It is very reassuring to think that all the different religions and spiritual traditions in the world are aimed at sharing the same basic truths - and that we are all heading in the same direction. The hopes of eliminating tensions between spiritual traditions is a noble goal for a humanity that has been torn apart by religious wars. No wonder it is an attractive alternative to imagine that we could all agree that there is really one universal or perennial spiritual truth - we might then find ourselves in a world with less war and less conflict. Apparent differences could be explained away: Differences among traditions would be seen as little more than problems of translating from one spiritual language to another. Differences in behavior might be understood as reflecting different stages in the development of consciousness toward the higher rungs of this perennial truth. The task of humanity would be to find a common spiritual language and to accelerate the development of those in a "lower" place to a "higher" place. Spiritual education could solve human problems, and spiritual harmony could be achieved once we developed the best techniques for facilitating or supporting people through the consecutive stages of spiritual development.
I call this type of spiritual universalism a "perennialist" position, and, though I can easily understand the appeal of such a picture, I am afraid that it does not really tell an accurate story of spiritual reality. Perennialism overlooks the way spiritual reality itself is in a process of evolution, and downplays the role human beings and human choices play in shaping that evolution. In my view, we cannot talk about people being at a certain stage of some pre-existing spiritual grid, but we can talk about the choices we make that continually shape and evolve that grid. Furthermore, despite their professed inclusivist stance, most perennialist visions in the modern West tend to distort the essential message of many religious traditions, favoring certain spiritual paths over others and raising serious obstacles for interfaith dialogue and spiritual inquiry.
In this essay, I would like to suggest that human spirituality emerges from our co-creative participation in an always dynamic and indeterminate spiritual power. This participatory understanding not only makes hierarchical rankings of spiritual traditions appear misconceived, but also reestablishes our direct connection with the source of our being and expands the range of valid spiritual choices that we as individuals can make.
The Participatory Nature of Spiritual Knowing
Spiritual knowing is a participatory process. What do I mean by "participatory"? First, "participatory" alludes to the fact that spiritual knowing is not objective, neutral, or merely cognitive. On the contrary, spiritual knowing engages us in a connected, often passionate, activity that can involve not only the opening of the mind, but also of the body, the heart, and the soul. Although particular spiritual events may involve only certain dimensions of our nature, all of them can potentially come into play in the act of spiritual knowing, from somatic transfiguration to the awakening of the heart, from erotic communion to visionary co-creation, and from contemplative knowing to moral insight, to mention only a few (see also Ferrer, 2000a, 2002).
Second, the participatory nature of spiritual knowing refers to the role that our individual consciousness plays during most spiritual and transpersonal events. This relation is not one of appropriation, possession, or passive representation of knowledge, but of communion and co-creative participation.
Finally, "participatory" also refers to the fundamental ontological predicament of human beings in relation to spiritual energies and realities. Human beings are - whether we know it or not - always participating in the self-disclosure of Spirit. This participatory predicament is not only the ontological foundation of the other forms of participation, but also the epistemic anchor of spiritual knowledge claims and the moral source of responsible action.
Spiritual phenomena involve participatory ways of knowing that are presential, enactive, and transformative:
An Ocean with Many Shores
Given a participatory account of human spirituality, we can begin to explore the radical plurality not only of spiritual paths, but also of spiritual liberations and spiritual ultimates.
Let us begin our story by departing from a classic perennialist account. Perennialism generally postulates a single spiritual ultimate that can be directly known through a transconceptual, and presumably ineffable, metaphysical intuition. This insight, so the story goes, provides us with a direct access to "things as they really are," that is, the ultimate nature of reality and our innermost identity. Central to this view is the idea that once we lift the manifold veils of cultural distortions, doctrinal beliefs, egoic projections, sense of separate existence, and so forth, the doors of perception are unlocked and the true nature of self and reality is revealed to us in a flashing, liberating insight. From a classic perennialist perspective, every spiritual tradition leads, in practice, to this identical, single vision - which is normally articulated in terms of a Zen-like "one taste" or Advaitin nonduality. Or to use one of the most popular perennialist metaphors, spiritual traditions are "like rivers leading to the same ocean."
