“Remember this. When people choose to withdraw far from a fire, the fire continues to give warmth, but they grow cold. When people choose to withdraw far from light, the light continues to be bright in itself but they are in darkness. This is also the case when people withdraw from God.”

~Augustine

*******

“You used the word Being. Can you explain what you mean by that?

Eckhart Tolle:

“Being is the eternal, ever-present One Life beyond the myriad forms of life that are subject to birth and death. However, Being is not only beyond but also deep within every form as its innermost invisible and indestructible essence.

“This means that it is accessible to you now as your own deepest self, your true nature. But don’t seek to grasp it with your mind. Don’t try to understand it.

“You can know it only when the mind is still. When you are present, when your attention is fully and intensely in the Now, Being can be felt, but it can never be understood mentally.

“To regain awareness of Being and to abide in that state of “feeling-realization” is enlightenment.”

Yet, as Woodhouse has observed:

“The [fundamental answer] is in the dissolution of the false ego which seeks unity in everything except its oneness within the Great Chain [of Being] itself.”

*****

D.S:

“To call something ‘evil’ is not to say ‘it’s not part of the universe and must be gotten rid of’…

“What we are saying is that here is something that resists and breaks wholeness…

“and the way to deal with it is to prevent it from doing so and then so enfold and include it that it rediscovers the wholeness it has lost.”

^^^^^^^

I would contend that for many, if not most people, to call something “evil” means precisely the opposite of what David is saying. It IS to say: “[This is not a valid] part of the universe and must be gotten rid of.”

What David is suggesting, as I understand it, is that, while there are forces which attempt to resist and break wholeness…the forces are, at a deeper level, part of a Greater Wholeness which transcends and unites the apparent duality of wholeness/evil.

To the degree that we find ourselves unable to deeply accept and understand these forces as essential elements of the universal tropism toward wholeness, we ourselves can be caught in the web of these forces. This occurs by way of unconsciously assuming the validity of the “either/or” mode at the basis of Aristotelian thinking – a kind of thinking which itself undermines Wholeness.

As David suggests – as difficult as it may be – once we do our best to limit and prevent these darker forces from doing their dirty work – what remains is the inescapable necessity of enfolding and including them in the universality of Wholeness – by realizing that this is already the case.

*****

David wrote:

“There is another paradox here, for if I call something “evil,” am I not myself breaking a wholeness and thereby fostering evil? If I attack what is evil, am I not doing evil’s work by furthering divisiveness and separation?”

^^^^^^^

I believe this to be a real danger. And, I would say that one of the solutions to this problem resides in the quality of awareness we bring to the task of “calling out evil.” In other words, when less than fully conscious regarding our responses, we can easily be beguiled into ourselves furthering evil, or at least extending the kind of “divisiveness and separation” which leads to further suffering.

David’s statement, I think, captures an essential paradox – which we must, if we are to be truly effective, keep in the forefront of our consciousness.

*****

D.S:

“This is certainly a challenge to be aware of, particularly for someone who follows the way of the Warrior. Our best intentions can sometimes foster the very breaking of wholeness we wish to stop, especially if our attention is only upon conquest and victory. But evil can use the potential confusion of this paradox to diffuse efforts to block its unwholesome ways.”

^^^^^^^

One way to look at this predicament is to think in terms of the seven chakras (or energy centers within the body). To the degree we are still identified with the third chakra (power) we our efforts to confront evil may in fact, add to the problem.

Once we have openned the heart center (chakra four) our efforts are able to be rooted in deep love – even as we do what needs to be done in taking a stand in relation to ego- (or nation-) centric acts which create suffering.

In the case of both Jesus and the Buddha (beings whose self-identity resided in the seventh charkra and beyond) – there is clear evidence that neither of them “held their tongue” when it came to warning others and taking firm and decisive action regarding the demonic.

“In whatever way one may conceive the relationship between the individual self and the universal Self… it is most important to recognize clearly, and to retain ever present in theory and practice, the difference that exists between the Self in its essential nature — that which has been called the Fount,’ the ‘Center,’… the ‘Apex’ of ourselves — and the small ordinary consciousness.

“The disregard of this vital distinction leads to absurd and dangerous consequences.”

The actual achievement of various levels of Wholeness by a human being is apt to be fraught with complexities; it is an area ripe for confusion and misunderstanding.

And this is to say that what we may consider “Wholeness” may in reality fall far short of the fullness of this state of being….

The converse also follows: to the degree that we view Wholeness through an inadequate or unexamined set of beliefs or assumptions, we will naturally remain unclear about its purported opposite — Evil in the context of Brokenness.

*****

Here, Ram Dass shares an assessment of challenges he has faced at various points while traversing his own spiritual path. Describing a moment of insight about a tendency to confuse various levels of awareness:

“I was busy going from the two into the one – [I told myself that I was ‘going from the two into the one, dual to nondual…*] from multiplicity to unity. All yogic techniques are designed for that purpose: Yoga means union:[but I suddenly I came to the awareness that] “I was using my spiritual journey psychologically in order to [avoid] things I couldn’t acknowledge in myself.”

Along with Wilber, Hendlin has provided a number of specific examples of what might be regarded as “transpersonal pathological syndromes.” Hendlin’s describes a particular state of affairs, which he terms “pernicious oneness.”

For example, he observes that many individuals who feel drawn to grow spiritually exhibit a troubling lack of boundaries. This condition becomes an “undermining force” whereby our desire for a deep sense of connection with self and world fades into mere confusion and misguided action. In these cases an overly simplistic approach to the restoration of human wholeness leads to poor discrimination and a general “over-inclusiveness” in thinking.

Psychologically speaking, such a person has not adequately developed a sense of ego integrity. At the personal, egoic level – their “uncooked seeds” (immature emotional and cognitive patterns) can be reflected in manipulative behavior patterns.

Misunderstanding the need to develop a healthy sense of self, there is often a premature attempt to “disidentify” from one’s own ego, which is perceived as a negative kind of entity. As a result, behavior that is essentially rooted in “pre-personal” motives is incorrectly regarded as “trans-personal” (or deeply collaborative, altruistic or “ego-less”) in nature.

Expressed another way, the “spiritual seeker,” (who is sometimes said to be less than fully “cooked”) can be viewed as operating at a psychologically immature level of thinking and behavior. However, it is not at all uncommon for such a person to rationalize that they have “transcended” a sense of separateness from others and the world.

They may sincerely believe they are moving toward a state of “cosmic” or “unity” consciousness. They may create an entire persona around such a self-image. Meanwhile, beneath what is in actuality more of a facade, the inner needs and drives which they deny, continue to dominate their behavior.

One instance cited by Hendlin is a passive dependent syndrome wherein ego-level goals are dismissed or devalued; healthy assertiveness, and skill/reality-testing behavior may be fearfully shunned. Since all goal-directed behavior is “only more ego game,” a person may gravitate to lifestyle that involves either an extreme laissez-faire, “go-with-the- flow” attitude on one the hand, or an blind obedience to a guru, spiritual leader, or set of scriptures on the other.

“You can be at a higher, transpersonal, or “spiritual” level in several lines, and at a lower, personal, or “psychological” level in others, so that both spiritual and psychological development overlap–and the separate spiritual line(s) can be relatively high or low as well.

“All of these streams and waves are navigated by the self (or the self system), which has to balance all of them and find some sort of harmony in the midst of this melange. Moreover, something can go wrong in any stream at any of its waves (or stages), and therefore we can map various types of pathologies wherever they occur in the psychograph–different types of pathologies occur at different levels or waves in each of the lines.

“Even though we can say, based on massive evidence (clinical, phenomenological, and contemplative), that many of these developmental streams proceed through the waves in a stage-like fashion, nonetheless overall development does not proceed in a specific, stage-like manner, simply because the self is an amalgam of all the various lines, and the possible number of permutations and combinations of those is virtually infinite.

“Finally, because each senior dimension transcends, but includes (or nests) the junior dimension – to be at a higher wave does not mean the lower waves are left behind.

“This is not (and never has been) based on a ladder, but on the model of: atoms, molecules, cells, and organisms, with each senior level enfolding or enveloping the junior–as Plotinus put it, a development that is envelopment. So even at a higher level, “lower” work is still occurring simultaneously–cells still have molecules, Buddhas still have to eat.

…………………………………

“…The Self, or the transpersonal Witness, is not–like the ego or the soul–a “personality,” since it has no specific characteristics whatsoever (it is pure Emptiness and the great Unborn), except for the fact that it is an Emptiness still separate from Form, a Witness still divorced from that which is witnessed.

“As such, the Self or Witness is the seat of attention, the root of the separate-self sense, and the home of the last and subtlest duality, namely, that between the Seer and the seen. It is both the highest Self, and the final barrier, to nondual One Taste.”

I posit G-D as the ultimate Wholeness…and for us human beans – the fruit of the path toward Wholeness.

Yet, as Wilber has shown this process or “path,” known across traditions as “the spiritual journey,” or spiritual evolution, has many twists, turns, and complexities.

***

As Wilber in his encyclopedic review of developmental paths (both psychological and spiritual) has shown – the experience of “Wholeness” can be “achieved” at a number of discrete developmental levels.

He describes these in terms of “The Great Nest of Being,” such that one can experience wholeness or maturation as a valid culmination of one of any number of deveopmental levels.

The experience of having “ripened” at a given level, however, this does not, however, mean that any form of “ultimate wholeness” has been reached.

*************

Wilber puts it this way:

“Where states of consciousness are temporary, stages of consciousness are permanent.

“Stages represent the actual milestones of growth and development. Once you are at a stage, it is an enduring acquisition. For example, once a child develops through the linguistic stages of development, the child has permanent access to language. Language isn’t present one minute and gone the next.

“The same thing happens with other types of growth. Once you stably reach a stage of growth and development, you can access the capacities of that stage—such as greater consciousness, more embracing love, higher ethical callings, greater intelligence and awareness—virtually any time you want. Passing states have been converted to permanent traits.

“How many stages of development are there? Well, remember that in any map, the way you divide and represent the actual territory is somewhat arbitrary….It just depends upon how you want to slice that pie.

“The same is true of stages. There are all sorts of ways to slice and dice development, and therefore there are all sorts of stage conceptions. All of them can be useful. In the chakra system, for example, there are 7 major stages or levels of consciousness. Jean Gebser, the famous anthropologist, uses 5: archaic, magic, mythic, rational, and integral. Certain Western psychological models have 8, 12, or more levels of development. Which is right? All of them; it just depends on what you want to keep track of in growth and development.

“’Stages of development’ are also referred to as ‘levels of development,’ the idea being that each stage represents a level of organization or a level of complexity.

“For example, in the sequence from atoms to molecules to cells to organisms, each of those stages of evolution involves a greater level of complexity. The word “level” is not meant in a rigid or exclusionary fashion, but simply to indicate that there are important emergent qualities that tend to come into being in a discrete or quantum-like fashion, and these developmental jumps or levels are important aspects of many natural phenomena.

“Generally, in the Integral Model, we work with around 8 to 10 stages or levels of consciousness development. We have found, after years of field work, that more stages than that are too cumbersome, and less than that, too vague.

“Some of the stage conceptions we often use include those of self development pioneered by Jane Loevinger and Susann Cook-Greuter; Spiral Dynamics, by Don Beck and Chris Cowan; and orders of consciousness, researched by Robert Kegan….”

The basis for all “evil” (which we might define as “purposeful destruction for the sake of self-aggrandizement”) is in fact our human egocentricity.

However, as every authentic mystic throughout history has maintained, the human ego itself is a fiction. We live our lives identified with the idea of a personal ego and its accompanying hopes, desires, and fears.

We live – caught like a fly in a spiders web – caught up in our attachments to this or that. Yet the web is of our own making…..and the ego (within the context that humans hold it, consciously or not) – simply does not exist as a being unto itself.

Mystics, from the Christian, Meister Eckhart to the “Awakened One,” Siddartha Gautama, (“the Buddha”) have left us with a consistent, unified message:

“The One/Void (God/Godhead) is the one and only Absolute Reality.”

There is the One: the All-That-Is.

And, as we clearly perceive, there are also individual differences – mountains, buildings, apples, frogs, planets, fellow humans and the like – have a degree of reality. But this reality is Relative, rather than Absolute.

It’s not exactly that the “parts” of the Whole are unreal. Rather, their entire being only exists as a temporary manifestations of the Whole, much like individual waves on the ocean.

However, in the case of God/the Godhead: the One and Only is only able to manifest at all – through the creation of duality, that is, the emergence of the Two (this and that) from the One.

And as the Tao repeatedly says: from the Primordial Two come “the ten thousand things.”

In our universe at least – most us – “the ten thousand (humans)” have lost our sense of their identity as the One.

The experience of increasing differentiation and individuality is known as the process of Involution.

The process of Evolution (through every phase of the human level of being) is known as “the true spiritual journey,” no matter what path one pursues.

It is nothing less than returning to a sense of our primordial identity as the the Whole, or the ONE, or, if you wish, GOD….

*********

The following quote speaks to one facet of defining good vs. evil:

“To want control is the pathology! Not that the person can get control, because of course you never do… Man is only a part of larger systems, and the part can never control the whole.”

– Gregory Bateson
Steps to an Ecology of Mind