Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
The 1-2-3 of God?
Are any of you familiar with Ken Wilber's work? Have you ever heard of his notion of the "1-2-3 of God," which he uses to describe the relationship of world religious traditions to one another?
It's an interesting idea, and has been helpful to me. He suggests that, as human beings, we are able to take first-, second-, or third-person perspectives on God, and that most religions emphasize only one or two of these perspectives (even though they may have some aspects of all three).
From a first-person perspective, the Absolute is encountered as absolute subjectivity, which is utterly open and limpid, the fountain of all intelligence and perception, knowing and feeling, unbound and unconditioned. Here, the Absolute is not experienced or known primarily as a divine Other, but as the Self of the self, as Mind-as-such. You find this first-person perspective most often in traditions like Buddhism or Advaita Vedanta.
The second-person perspective on the Absolute is as a divine other, the "Thou" of Buber's I-Thou relationship. This is the province of devotional theistic traditions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and so on.
The third-person perspective, where the Absolute is understood impersonally, primarily as a process or force, is common among certain animistic cultures, some new "environmentalist religions," nature mystics, and so on, but it finds expression in other traditions as well (e.g., Buddhism may speak in terms of "true nature," and Christianity may speak of the power of the Holy Spirit, as a "wind" or "fire" or other force.)
Integral theory contends that all of these perspectives are valid, and that a complete view demands acknowledgment of all of them. We can certainly adopt these perspectives with regard to ourselves or one another -- we know our own subjectivity intimately, we are "other" to our families and friends (and we can adopt a self-reflexive stance towards ourselves), and we have bodies that may be viewed impersonally, in terms of processes, systems, chemicals, molecular elements, and so on.
In my view, spiritual realization and maturation in God would involve deepening experience and understanding of all of these perspectives. An Integral assessment of world religious traditions would point out areas of oversight or deficiency in different traditions according to this understanding. For instance, while Christianity and Buddhism contain teachings which reflect all of these person-perspectives, they each have a perspective which is less developed: Christianity does not have a well-developed understanding of 1-p spirituality, and Buddhism would benefit by developing deeper appreciation for the 2-p experience of the divine.
It's an interesting idea, and has been helpful to me. He suggests that, as human beings, we are able to take first-, second-, or third-person perspectives on God, and that most religions emphasize only one or two of these perspectives (even though they may have some aspects of all three).
From a first-person perspective, the Absolute is encountered as absolute subjectivity, which is utterly open and limpid, the fountain of all intelligence and perception, knowing and feeling, unbound and unconditioned. Here, the Absolute is not experienced or known primarily as a divine Other, but as the Self of the self, as Mind-as-such. You find this first-person perspective most often in traditions like Buddhism or Advaita Vedanta.
The second-person perspective on the Absolute is as a divine other, the "Thou" of Buber's I-Thou relationship. This is the province of devotional theistic traditions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and so on.
The third-person perspective, where the Absolute is understood impersonally, primarily as a process or force, is common among certain animistic cultures, some new "environmentalist religions," nature mystics, and so on, but it finds expression in other traditions as well (e.g., Buddhism may speak in terms of "true nature," and Christianity may speak of the power of the Holy Spirit, as a "wind" or "fire" or other force.)
Integral theory contends that all of these perspectives are valid, and that a complete view demands acknowledgment of all of them. We can certainly adopt these perspectives with regard to ourselves or one another -- we know our own subjectivity intimately, we are "other" to our families and friends (and we can adopt a self-reflexive stance towards ourselves), and we have bodies that may be viewed impersonally, in terms of processes, systems, chemicals, molecular elements, and so on.
In my view, spiritual realization and maturation in God would involve deepening experience and understanding of all of these perspectives. An Integral assessment of world religious traditions would point out areas of oversight or deficiency in different traditions according to this understanding. For instance, while Christianity and Buddhism contain teachings which reflect all of these person-perspectives, they each have a perspective which is less developed: Christianity does not have a well-developed understanding of 1-p spirituality, and Buddhism would benefit by developing deeper appreciation for the 2-p experience of the divine.
0
Comments
I'm still at a stage in my study and practice where I find I have to leave the God question out of it because I just get confused. I find that my early indoctrination into Christianity gets all mixed up into the question and I can't keep things straight in my mind. I start to wonder and wander and lose sight of the path that I'm walking on. I am familiar with Ken Wilbur, as you know, and I love his work very, very much. But I can't even read him at the moment which is a bit of a drag. I suppose I could read his writings on Buddhism and consciousness but I have to leave the question of the Divine, whatever it may be, out of it until I have a more secure grasp on Buddhism. Does that make sense? I hope so.
Nice to hear from you again. If you've come across any more of your stories since the last time you were here I'd love to read them if you ever felt like posting any. No pressure, of course. I thought I'd ask just in case.
Nirvana, Dharma, Karma... I guess all three work in different ways, don't they? Yet I do not necessarily follow how developing such 1-2-3 appreciation would make a religion more fine, sounds like a massive over-generalization to me...
About short stories: I do have another one, if I get the time to type it up one day!
Ajani,
I don't think "nirvana, dharma, karma" exactly correspond to what Wilber is referring to. I do think Buddhism has elements of all three perspectives Wilber mentions, but the emphasis is on one of them in many traditions. Others (such as Vajrayana) may be more rounded. The 1-2-3 of God is a generalization -- that's what it's meant to be -- but it can be a useful way to examine how religious traditions relate to one another -- and to understand why they often talk past one another.
Best wishes,
Balder
If I follow this line of thought concerning a contemplative science, I would have to apply something similar to Christianity truths like unconditional love. It would therefore seem that a contemplative science would, after due analysis, neither be Christian, Buddhism, Islamic or any other 'ism' - it could not, as Sam Harris argues, be the property of any brand name religion just as science is a non-brand name. After all, we do not read of 'American' science, or 'Italian' science, or any 'other' science.
Just so, the self-evident nature of such things will be accepted as universals.
Nirvana as The Absolute, Dharma as the personal Path, Karma as the Impersonal Law.
As for generalisation, perhaps. :rockon: