we will seek out. But it will be this and the systems abilty to fuel our deepest emotion that will lift us up to new heights and will be the path we choose. Thought without feeling is bland and lifeless, but thought infused with the emotion that only Truth can evoke (no matter where it's found), will take us farther along the way to bliss of Re-union with the Spirit we seek and may even re-create our world.

But I'm just saying...

Peace Angels,
mike S

I find it interesting how the spiritual 'map-maker' Ken Wilber (Integral Theory) and his loyal Integralites, seem to be campaigning for relevance by denouncing other spiritual ‘map-makers.' This campaign is no different from the current U.S. political beliefs-bashing we're witnessing today (even though the integralists attach disclaimers that they are not really being "mean-spirited")

The Integral theory is a smart, esoteric package of beliefs, or an intellectual "map of the territory," that is relevant in many ways to many people. However, I wonder if this denigration of other ‘maps' may result in a backlash against the Integral Theory. Last time I heard it was Deepak Chopra. Poor guy, I'll bet he didn't see it coming, but alas, he was victim to the infamous "pre/trans fallacy" attack. (I wonder if he felt the blow?).

The pre/trans fallacy has relevance, yet it seems easily applicable to any spiritual state of mind that does not fit Wilber's own spiritual "map." In fact, through this reductionistic method it seems likely that all transrational states (beyond normal everyday consciousness) can be interpreted as prerational childish babble. But that argument is old, so I'll spare you.

However, now it seems the Integralistas are going after "The Secret" by Rhonda Byrnes and company. I read "The Secret" (and watched the DVD) several years ago and, although I found many flaws in the presentation and missing links to the theory, I thought that on the whole it was quite an empowering message. Sure, there was a lot of glitz and glam about it (and bit too much object obsession) but if it helps to empower an engagement with Spirit, and if that engagement leads to an experience of greater abundance, then all the power to it.

What we really want is NOT an abundance of things, but an experience of abundance.

I just can't understand why Ken Wilber would feel the need to criticize these formats. Does the immense popularity of these belief systems cause him jealousy or, like ‘government,' does he feel the need to protect us from ourselves?

This dialogue was posted on the God Pod so I thought I would talk about some of the points made.

As with any "you create your own reality" schema, The Secret fails what can be called "the Auschwitz test." According to The Secret, everyone who was murdered at Auschwitz-or Rwanda, or Darfur-created that reality for themselves, and therefore they are to blame for their fate. For obvious reasons, this position is an unconscionable as it is untenable.

This commingling and convergence of the collective and individual mind-consciousness is one aspect "The Secret," and much of the current "law of Attraction" literature, does not extensively address (certainly not to the extent Wilber expounds on his own spiritual theory, which is literally mind-boggling to put it mildly). However, if you read the works of Thomas Troward, an early 20th century intellectual and prolific advocate of this "law of attraction" (LOA), you will understand that the Divine Mind or Universal Consciousness is a composite of both individual and collective thought-substance. Therefore, both modes of "attraction," or reality-creation, are in operation-all the time.

If 10 million minds believe fear and anger justified, then the results of that collective thought patterning will be manifest and we can, and do, see that manifestation worldwide. However, the collective does not cancel out the individual as both are expressions of Spirit or, as Wilber would state, "Kosmos."

What "The Secret" proposes is that on some level (which implies "quantum") we create our reality, individually and collectively. However, the convergence aspect of individual and collective consciousness is NOT ruled out, its just that the focus of "The Secret" is the individual component.

Auschwitz, Darfur, Rwanda and all present day and historical atrocities are an amalgamation of a collective consciousness addicted to fear and the manifestations of fear. This can be curtailed, and even completely alleviated, through the collective-mind when each individual consciousness seeks to experience a life devoid of fear. Fear obstructs the Joy of Being in any consciousness, including the collective.

By teaching that the world quite literally revolves around you, The Secret encourages and entrenches narcissism. In developmental psychology, narcissism doesn't mean an unhealthy obsession with thinking only about yourself, it means you can't think about yourself. The capacity for self-reflexive awareness just isn't there. The entire world and everyone in it is simply an extension of your-self, and you are literally unable to take the perspective of another human being. This is not mystical union; this is pre-rational fusion, and without the ability to take the perspectives of other sentient beings, the entire foundation for ethics evaporates."

