Thursday, October 18, 2007 at 12:12am
Spirituality + psychology = a powerful duo
Column: Spiritual Psychology
In my book "Escape Your Own Prison: Why We Need Spirituality and Psychology to be Truly Free" I introduce a new term for spiritual consciousness — omni consciousness. Why clutter the field with yet another name, when there are so many to express consciousness beyond the me-ego consciousness of personal experience that most Western psychologies rest on? Do we really need a new term, or is it just a gratuitous addition? Don't Krishna consciousness, Christ consciousness, Buddha consciousness and a host of others coming out of religious and spiritual traditions make the case well enough?
They may, but while they all claim to express a universal consciousness, they have tie-ins with particular traditions that can be alienating to non-devotees — in other words, they carry a lot of baggage. Also, embracing some of these spiritual- and religion-related expressions of higher consciousness can generate a queasy feeling that you are adopting a more inclusive package or philosophy that you may not be comfortable with. For example, in saying yes to Christ consciousness, are you also endorsing Christianity, which has many denominations and divisions — do all the denominations have the same understanding of Christ consciousness? At the same time, Jews, Muslims and others may shun the term, feeling they are compromising their beliefs and primary affiliations. Similarly for Krishna, Brahmin or other consciousnesses — what else comes in under the radar, many may ask themselves? You can raise the same question about any consciousness that has a prefix or suffix connecting it to a particular religion, spiritual path or cultural tradition.
If there is a universal consciousness that underlies all spiritual and religious traditions, I thought it wise and useful to give it a neutral term and fresh start that only speaks to this transcendental consciousness in universal but neutral terms. The advantage is obvious: Right from the outset it avoids clashes that emphasize differences that lose touch with the universality of spiritual consciousness that is formless, contentless and timeless. In that vast space there is no particular religion or tradition — just being where all is One! The moment that form and name enter, you have lost omni consciousness and are back in the little me-ego consciousness of forms and rigid object structures (see last week's discussion of self as subject and self as object). Keeping the expression of transcendent consciousness simple and universal brings clarity to the difference between me-ego consciousness and the consciousness of spirituality which I call omni consciousness.
Omni consciousness also offers an opportunity to explore higher consciousness as a dimension of universal consciousness from a psychological perspective. This places it on a firmer foundation that opens it to scientific inquiry, thus narrowing the historic gap between scientific psychology and spirituality. At its inception scientific psychology sought to distance itself from spirituality. It wrested psychology from its previous comfortable niche in religion and philosophy departments to establish separate psychology departments that would nestle close to the hard sciences, hoping for acceptance into that club — to pump up its prospects, psychology vowed to deal only with the "real" world.
But now there's good reason to close that gap between science and spirituality and restore their long previous history of partnership. They have a lot to offer each other and can form a powerful duo that can enrich both domains.
At one time the chief divide between science and spirituality stemmed from the split between materialism (the world of the seen) and non-materialism (the world of the unseen) — or, as some believed, "the real vs. the unreal." Another expression of this is the Cartesian dichotomy (derived from the philosophy of Rene Descartes) of body and mind — body having extension in space (real) and mind having no concrete extension (unreal).
Throughout much of history the quest in science was to identify the smallest concrete (real) building block of the material world. For a long time the atom was the main candidate for that role. But then physicists found subatomic particles, sub-sub particles, and ultimately a next level in which the material particle disappeared and morphed into a non-material wave. Then it was noted that the wave could morph back into a particle in a process of "materialization"— no-thing could become some-thing. And that transformation could be determined by observation — that the very act of observation could influence the process one way or another. If that were the case, then pure objectivity — previously considered the great pillar of science — would not be possible, because the observer and the observed would be intertwined - or, a simpler way of expressing that phenomenon: All is one. If all is one and observer and observed are not separate, then what does that do to the classical divide between the material world (science) and the unseen world (spirituality)? The material and the non-material then become one seamless continuum that says we are both. That realization has vast implications for spirituality and the psychology of consciousness. It also can offer new insights into the ancient conundrum that spiritual seekers have grappled with throughout the ages: Why is it so difficult to drop the ego level of consciousness and embrace omni consciousness?
Omni consciousness offers a path to unity and oneness rather than separation, which always ends in divisiveness, anger and violence. The me/ ego consciousness masquerading as omni consciousness is what has lent credibility to the critics of spirituality and supports their notions that "God is dead" (Friedrich Nietzsche), "God is a delusion" (Richard Dawkins), "God is not great" (Christopher Hitchens) — which for these dissenters adds up to "The End of Faith" (Sam Harris).
A focus on omni consciousness as the ground of spirituality can cut through much of this confrontational division. More next week.
— — —
In case you missed the last four related columns:
"Ego: An object that cannot change"
"Escaping the prison of the self"
"If you saw the truth, would you go for it?"
And, "To ego or not to ego, that's a question?"
— — —
(My book "Escape Your Own Prison: Why We Need Spirituality and Psychology to be Truly Free" is now available at Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble.com and other major book outlets.)
— — —
Bernard Starr, Ph.D., formerly professor of developmental and educational psychology at the City University of New York, now teaches "Spirituality in Film" and leads "The Spiritual Forum" at Marymount Manhattan College. In addition to his work in radio, he is a longtime contributor of commentary and opinion articles to numerous major publications. He is also the main United Nations representative for the Institute of Global Education that founded the Mucherla Global School in Mucherla, India. His book "Escape Your Own Prison: Why We Need Spirituality and Psychology to be Truly Free" has been published by Rowman & Littlefield. He can be reached at {email OmniCns@aol.com}OmniCns@aol.com{/email}. © Copyright 2007 by Bernard Starr.
