I have
been developing my understanding of the correlation between different systems of East and West.
The western psychological frame work doesn’t have a consistent model among
schools and various definitions of specific terminology and so it’s been a
process of figuring out where all these things live within the flow of
consciousness processing. I am trying to frame which aspects of development
relate to which psychic structures, and how they relate to each other, and it
is hypothetical on one level but there is the internal aspect that requires a
deeper self-reflection. For example, if the higher level of consciousness
expansion according to Tantrasāra
is working at the level of awareness of the first arising of the implicitly
known felt impulse of a cognition, how does that compare to Kegan’s fifth level
of knower who is seeing things in an inter-related manner. Does the
subject-object framework applied socially have any (or what) relation to the
internal relation to the deeper awareness of one’s consciousness? And how does
Loevinger’s eighth and ninth stage relate to that level of awareness? Is
Awareness altering the ego’s development, which it must at some level, but how
much is it dictating the growth and how much can remain undeveloped while still
exploring deeper realms of the being. Knowing one’s inner structure and nature
of thought inherently puts the ego into a particular perspective, as well as
all the social interactions one has. Yet, these realms are not directly
correlated but have an interactive impact, with functional knowledge of one’s
own perspective of themselves impacting the other aspects. Yet how can we
separate one aspect of the self from another?
I have
been looking at the correlation between three approaches to consciousness
expansion (upāyas)
in the framework of pre-conventional, conventional
and post-conventional concepts. They seem to fit nicely in the generalization,
but vary in the specifics. They correlate, but which levels of awareness are
required for a shift in development of which psychic structure isn’t perfectly
clear to me at the moment.
Abhinavagupta discusses three levels of practice (upāya),
or approaches to the path of expanding consciousness, based on the development
of the individual practitioner. The first is called the human path
(ānava-upāya) which uses the physical body and subtle body yoga techniques. The
second approach is the empowered path (śakta-upāya) which utilizes the imaginal
mind examining and transforming thought-constructs and the feeling generated by
them. The third approach is the divine path (śāmbhava-upāya) which works on the
causal level of consciousness to directly perceive Consciousness with direct
non-conceptual intuition.
Practice at the level of ānava-upāya is in the realm of
differentiated consciousness where the individual sees themselves as separate
and is self-focused. They lack the vision to see the unity. The practices at
this level are composed of rituals, moral codes, body postures, breath work,
mantras, visualization, and meditation. The primary force is the “power of
action”- doing a particular activity affects the flow and direction of
consciousness.
Practice at the level of śakta-upāya is very similar to
cognitive schema therapy. It is all about removing/dissolving the views that
are misaligned with reality (aśuddha vikalpas) and replacing them with views
that are in alignment with reality. The subtle body works with polarities and
the mind tends to go to the extremes of happiness or sadness, praise and blame,
etc. Stabilizing oneself in a balanced view by distancing oneself from the
commotion of the thoughts/emotions is key work at the subtle level. Whenever
the mind gets stuck on one side of a polarity, there is a charge associated
with that block. This energy (śakti) directs the mind away from reality.
Schemas that keep us stuck (aśuddha-vikalpas) are examined and the opposing
thought construct is used to dissolve it. They can also be personified and
worked with relationally. The opposing thoughts/personalities are more in
alignment with reality (or allow you to see things from a balanced perspective)
and are called śuddha- clear, genuine, examined, free from error, pure. Similar
to a constructivist perspective, thought constructs are examined and tested,
till they do not color or filter perception, with the awareness that cognitive
perception is always colored by mind. New pure thought constructs are
cultivated. These clear thoughts lead to an ability/clarity to experience the
level before thought-constructs.
At the level of śakta-upāya, the functional aspect of
consciousness (how thoughts are forming and moving and transforming) is given
more attention than just the particular thoughts. Focus is on how the thoughts
create and manipulate the direction of mind. The pure frequency of archetypal
thought patterns are seen as goddesses that can be invoked and worked with.
These psychic energies work with the individual, not just the individual
working with them. The mind field is seen as an interaction between the
energies (śakti) of the various states of consciousness. The primary force is
the “power of knowing” which is a clear understanding of the processing of the
subtle level of mind.
Practice at the level of śāmbhava-upāya is the awareness of
the vibration (spanda) of the first moment of perception. The causal level is
driven by the energy of will/desire (icchā-śakti) which is perceived as an
initial impulse.[1]
By bringing attention to the energy of the initial impulse of consciousness as
it comes forth (unmeṣa) there is direct non-conceptual experience. I believe
this is the pre-rational felt sense that Gendlin (experiential psychology) focuses
on. The practice is to watch the initial pouring forth of consciousness before
it becomes other thought constructs, it is thought-free (nir-vikalpa). In this
practice there is only being with the arising experience, any manipulation of
the experience would come from some cognitive construct. Therefore, Rogers (Gendlin’s
teacher, humanistic psychologist) is working at this level. He works on just
reflecting the experience the client is having, he doesn’t manipulate it.
Awareness alone is the mechanism of change.
Kegan’s epistemological lifespan development theory has
five orders of consciousness that an individual matures through. Second-order
knowers lack empathy and have an ego-centric thought process caring only about
their needs and preferences. Third-order knowers objectively see their personal
wants and needs and are not controlled by them. They are aware of social wants
and needs yet are confined by them with a group-formed identity. These two
orders both fall in the realm of ānava-upāya, where standard methods of working
with the body and prāṇa drive the consciousness towards a more expansive view.
The ego development at this level would correlate to Loevinger’s stages five
and below.
Kegan’s Fourth-order knowers objectively see their group
given beliefs and identity which allows them to have a ‘self-authoring’
consciousness where they chose what they believe. They are able to have their
beliefs be an object they own, instead of a subjective experience that they
believe is who they are. This level would correlate to the level of
śakta-upāya. One needs to have an objective stance towards their own mind and
ideologies to independently examine and work with their own schemas and
consciously practice dissolving them into their opposites. The ego on this
level requires Loevinger’s sixth to eighth stage of development.
The next stage doesn’t correlate as nicely, most likely due
to different concepts of what the higher levels of consciousness look like. The
practice of śāmbhava-upāya has the potential to develop the qualities of Kegan’s
fifth-order knowers who take on an inclusive perspective where they are able to
see the benefit of different views. There is a greater distance from cognitive
limitations. The person develops a bigger picture of their inter-relation to
all other systems. Loevinger has the integrated ninth stage of the ego where
there is peace with unsolvable issues. As the rational side of the mind that deals
with conflicts is left aside at this level of practice, the ego develops a
quality where it is not being concerned with the rational minds issues that are
seen objectively- as the ego is an object to the subjective awareness. Abhinavagupta
spoke of the different levels but there was always practice at all levels, just
as each level of our being is always present.
The relationship between these western psychological concepts
and traditional tāntric concepts is not presently
a discussion, but I think it will be a big topic in the future. These are just
my present observations.
[1] Abhinavagupta does not use the
terminology of physical, subtle, causal bodies in the same way that I do here. My
use of terminology here is based on my background in the Pañcarātra Āgama (Vaiṣṇava
Tantra), and is used accordingly.
No comments:
Post a Comment