Good grief, how KW loves that concept of "narcissism"! My friends, when you hunker down into your lotus to meditate your way to enlightenment, make no mistake the goal of that moment is narcissistic, since YOU desire enlightenment for YOURSELF. However, it seems KW has cherry-picked his own version of narcissism that he ascribes to the field of developmental psychology. For KW narcissism is when you "can't think about yourself" and the entire world becomes an extension of yourself, in other words the narcissism of an infant, undeveloped ego-self. I don't know why he took a clear and concise psychological term like "narcissism" and twisted it into a distorted concept he calls "pre-rational fusion."

Essentially, for Wilber, "The Secret" promotes sociopathic narcissism in which we selfishly ignore others in our quest to manifest material possessions, all others be damned. The very idea that one who adheres to the Law of Attraction, as promoted by "The Secret," fails to take in the perspective of others or even realize others exist except as an extension of self, is a reductio ad absurdum.

Clearly, most of the reputable "law of Attraction" theorists emphasize that "attracting" from Divine Mind, "universal consciousness" or Spirit must be aligned with the collective good of said named "universe." Obviously, if I want my mother-in-law dead this is not aligned with a loving and rational universe or Divine Mind and, in fact, may negate or nullify that universal quality or substance. I may terminate my mother-in-law, but most likely this will only bring up and reinforce the reality of my more dormant "shadow" elements from the depths of consciousness right up into my face and into my everyday experience. I will in fact, "attract" or manifest a reality most disturbing and not advantageous to me in any way. (I would suggest that all you sociopaths out there NOT seek change your lived-experience through the "Law of Attraction.")

Actually, you are creating the universe moment-to-moment, but it's not the "you" that you think. According to the great contemplative traditions, every person has at least two "selves": the finite, temporal, egoic self-sense, and the infinite, transcendental, unqualifiable Self, or I-AMness. Your Self, your I-AMness, is indeed giving rise to the entire radiant Kosmos in this and every moment, but The Secret teaches that your separate self has the power to personally manifest a new car, win the lottery, or cure cancer... and this simply isn't how things work.

Hmmm...but both "selves" are in fact "you" as an expression of that universal wholeness, since nothing is excluded or left out of the Oneness Equation. There is no clear cut partition. Even Wilber contends that "the self is all over the place" (Eye of Spirit) so why shouldn't those who achieve a greater organization of the self-psyche reap the rewards of that escalated or higher correspondence with the universe, "Universal Consciousness" or Spirit.

It seems that Integral Theory does not seek to integrate the two selves (or transcend and include), but counter-productively denigrates and excludes the "self" that desires and wants. The Buddha proclaimed self is suffering, but only from a belief of incompleteness.

Does everyone have to be an 'enlightened master' in order to correspond with Spirit? (even in some small way?). The contemplative traditions overemphasized detachment from egoic self for a reason. This is because the exterior world is a reflection of a seemingly all-encompasing, compulsive addiction to ego-self desires. In other words, if I re-program your passive personality to attain the extreme of aggression, you most likely will settle into an assertive center as your new baseline functioning, but you will not attain the extreme because your current personality baseline is against it. If taken to the extremes your natural predisposition will be to find the center.

Nevertheless, the more you attempt to break free of egoic mind the more strongly it clings to you. Maybe instead of breaking free we must first learn to harness or, more specifically, manage it (and this is a Wilber principle!).

There seems no reason to me why a mind corresponding with Spirit through a deep and abiding sense of gratitude for Being, should NOT generate an experience of abundance. Notice I emphasize the 'experience of abundance' and not necessarily a 'manifestation' of abundance, which would be relative to the individual mind accessing Spirit. Whether or not that abundance is objectified or results in physical manifestation is not the point. Yet, the EXPERIENCE is always the point.

From an experience of completion why should you not "attract" abundance, possibly even in terms of "objects" within consciousness or manifest physical abundance? When one is synchronized with the universe, coincidences do NOT happen and often ‘things' have a way of just showing up because their supposed to.

But you must first seek synchronization and many claim that involves a consistent experience of love and acceptance. Possibly, the greater the synchronization with this "Universal Consciousness" the greater the manifest abundance and this seems congruent with the law of cause and effect in which a greater cause will generate a greater effect.