Although this metaphor is used by perennialists to imply a cross-cultural spiritual ultimate, I would like to suggest an alternative reading. I propose that most traditions do lead to the same ocean, but not the one portrayed on the perennialist canvas. The ocean shared by most traditions does not correspond to a single spiritual referent or to "things as they really are," but, perhaps more humbly, to the overcoming of narrow self-centeredness and thus a liberation from corresponding limiting perspectives. I thus agree with the perennialists that most genuine spiritual paths (be they knowledge of Brahman in Advaita Vedanta, the cleaving to God in Judaism, or the commitment to visionary service in shamanism) involve a gradual transformation from self-centeredness towards a fuller participation in the Mystery of existence. In almost every spiritual path we witness a liberation from self-imposed suffering, an opening of the heart, and a commitment to a compassionate and selfless life. It is in this spirit, I believe, that the Dalai Lama (1998) thinks of a common element in religion:
If we view the world's religions from the widest possible viewpoint, and examine their ultimate goal, we find that all of the major world religions are directed to the achievement of permanent human happiness. They are all directed toward that goal. To this end, the different world's religions teach different doctrines which help transform the person. In this regard, all religions are the same, there is no conflict. (p. 12)
For the sake of brevity, and mindful of the limitations of this metaphor, since most traditions identify the liberation from self-centeredness as pivotal for this transformation, I will call this common element the "Ocean of Emancipation."
I also concur with perennialism in holding that the entry into the Ocean of Emancipation may be accompanied, or followed by, a transconceptual disclosure of reality. Due to the radical interpenetration between cognizing self and cognized world, once the self-concept is deconstructed, the world may reveal itself to us in ways that transcend our mental conceptualization. Nevertheless - and here I depart radically from perennialism - I maintain that there is a multiplicity of transconceptual disclosures of reality. Perennialists erroneously assume that the transconceptual disclosure of reality must be necessarily One. In other words, perennialists generally believe that plurality emerges from concepts and interpretations, and that the transcending of conceptual proliferation must then result in a single apprehension of "things as they really are."
But to enter the Ocean of Emancipation does not inevitably tie us to a particular disclosure of reality, even if it is transconceptual. In contrast, what the mystical evidence suggests is that there is a variety of possible spiritual insights and ultimates (Tao, Brahman, Sunyata, God, Kaivalyam, etc.) whose transconceptual qualities, although sometimes overlapping, are irreducible and often incompatible (personal versus impersonal, impermanent versus eternal, dual versus nondual, etc.). Perennialism typically accounts for this conflicting evidence by assuming that those qualities correspond to different interpretations, perspectives, dimensions, or levels of a single ultimate reality. As explain elsewhere (Ferrer, 2000b), however, this interpretation is not only unfounded and problematic, but also covertly posits a pregiven spiritual ultimate that is then hierarchically situated over other spiritual goals.
A more fertile way to approach the diversity of spiritual claims is, I believe, to hold that the various traditions lead to the enactment of different transconceptual disclosures of reality. Although these different spiritual realities may apparently share some qualities (e.g., nonduality in Sunyata and Brahmajñana), they constitute independent religious aims whose conflation may prove to be a serious mistake. In terms of our metaphor, we could say, then, that the Ocean of Emancipation has many shores.
The idea of different spiritual "shores" receives support from one of the few rigorous cross-cultural comparative studies of meditative paths. After his detailed analysis of Patañjali's Yogasutras, Buddhaghosa's Visudhimagga, and the Tibetan Mahamudra, Brown (1986) points out that:
The conclusions set forth here are nearly the opposite of that of the stereotyped notion of the perennial philosophy according to which many spiritual paths are said to lead to the same end. According to the careful comparison of the traditions we have to conclude the following: there is only one path, but it has several outcomes. There are several kinds of enlightenment, although all free awareness from psychological structure and alleviate suffering. (pp. 266-67)
Whereas Brown, Wilber and other transpersonalists have rightly identified certain parallels across contemplative paths, contextualist scholars of mysticism have correctly emphasized that the enaction of different spiritual insights usually requires specific mystical teachings, trainings, and practices. Or, put in traditional terms, particular "rafts" are needed to arrive at particular spiritual "shores": If you want to reach the shore of Nirvana, you need the raft of the Buddhist Dharma, not the one provided by Christian praxis. And if you want to realize knowledge of Brahman (Brahmajñana), you need to follow the Advaitin path of Vedic study and meditation, and not the practice of Tantric Buddhism, devotional Sufi dance, or psychedelic shamanism and so forth. In this account, the Dalai Lama (1988) is straightforward: "Liberation in which 'a mind that understands the sphere of reality annihilates all defilements in the sphere of reality' is a state that only Buddhists can accomplish. This kind of moksa or Nirvana is only explained in the Buddhist scriptures, and is achieved only through Buddhist practice" (p. 23).