They may, but while they all claim to express a universal consciousness, they have tie-ins with particular traditions that can be alienating to non-devotees — in other words, they carry a lot of baggage. Also, embracing some of these spiritual- and religion-related expressions of higher consciousness can generate a queasy feeling that you are adopting a more inclusive package or philosophy that you may not be comfortable with. For example, in saying yes to Christ consciousness, are you also endorsing Christianity, which has many denominations and divisions — do all the denominations have the same understanding of Christ consciousness? At the same time, Jews, Muslims and others may shun the term, feeling they are compromising their beliefs and primary affiliations. Similarly for Krishna, Brahmin or other consciousnesses — what else comes in under the radar, many may ask themselves? You can raise the same question about any consciousness that has a prefix or suffix connecting it to a particular religion, spiritual path or cultural tradition.
If there is a universal consciousness that underlies all spiritual and religious traditions, I thought it wise and useful to give it a neutral term and fresh start that only speaks to this transcendental consciousness in universal but neutral terms. The advantage is obvious: Right from the outset it avoids clashes that emphasize differences that lose touch with the universality of spiritual consciousness that is formless, contentless and timeless. In that vast space there is no particular religion or tradition — just being where all is One! The moment that form and name enter, you have lost omni consciousness and are back in the little me-ego consciousness of forms and rigid object structures (see last week's discussion of self as subject and self as object). Keeping the expression of transcendent consciousness simple and universal brings clarity to the difference between me-ego consciousness and the consciousness of spirituality which I call omni consciousness.
Omni consciousness also offers an opportunity to explore higher consciousness as a dimension of universal consciousness from a psychological perspective. This places it on a firmer foundation that opens it to scientific inquiry, thus narrowing the historic gap between scientific psychology and spirituality. At its inception scientific psychology sought to distance itself from spirituality. It wrested psychology from its previous comfortable niche in religion and philosophy departments to establish separate psychology departments that would nestle close to the hard sciences, hoping for acceptance into that club — to pump up its prospects, psychology vowed to deal only with the "real" world.
But now there's good reason to close that gap between science and spirituality and restore their long previous history of partnership. They have a lot to offer each other and can form a powerful duo that can enrich both domains.
At one time the chief divide between science and spirituality stemmed from the split between materialism (the world of the seen) and non-materialism (the world of the unseen) — or, as some believed, "the real vs. the unreal." Another expression of this is the Cartesian dichotomy (derived from the philosophy of Rene Descartes) of body and mind — body having extension in space (real) and mind having no concrete extension (unreal).
Throughout much of history the quest in science was to identify the smallest concrete (real) building block of the material world. For a long time the atom was the main candidate for that role. But then physicists found subatomic particles, sub-sub particles, and ultimately a next level in which the material particle disappeared and morphed into a non-material wave. Then it was noted that the wave could morph back into a particle in a process of "materialization"— no-thing could become some-thing. And that transformation could be determined by observation — that the very act of observation could influence the process one way or another. If that were the case, then pure objectivity — previously considered the great pillar of science — would not be possible, because the observer and the observed would be intertwined - or, a simpler way of expressing that phenomenon: All is one. If all is one and observer and observed are not separate, then what does that do to the classical divide between the material world (science) and the unseen world (spirituality)? The material and the non-material then become one seamless continuum that says we are both. That realization has vast implications for spirituality and the psychology of consciousness. It also can offer new insights into the ancient conundrum that spiritual seekers have grappled with throughout the ages: Why is it so difficult to drop the ego level of consciousness and embrace omni consciousness?
Omni consciousness offers a path to unity and oneness rather than separation, which always ends in divisiveness, anger and violence. The me/ ego consciousness masquerading as omni consciousness is what has lent credibility to the critics of spirituality and supports their notions that "God is dead" (Friedrich Nietzsche), "God is a delusion" (Richard Dawkins), "God is not great" (Christopher Hitchens) — which for these dissenters adds up to "The End of Faith" (Sam Harris).
A focus on omni consciousness as the ground of spirituality can cut through much of this confrontational division. More next week.
— — —
In case you missed the last four related columns:
"Ego: An object that cannot change"
"Escaping the prison of the self"
"If you saw the truth, would you go for it?"
And, "To ego or not to ego, that's a question?"
— — —
(My book "Escape Your Own Prison: Why We Need Spirituality and Psychology to be Truly Free" is now available at Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble.com and other major book outlets.)
— — —
Bernard Starr, Ph.D., formerly professor of developmental and educational psychology at the City University of New York, now teaches "Spirituality in Film" and leads "The Spiritual Forum" at Marymount Manhattan College. In addition to his work in radio, he is a longtime contributor of commentary and opinion articles to numerous major publications. He is also the main United Nations representative for the Institute of Global Education that founded the Mucherla Global School in Mucherla, India. His book "Escape Your Own Prison: Why We Need Spirituality and Psychology to be Truly Free" has been published by Rowman & Littlefield. He can be reached at {email OmniCns@aol.com}OmniCns@aol.com{/email}. © Copyright 2007 by Bernard Starr.