Ken Wilber

(PAGE 6 OF 10)

Appendix A. Stages of Spiritual Unfolding?
This essay has suggested that there are at least four different, commonly used definitions of "spirituality" (i.e., spirituality involves altered states, the highest levels in any of the lines, a separate line itself, a quality of the self at any given level), and that each of them appears to reflect an important phenomenon in consciousness (i.e., states, levels, lines, and self). In recent years there has been an intense, sometimes acrimonious debate about whether or not spirituality involves stages, some claiming that it definitely does, others responding that it definitely does not, with each side often adding ad hominen explanations of the other side's motives.

A more integral view of spirituality recognizes that both sides are correct. Some aspects of spirituality clearly show stages, and some aspects do not. In the four aspects listed above, the first and the last do not involve stages. The second and the third do.

We can examine a few of these developmental aspects of spirituality by using Robert Forman's excellent article, "What Does Mysticism Have to Teach Us about Consciousness?" (Journal of Consciousness Studies, 5, 2, 1998, 185-201). Forman begins by highlighting three particularly important and apparently universal types of mystical consciousness, which he calls the "pure consciousness event" (PCE), which is a state of formless consciousness with no thoughts, objects, or perceptions; the "dual mystical state" (DMS), where formless consciousness is present (usually as a type of witnessing awareness) simultaneously with forms and objects of thought and perception (but the subject-object duality is still in place, hence "dualistic" mystical state); and the "unitive mystical state" (UMS), where subject and object are one or nondual.

In my scheme, the PCE is a causal (formless) state of consciousness; since, as Forman points out, it is always a temporary state, it cannot become a permanent structure (if it did, it would become a type of irreversible nirodh, or permanent formless cessation). The DMS, on the other hand, generally begins as a state of consciousness but can increasingly become a more-or-less permanent structure of causal witnessing (i.e., the causal state has become a causal structure). Likewise, the UMS often begins as a temporary nondual state but also increasingly can become a permanent nondual structure or wave. I agree entirely with Forman that those are three very real and quasi-universal mystical events; I am also in substantial agreement with his conclusions about what these events mean for consciousness studies, which is why they are part of the "full-spectrum cartography" or "master template" presented in Integral Psychology (and summarized above).

Forman points out, correctly I believe, that these three events are often temporary (in which case they are what I call states), but the last two can become more-or-less permanent acquisitions (in which case I call them structures, even if some of them are "formless" or "structureless"; structure or level or wave simply signifies constancy). As Forman says, "Their discriminating feature is a deep shift in epistemological structure: the experienced relationship between the self and one's perceptual objects changes profoundly. In many people this new structure becomes permanent" (186).

The question then becomes, do these three events unfold in a stage-like sequence? Forman cautiously replies, "Usually." "These long-term shifts in epistemological structure often take the form of two quantum leaps in experience [namely, the shift from PCE to DMS, and then from DMS to UMS]; typically they develop sequentially" (186). Forman then adds "I say typically because sometimes one may skip or not attain a particular stage. Ken Wilber claims sequence. William Barnard, however, disputes this claim of sequence" (186). After several mutually fruitful discussions on this topic, Forman realizes that my position is actually more complex. As we have seen, there are temporary peak experiences of higher realms available at virtually every stage, and thus, for example, even if one is permanently at the DMS, one can still temporarily peak experience the UMS. This makes it very hard to spot any sort of sequentiality, because structure-stages (which are sequential) and states (which are not) can and do exist simultaneously. Thus, for these higher events, I maintain that there are both sequential and non-sequential spiritual phenomena (of the four aspects of spirituality outlined above, aspects #1 and #4 are not stage-like, aspects #2 and #3 are), and those who claim only one or the other do not appear to have a very integral model.

My further claim is simply this: in the permanent acquisition of these higher competences, certain prerequisites must be met. For example, using Forman's useful categories, in order for the DMS state to be a permanent acquisition, one must have some sort of access to the PCE, because the DMS is a combination of the experience of pure consciousness alongside waking objects and thoughts. Of necessity, there is some sort of stage sequencing, however brief (i.e., one can attain PCE without attaining DMS, but not vice versa). Likewise with the UMS, in which the final barrier between pure causal consciousness and the world of form is transcended (either temporarily as a nondual state, or permanently as a nondual wave). In order for that to happen, consciousness must relinquish all attachments to any particular objects, while the objects are still present (i.e., DMS), or else the hidden attachment will prevent true unity. Thus, the DMS must be passed through, however briefly, in order for a permanent acquisition of constant unitive consciousness. That is, one can attain the DMS without attaining UMS, but not vice versa: we therefore have a stage sequence with reference to permanent acquisition.

(For further discussion of these themes, see Integral Psychology; also, with reference to the Vedantic/TM model of the seven states of consciousness, which Forman's work is partially inspired by, see chap. 10 of The Eye of Spirit, second revised edition, CW7.)

One final comment about the UMS (unitive mystical state) and nature mysticism. These two items are often confused, but they are actually quite distinct. Here, from Integral Psychology, is an endnote dealing with this topic (note 14 for chap. 7), using James Mark Baldwin's notion of "unity consciousness" as a beginning point:

Baldwin's "unity consciousness" is a gross-realm unity or nature mysticism (psychic level). It does not recognize archetypal mysticism, subtle consciousness, lucid dreaming, or savikalpa samadhi (all forms of deity or subtle-level mysticism); nor does it recognize formless consciousness (causal), and therefore it does not reach the pure nondual (which is a union of form and emptiness). Union with nature, when it does not recognize the formless state of cessation, is always psychic-level, gross cosmic consciousness, or nature mysticism (not nondual or integral mysticism). Nonetheless, it is a genuine and profound transpersonal experience.

One of the easiest ways to tell if a "unity experience" is gross realm (nature mysticism), subtle realm (deity mysticism), causal realm (formless mysticism), or genuine nondual consciousness (union of the form in all realms with the pure formless) is to note the nature of consciousness in dreaming and deep sleep. If the writer talks of a unity experience while awake, that is usually gross-realm nature mysticism. If that unity consciousness continues into the dream state--so that the writer talks of lucid dreaming, union with interior luminosities as well as gross exterior nature--that is usually subtle-realm deity mysticism. If that consciousness continues into the deep sleep state--so that the writer realizes a Self that is fully present in all three states of waking, dreaming, and deep sleep--that is usually causal-realm formless mysticism (turiya). If that formless Self is then discovered to be one with the form in all realms--gross to subtle to causal--that is pure nondual consciousness (turiyatita).

Many nature mystics, ecopsychologists, and neopagans take the gross-realm, waking-state unity with nature to be the highest unity available, but that is basically the first of four major samadhis or mystical unions. The "deep self" of ecopsychology is thus not to be confused with the True Self of Zen, Ati of Dzogchen, Brahman-Atman of Vedanta, etc. These distinctions also help us situate philosophers like Heidegger and Foucault, both of whom talked of mystical-like unions with nature. Those were often profound and authentic experiences of gross-realm unity (Nirmanakaya), but again, those should not be confused with Zen or Vedanta, for the latter push through to causal formlessness (Dharmakaya, nirvikalpa samadhi, jnana samadhi, etc.), and then into pure nondual unity (Svabhavikakaya, turiyatita) with any and all realms, gross to subtle to causal. Many writers confuse Nirmanakaya with Svabhavikakaya, which ignores the major realms of interior development that lie between the two (e.g., Sambhogakaya and Dharmakaya).