What is more, different liberated awarenesses can be encountered not only among different religious traditions, but also within a single tradition itself. Listen once again to the Dalai Lama (1988):
Questioner: "So, if one is a follower of Vedanta, and one reaches the state of satcitananda, would this not be considered ultimate liberation?"
His Holiness: "Again, it depends upon how you interpret the words, 'ultimate liberation.' The moksa which is described in the Buddhist religion is achieved only through the practice of emptiness. And this kind of nirvana or liberation, as I have defined it above, cannot be achieved even by Svatantrika Madhyamikas, by Cittamatras, Sautrantikas, or Vaibhasikas. The follower of these schools, though Buddhists, do not understand the actual doctrine of emptiness. Because they cannot realize emptiness, or reality, they cannot accomplish the kind of liberation I defined previously." (pp. 23-24)
What the Dalai Lama is suggesting here is that the various spiritual traditions and schools cultivate and achieve different contemplative goals. He is adamant in stressing that adherents to other religions, and even to other Buddhist schools, cannot attain the type of spiritual liberation cultivated by his own. Alternative understandings of emptiness exist even among the various Buddhist schools. To lump together these different awarenesses into one single spiritual referent reachable by all traditions may be profoundly distorting. Each spiritual shore is independent and needs to be reached by its appropriate raft.
From Participatory Knowing to Spiritual Co-Creation
Although the metaphor of an ocean with many shores is helpful to illustrate the variety of spiritual realities, it is ultimately inadequate to convey the participatory and enactive nature of spiritual knowing. As with all geographical metaphors, one can easily get the mistaken impression that these shores are pre-given, somehow waiting "out there" to be reached or discovered. That view, of course, would automatically catapult us back to a kind of perspectival perennialism, which accounts for the diversity of religious goals in terms of different perspectives or dimensions of the same pre-given Ground of Being. Our participatory account should not then be confused with the view that mystics of the various kinds and traditions simply access different dimensions or perspectives of a ready-made single ultimate reality. Such a view merely allows that the same pregiven spiritual referent can be approached from different vantage points (Ferrer, 2000b). In contrast, the view I am advancing here is that no pre-given ultimate reality exists, and that different spiritual realities can be enacted through intentional or spontaneous co-creative participation in an indeterminate spiritual power or Mystery.
Admittedly, to postulate that human intentionality and creativity may influence or even affect the nature of the Divine - understood here as the source of being - may sound somewhat heretical, arrogant, or even inflated. This is a valid concern, but I should add that it stems from a conventional view of the Divine as an isolated and independent entity disconnected from human agency, and that it becomes superfluous in the context of a participatory cosmology: Whenever we understand the relationship between the divine and the human as reciprocal and interconnected, we can, humbly but resolutely, reclaim our creative spiritual role in the divine self-disclosure.
The idea of a reciprocal relationship between the human and the Divine finds precedents in the world mystical literature. Perhaps its most compelling articulation can be found in the writings of ancient Jewish and Kabbalistic theurgical mystics. For the theurgic mystic, human religious practices have a profound impact not only in the outer manifestation of the Divine, but also in its very inner dynamics and structure. Through the performance of the commandments (mizvot), the cleaving to God (devekut), and other mystical techniques, the theurgic mystic conditions divine activities such as the restoration of the sphere of the sefirots, the unification and augmentation of God's powers, and even the transformation of God's own indwelling. As Idel (1988) puts it, the theurgic mystic "becomes a cooperator not only in the maintenance of the universe but also in the maintenance or even formation of some aspects of the Deity" (p. 181).
As Dupré (1996) and McGinn (1996) observe, this understanding is not absent in Christian mysticism. In the so-called affective mystics (Richard of Saint Victor, Teresa of Avila, Jan van Ruusbroec, etc.), for example, we find the idea that the love for God substantially affects divine self-expression and can even transform God himself. In relation to Ruusbroec's mysticism, Dupré (1996) points out: "In this blissful union the soul comes to share the dynamics of God's inner life, a life not only of rest and darkness but also of creative activity and light. The contemplative accompanies God's own move from hiddenness to manifestation within the identity of God's own life" (p. 17). And he adds: "By its dynamic quality the mystical experience surpasses the mere awareness of an already present, ontological union. The process of loving devotion realizes what existed only as potential in the initial stage, thus creating a new ontological reality" (p. 20). The idea of a spiritual co-creation - "one that many have assumed but few have dared to express" (Dupré, 1996, p. 22) - is also present in devotional Sufism, as well as in many Indian traditions such as Shaivism and Buddhism. In any event, my intention here is not to suggest the universality of this notion (which clearly is not the case), but merely to show that it has been maintained by a variety of mystics from different times and traditions.
Once enacted in a co-creative process, spiritual shores become more easily accessible and, in a way, "given" to some extent for individual consciousness to participate in. Once we enter the Ocean of Emancipation, spiritual forms which have been enacted so far are more readily available and tend more naturally to emerge (from mudras to visionary landscapes, from liberating insights to ecstatic types of consciousness, etc.). But the fact that enacted shores become more available does not mean that they are predetermined, limited in number, or that no new shores can be enacted through intentional and co-creative participation. Like trails cleared in a dense forest, spiritual pathways traveled by others can be more easily crossed, but this does not mean that we cannot open new trails and encounter new wonders (and new pitfalls) in the always inexhaustible Mystery of being.
Grounding Our Spiritual Vision in the Mystery
It is fundamental to distinguish clearly this position not only from perspectival perennialism but also from spiritual relativism and anarchy. While I have argued that there is no single pre-given spiritual reality, I do believe there is a spiritual power or Mystery out of which everything arises. Although indeterminate, this Mystery does impose restrictions on human visionary participation. As Varela, Thompson, and Rosch (1991) suggest in relation to evolution, the key move "is to switch from a prescriptive logic to a proscriptive one, that is, from the idea that what is not allowed is forbidden to the idea that what is not forbidden is allowed" (p. 195). In our context, we could say that although there are restrictions that invalidate certain enactions, within these parameters an indefinite number of them may be feasible.
A central task for spiritual inquirers and participants in the interreligious dialogue, then, is the identification of these restrictive conditions for the enaction of valid spiritual realities. If I were to speculate, I would suggest that the nature of these parameters may have to do not so much with the specific contents of visionary worlds, but with the moral values emerging from them - for example, the saintly virtues in Christianity, the perfections (paramitas) in Buddhism, and so forth. In this regard, it is noteworthy that, although there are some areas of tension, religions have usually been able to find more common ground in their ethical prescriptions than in doctrinal or metaphysical issues (see, e.g., Küng 1991; Küng and Kuschel 1993). I should clarify here that I am not suggesting the existence of a "moral perennialism" resting on a supposedly ethical common religious past (see Kripal, 2003). In contrast, I propose that the search for these parameters constitutes a practical task to be accomplished in the fire of contemporary interreligious dialogue and cooperative spiritual inquiry. In other words, it is very likely that any future global ethics will not emerge from our highly diverse and ambiguous moral religious history, but rather from our critical reflection of such history in the context of our present-day moral intuitions.
In any event, the regulative role of such parameters can not only free us from falling into spiritual anarchy, but also pave the way for making qualitative distinctions among spiritual insights and traditions. These distinctions, however, would not be based on a priori doctrines or hierarchically-posited spiritual contents. Rather, they would be grounded in a rich variety of markers and practical fruits (existential, cognitive, emotional, interpersonal, etc.), perhaps anchored around two basic spiritual tests, which we may call the egocentrism test (i.e., to what extent does a spiritual tradition, path, or practice free its practitioners from gross and subtle forms of narcissism and self-centeredness?) and the dissociation test (i.e., to what extent does a spiritual tradition, path, or practice foster the integrated blossoming of all dimensions of the person?). The blossoming of the various human dimensions (somatic, vital, sexual, emotional, mental, etc.) is crucial not only for individual wholeness and social harmony, but also for the emergence of undistorted spiritual knowledge. Because of the deep resonance existing between the embodied human being and the Mistery ("as above so below," "the body as microcosm of the larger macrocosm," etc.), the more human dimensions maturely participate in the enaction of spiritual knowing, the more grounded in the Mystery our spiritual vision will be. While this approach would render obsolete the ranking of spiritual traditions according to doctrinal paradigmatic standpoints, it would then invite a more nuanced and complex evaluation based on the recognition that traditions, like human beings, are always both higher and lower in relation to one another, but in different regards.
Lastly, this participatory approach to interreligious relations may lead to a shift from searching for a global spirituality organized around a single ultimate vision to recognizing an already existent spiritual human family that branches out from the same creative root. In other words, traditions may be able to find their longed-for communion not so much in a single spiritual megasystem or global vision, but in their common roots - that is, in that deep bond constituted by the indeterminate dimension of the Mystery in which all traditions participate and with which they co-create their spiritual visions. Like members of a healthy family, religious people may then stop attempting to impose their particular vision on others and might instead become a supportive and enriching force for the creative spiritual individuation of other practitioners, both within and outside of a single tradition. This mutual empowerment of spiritual creativity may lead to the emergence of not only a rich variety of coherent spiritual perspectives which can potentially be equally grounded in the Mystery, but also a human community formed by fully differentiated spiritual individuals.
Conclusion
In sum, the common ocean to which most spiritual traditions lead may not be a pre-given spiritual ultimate, but the Ocean of Emancipation, a radical overcoming of self-centeredness that can be accompanied by a variety of transconceptual disclosures of reality. Some of these disclosures have been enacted already by the world's spiritual traditions, while an indeterminate number have not yet emerged and may require a more creative participation, a co-creation with the divine, to come into being. Although there are certain constraints on their nature, the number of feasible enactions of spiritual worlds may be, within these boundaries, virtually limitless.
While I cannot consistently maintain the objective superiority of this account over others, I can highlight some of its practical advantages (which arguably emerge from its attunement to the unfolding of Spirit).
In such a participatory cosmos, human intentional participation creatively channels and modulates the self-disclosing of Spirit through the bringing forth of visionary worlds and spiritual realities. Spiritual inquiry then becomes a journey beyond any pregiven goal, an endless exploration and disclosure of the inexhaustible possibilities of an always dynamic and indeterminate Mystery.
References:
Brown, D. P. 1986. The Stages of Meditation in Cross-Cultural Perspective. In Transformations of Consciousness: Conventional and Contemplative Perspectives on Development, eds. K. Wilber, J. Engler, and D. Brown, 219-284. Boston: Shambhala.
Dalai Lama, H. H. 1988. The Bodhgaya Interviews, ed. J. I. Cabezón. Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion.
Dupré, L. 1996. Unio Mystica: The State and the Experience. In Mystical Union in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam: An Ecumenical Dialogue, eds. M. Idel and B. McGinn, 3-23. New York: Continuum.
Ferrer, J. N. 2000a. Transpersonal Knowledge: A Participatory Approach to Transpersonal Phenomena. In Transpersonal Knowing: Exploring the Horizon of Consciousness, eds. T. Hart, P. Nelson, and K. Puhakka, 213-252. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
2000b. The Perennial Philosophy Revisited. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology 32(1): 7-30.
2002. Revisioning Transpersonal Theory: A Participatory Vision of Human Spirituality. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Idel, M. 1988. Kabbalah: New Perspectives. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Kripal, J. J. (2003). In the spirit of Hermes: Reflections on the work of Jorge N. Ferrer. Tikkun: A Bimonthly Jewish Critique of Politics, Culture & Society, 18(2).
Küng, H. 1991. Global Responsibility: In Search for a New World Ethic. New York: Crossroad.
Küng, H. and K-J. Kuschel, eds. 1993. A Global Ethic: The Declaration of the Parliament of the World Religions. New York: Continuum. McGinn, B. 1996. Comments. In Mystical Union in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam: An Ecumenical Dialogue, eds. M. Idel and B. McGinn, 185-193. New York: Continuum.
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., and Rosch, E. 1991. The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Jorge N. Ferrer, Ph.D., is associate professor at the California Institute of Integral Studies, San Francisco. He is the author of Revisioning Transpersonal Theory: A Participatory Vision of Human Spirituality (SUNY Press, 2002) and editor of a monograph of the journal ReVision on "New Horizons in Contemporary Spirituality."