"The Law of Attraction" is true-as far as it goes. The problem is that The Secret takes this one relatively small piece of the puzzle and makes it the entire puzzle. A positive outlook will change your life and your intentions will co-create your reality, but so will brain chemistry, interior level of development, family relationships, natural disasters, cultural trends, language structure, environmental toxins, and, basically, the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

I agree, "The Secret" only gives a "piece of the puzzle," but I don't feel it advocates this as the whole puzzle. Notice how Wilber equates "the Secret," and the The Law of Attraction it promotes, with simply having "A positive outlook." KW is so deeply entrenched in his "quadrants," he will allow only the most enlightened of minds to converge the left and right quadrants or, more specifically, allow the interior world of individual experience to alter the exterior experience of consciousness as manifest.

Wilber lumps aspects of our empirical, objective facticity with his concept "interior level of development." Like that can be studied! No, but the interiors of awareness can be self-formulated, regulated and built upon to create incredible experiences through the interior unfolding externally. It's your experience. do what you will to enhance it.

"Developmentally, if one uses a scale ranging from archaic to magic to mythic to rational to pluralistic to integral to super-integral, The Secret teaches the magical thought structures that were humanity's leading edge several hundred thousand years ago. As Ken explains, The Secret encourages childlike "primary process thinking," which can be in the form of "the law of attraction" (e.g., if one black thing is bad, then all black things are bad) and "the law of contagion" (e.g., if this particular man was powerful, then a lock of his hair must be powerful too)."

Yes and many claim this childlike "primary process thinking" is less stifled and obstructed by fear (conditioned) than the supposed evolved minds of the developed ego. What may be interpreted as "magical thought structures" of time long past, can now be re-interpreted as miraculous forms of thought-consciousness which can create wonderful experiences for those who can "pray ceaselessly"(correspond with Spirit) and thereby reformulate the experiences of their life.

The importance of understanding how unconscious psychological shadow elements color and affect one's experience, and how The Secret can agitate, alienate, repress, or-perhaps even more worrisome-act on these disowned elements of consciousness.

Yea, and for $250 you can purchase Ken's enlightenment package (which is glamorously presented), which will, after many decades of hard work, identify your "shadows" and free you up to become an enlightened master. Obviously, Shadow elements will obstruct crystal clarity of consciousness and the experiences thereof. Nevertheless, The LOA advocates claim that the exterior experience will require a more mindful awareness and, hence adjustment of these interior shadow elements. Fear and anger will obstruct not only what you might manifest, but how you would experience that manifestation.

The exterior world is a reflection of an interior state, collectively and individually. Therefore, if the exterior is not an experience to your liking, seek to change the interior. Even cognitive psychology tells us this much, "it's not reality that disturbs you, but your interpretation of reality that disturbs you" (Aaron T. Beck, MD, paraphrased).

The genesis of the pre/trans or pre/post fallacy, and how The Secret is a perfect example of elevating pre-rational childish impulses to trans-rational spiritual glory. Simply because both categories of experience are non-rational, they can easily be confused, and often are.

The impulse to attain an experience of joy and abundance in your life is most likely not childish and can even be considered a return to a consciousness less ego-formed (preconscious?), and thus less stifled, through the experiences of an 'external world.' Yet, Ken would chastise you for being prerationally childish and immature in this joyous "state" since you have NOT evolved to a "stage" where it could be correctly interpreted as useful.

The Reality Creation Hypothesis, which includes the LOA, has been around for centuries in every culture and on every continent. From the Gnostic interpretations, to Plotinus and Parmenides. It can be observed within the Buddhist and Advaita Vedanta traditions. In the western 20th century we can find it in everything from Shirley Maclaine, the Seth books, Abraham-Hicks, Conversations with God, A Course in Miracles,Eckhart Tolle, etc, etc. Even theoretical physics, or quantum mechanics, often seems to inadvertently imply a veiled correspondence between thought and physical manifestation (although scientists are loathe to admit as much and if they do they are resigned to the lunatic fringe).

Obviously, we have no objective, empirically studied accounts of any consistent reordering of the quantum level of time and space. Nevertheless, the evidence seems to be mounting in favor of our ability to redirect and possibly even control the objects of consciousness or, more succinctly, our experience of an exterior manifest world. "The Secret" merely opens a door for many to actually consider that potential.

As opposed to Wilber's critique, I don't necessarily believe "The Secret" attempted to give the whole picture (unfortunately, not even Wilber can do that, although he may think he does) but maps out a direction that is understandable to many. Like the teachings of the "ancient masters," it only serves to remind us of Spirit too long ignored and the benefits of an enhanced awareness.

