Ken Wilber

PART I | PART II | APPENDIX I | FOLLOWUP | APPENDIX II | NOTES

Appendix 1: On The Need for a Post-Metaphysical and Critical Spirituality

The following endnotes are taken from Integral Psychology . They point up, once again, my belief that we need to move from a metaphysical approach (which assumes that numerous planes or levels of reality exist in a radically independent fashion from the consciousness that knows them) and move toward a much more critical approach (which investigates the structures of the subject that knows the object, or in this case, that knows the levels of reality). In the following notes, I try to make two major points: (1) we can no longer conceive planes or levels of reality as entirely pre-existing, pre-given ontological structures; (2) we can, however, continue to refer to ontologically real levels of reality, but only if they are conceived as fundamentally codependent on the consciousness that perceives and co-creates them. This allows us to retain planes, levels, or realms of reality as separate and quasi-independent variables, but only by realizing that those levels of reality are internally related to levels of consciousness, and that if a particular human consciousness does not perceive a realm, that realm can exist only because it is a realm of consciousness held in Spirit (a Spirit that human consciousness itself can directly realize in satori or enlightenment). This dramatically shifts independent levels of reality known by a priori metaphysical speculation, to levels of consciousness known by direct experience (and hence open to continual criticism and refinement via deep science, research, and investigation)--the shift, that is, from metaphysical to postmetaphysical spirituality.

Some of the following notes might not make complete sense unless one reads the book from which they are taken ( Integral Psychology ), but by and large I think they are clear enough to get the general idea. I have edited these notes slightly for emphasis. This appendix is followed by several follow-up questions and my responses.

1.3 [which means, endnote 3 to chapter 1]. As Huston Smith points out in Forgotten Truth , in the great traditions, the levels of consciousness (or levels of selfhood) are sometimes distinguished from the levels of reality (or planes of reality), and I also follow that distinction. However, for most purposes they must be treated together, as the being and knowing aspects of each of the levels in the Great Nest. In other words, the basic structures of knowing (the levels of consciousness/selfhood) and the basic structures of being (the planes/realms of reality) are intimately and internally connected, and unless otherwise specified, both of these are indicated by the terms basic structures or basic levels of the Great Nest. (Huston Smith indicates this by using the same figure of concentric circles to cover both levels of reality and levels of selfhood.) But the reason it is necessary to distinguish them is that a given level of selfhood can encounter a different level of reality, as we will see in subsequent discussions, and thus these need to be preserved as two independent variables. Nonetheless, there are advantages, in modern discourse, to emphasizing the epistemological component over the ontological, as I will point out in the following discussion.

1.5 This is similar to the Mahayana Buddhist notion of the alaya-vijnana, the "collective storehouse consciousness," which is present in every person, and which is said to be the repository of the memory traces ( vasanas) of all past experiences, both of oneself and others (i.e., it is not just collective but transpersonal, embracing all sentient beings; in my system, it is the high-subtle to low-causal). It is said that, in higher stages of meditation, one can contact this transpersonal consciousness, which helps to release one from a narrow and restricted identity with the individual self. Thus, according to Mahayana Buddhism, the alaya-vijnana is: (1) a real transpersonal realm, an actuality, that exists in all people; (2) it is, however, rarely contacted in a conscious fashion, so for most people, that conscious contact is merely a potential; (3) as a collective storehouse, it is evolving and changing as more and more vasanas are collectively accumulated; (4) thus its actual contours are constantly coevolving with people's experience--it is definitely not a pregiven, unchanging mold or eternal archetype; (5) even though it is constantly evolving, any individual, at any given time, by directly experiencing that realm, can be released from the constrictions of individuality; (6) thus, the fact that this subtle realm is evolving and changing does not mean that it cannot confer transpersonal liberation at any given time.

Of course, final liberation is said to be beyond even the subtle forms or vasanas, into the formless or causal (and then nondual). The causal is the only basic "level" that does not change and evolve, because it is purely formless. But even the nondual evolves in part, because it is a union of causal emptiness (which does not evolve) and the entire manifest world (which does).

To my mind, this conception (which is a reconstruction of the Buddhist view) is more adequate than that of eternally unchanging archetypal molds (see the Introduction to volume 2 of the Collected Works for a fuller discussion of this theme [this is reprinted below in Appendix 2, "The Nature of Involution"]; some aspects of the Kosmos must still be assumed to be archetypal, but far fewer than the perennial philosophy generally imagined). In my opinion, all of the holons of existence (including the basic structures) are, in part, these types of evolutionary memories or habits. And, for the present discussion, it should be remembered that the higher levels are still evolving themselves, and thus they are great potentials, not pregiven absolutes, but this still does not prevent them from being able to release us from the constrictions of the lower realms.

8.1 As indicated in the text, states of consciousness are very important, but for them to contribute to development they must become structures/traits. Planes or realms are important, but they cannot be conceived pre-critically as ontologically independent realities, but rather as coproductions of perceiving selves (see note 8.2 [which follows]). Thus, the simplest generalization is that individual development involves waves, streams, and self, without in any way denying the importance of all of those others factors, from states to planes to numerous heterarchical processes and patterns.

8.2 In my view, the basic structures in the Great Nest are simultaneously levels of both knowing and being, epistemology and ontology. For reasons discussed in the text (namely, modernity rejected most ontology and allowed only epistemology), I usually refer to the basic structures as "the basic structures of consciousness" (or "the basic levels of consciousness"); but their ontological status should not be overlooked as long as their internal connection to consciousness is not ignored. Generally, the perennial philosophy refers to the former as levels of consciousness (or levels of selfhood ), and the latter as realms or planes of existence (or levels of reality ), which we should understand as inextricably interwoven (see note 1.3). Thus, as Huston Smith pointed out (Forgotten Truth), the body level of consciousness corresponds with the terrestrial realm or plane of existence; the mind level of consciousness corresponds with the intermediate realm or plane of existence; the soul level of consciousness corresponds with the celestial plane of existence; and the spirit level of consciousness corresponds with the infinite plane of existence. Since these are correlative structures (levels of consciousness and planes of existence), I include both of them in the idea of basic structures or basic levels of the Great Nest.

However, on occasion it is useful to distinguish them, because a given level of self can experience a different level or plane of reality . I have often made this distinction when analyzing modes of knowing (see Eye to Eye , chapters 2 and 6; A Sociable God , chapter 8), and I will do the same in the text when we discuss modes of art. Moreover, in ontogeny, the structures develop but the planes do not (the self develops through the already-given potential planes or levels of reality [which pre-exist only as a potential gradient of transcendence]); however, in both Kosmic involution and evolution/phylogeny, the planes/realms also develop, or unfold from Source and enfold to Source (so we cannot say that planes show no development at all: they involve and evolve from Spirit; see note 1.5 [above] for the ways in which the planes themselves coevolve). But a given level of self, generally, can interact with different levels of reality, to various degrees, so that we need to keep these two (structures and realms) as independent variables.

Thus, for example, as I pointed out in Eye to Eye , consciousness can turn its attention to the material plane (using its epistemological eye of flesh), the intermediate plane (using its epistemological eye of mind), or the celestial plane (using its epistemological eye of contemplation). The material, intermediate, and celestial planes are the ontological levels; in Eye to Eye I refer to them using the terms sensibilia, intelligibilia, and transcendelia (i.e., the objects in those planes or realms). The eyes of flesh, mind, and contemplation are the epistemological levels correlated with (and disclosing) those ontological planes of sensibilia, intelligibilia, and transcendelia. (Of course, this is just using a simple three-level version of the Great Nest; if we use five levels, there are then five planes of existence and five correlative levels of consciousness, and so on. In my scheme, since I often use 7 to 9 general levels of consciousness, there are likewise 7 to 9 general realms or planes of reality.)

But notice: you can make essentially the same points using only the levels of consciousness (since being and knowing are two sides of the same levels). You can say that the mind can investigate the intermediate realm, or you can simply say the mind can investigate other minds. You can say the mind can investigate the celestial realm, or you can simply say the mind can investigate the subtle level. They are essentially saying the same thing, as long as you realize that any given level of selfhood (or consciousness) can turn its attention to any level of existence (or plane of reality). These two independent scales, in other words, can be stated as "level of consciousness investigates planes of existence"; but they can also be stated as "level of consciousness investigates other levels of consciousness," as long as we understand the correlations involved.

I often use the latter formulation, simply because, as I said, it avoids the ontological and metaphysical speculations that modernity quite rightly finds so questionable. Premodern philosophy was unabashedly metaphysical (i.e., it assumed the nonproblematic ontological existence of all the various planes, levels, and realms of transcendental reality); whereas modern philosophy was primarily critical (it investigated the structures of the subject of thinking, and called into question the ontological status of the objects of thought), and thus modernity brought a much needed critical attitude to bear on the topic (even if it went overboard in its critical zeal and sometimes erased all objects of knowledge except the empirical and sensorimotor).

A crippling problem with the perennial traditions (and the merely metaphysical approaches) is that they tend to discuss ontological levels (planes or axes) as if they were pregiven, independent of the perceiver of those domains, thus overlooking the substantial amount of modern and postmodern research showing that cultural backgrounds and social structures profoundly mold perceptions in all domains (i.e., the perennial philosophy did not sufficiently differentiate the four quadrants). For all these reasons, simply talking about "planes" as completely independent ontological realities is extremely problematic--yet another reason I have tended to emphasize the epistemological facets over the merely ontological ones.

PART I | PART II | APPENDIX I | FOLLOWUP | APPENDIX II | NOTES