The Law of Attraction has helped many to, at the very least, alter their experience from one of deprivation to one of abundance. It may not get you a Porsche or a mansion on the Riviera but, if by focusing on your experience of Being-in-the-world (Heidegger hyphenated to denote unity) you experience an increase of love peace and joy, isn't this the internal essence of an engaged life that we all seek to experience (and who knows, maybe even a Porsche). Besides, if you shoot for the stars, but merely land on the moon, isn't that in itself an amazing feat?

I don't want to be an enlightened master. Rather, I just want to embrace a greater conscious experience of joy in my life. And I aim to do just that employing every scrap of information that I find useful (including Integral Theory, The law of Attraction and, yes, even "The Secret").

I would suggest that those who have experienced a feeling of empowerment through the ideas as touched on by "The Secret" read the original theorists (Troward, Holmes, Haanel, Behrend, etc, etc) who first postulated these ideas and presented them to the world. There is a secret that "The Secret" failed to unveil. I wonder if Ken Wilber knows, but isn't telling?

 

Ok, Ok, Okaaay!!! Let's just say, for the sake of discussion, that there was an historical "person" named Jesus who attained the enlightened ‘Christ Mind' and shared that message with the world. It's NOT too hard to believe, (even though the similarities between the symbolic and mythical ‘messiah' figures of other cultures, are profoundly striking and should be considered)

So what did this Jesus look like?

Should we rely exclusively on biblical accounts in relation to the appearance of this enlightened master? Or was he a swarthy Arabic man? Maybe he was a full-blooded African as other historians claim, or simply the tall, thin and frugal looking Caucasian man with long hair (a popular rendition attractive to many westerners). Or what if ‘he' was in fact........a woman?

Ahhhh! Blasphemy you speak!!!

You laugh at such silliness, but wait! Once you insist on a form and a body, the discriminating ego-mind will demand ‘appearances' and you will SEE those features in your mind and they will be real for you.

When you enter your Christian church, are you moved by what you see? What if the crucified Christ had the features of a black man? Or an Asian woman? (we can be just as moved by the ‘virgin mother' however, as long as the roles are clear).

Therefore, we have left the unlimited realm of ‘archetype' and entered the restricted zone of STEREOTYPE ("a simplified and standardized conception or image invested with special meaning and held in common by members of a group" -Amer. Herit. Dict). And we are all too familiar with the deleterious effects of stereotyping. It tends to lock down one's perspective, to where you just might miss the deeper meaning found behind the forms. Archetypes are the message and do not require forms or persons, (although we can make that attribution). However, stereotypes demand form, which can distract from the message. And, as history shows, often do!

And what about Buddha? Was he really the laughing fat-man or was he an emaciated long-haired, hippy-type? And what about Muhammad or Moses? Or Adam and Eve? What did they look like? Many claim it does not matter until an oppossing 'appearance' is presented.

If you believe these "persons" existed historically then you may unwittingly attribute to these historical "figures" the ‘values' traditionally inherent to that form or appearance. Stereotyping is a ‘real world' problem. Thus, it seems reasonable that the same problem is found through the numerous interpretations of historical figures prior to image recordings. Of course, for the biblical literalists who rely solely on the ‘text,' there is only one physical Jesus and for the Buddhist one embodied Buddha.

However, I believe there may be hundreds, if not thousands. Call me crazy!!

Alas, this may only be a mere trifling and insignificant issue for which I fail to add anything substantial to the discussion (as many claim is my tendency). However, racism, sexism and all the other judgmental ‘isms' are easily observable on a multitude of levels, from the most severe to the most minimal. This "type" of SEEING is often unconscious to the mind that discriminates differences and all minds do SEE differences. For many, Christian dogma and doctrine is one big distraction. However, for others it has resulted in a more expansive view.

If your Jesus is a tall Caucasian youth and mine is an old squat, pot-bellied, Arabic woman, will you judge me deluded or deranged? Will I be ostracized, derided and spit upon?

Such is the infamy of Christian history...

We can say the names with reverence based on the archetypal message they present for all people, but without needing the criteria of appearances, features, bodies or persons based on ‘historical' analysis. In this way, we may finally come to cease our obsession with the forms that often result in missing the content that the forms symbolically express. I imagine there is little argument that the world is sorely in need of that salvational, redeeming content. If only we could break from historical forms and persons.

There is a strong possibility that there was no man named Jesus, nor one named Buddha. However, there most certainly is Christ Mind/Buddha Mind. And it is blissfully free of form.

Hallowed be thy message, since the names no longer serve me...