Comparative Psychosynthesis
Arvan Harvat
DISCLAIMER
Doctrines discussed below are, due to the long process of their formation, often very contradictory & hard to classify.
Moreover, virtually every major spiritual doctrine is claimed as the exclusive province of competing & "warring" schools, with their interpretation as the only correct one.
If one consults various sources bona fide, a probable outcome would be pure & simple confusion.
However, if one reads with a clue ( such as the Psychosynthesis map of mind ), one will find central common traits.
Yet, shifting narrative perspectives ( dual, non-dual, theistic, contemplative non-theistic,..)
always leaves a multitude of dubitable points.
But, since the main aim of this post is just to classify various doctrines according to the Psychosynthesis map of mind, many discrepancies & dubieties will be left untouched.
Reading and re-reading Assagioli, comparing my personal experiences and what I know from other traditions-all that prompted me to try to redefine Assagioli's system and re-perspectivize it by comparing it to major psychospiritual systems.
So, anyone interested solely in personal psychosynthesis, practical exercises or organizational questions: drop this into a wastebasket.
The following is an almost scholastic attempt to put pieces together.
In short:
Psychosynthesis gives a map of mind that almost exactly corresponds with the major ancient spiritual doctrines.
If we set aside the question of specific goals of various "schools" temporarily & focus on the psychology/pneumatology, only a few doctrines stay somehow "outside" (
Advaita Vedanta, Patanjali's Yoga, Ch'an (Zen),
Dvaita Vedanta and, maybe,
Kabbalah ( due to "fuzziness" of central psychological concepts.)
All other "teachings" (
Hindu Tantra,
Tibetan (Tantric) Buddhism, Hermeticism,
Neoplatonism, mainstream
Christian spirituality,
Sufism,
Visistadvaita Vedanta, Alchemy,..) are perfectly concurrent with Psychosynthesis.
They may vary in their practices; yet the "map of mind" is practically the same.
The advantage of Psychosynthesis lies in modern terminology, its "elasticity" and a specific blend of dual and non-dual methodologies.
First: I'll recapitulate the essential Psychosynthesis map of mind & compare it to other ancient doctrines.
Second: I'll show that Psychosynthesis methodology fuses "
East" and "
West”.
Third: I'll give a few additional remarks re various doctrines to show obsoleteness ( better, cultural conditioning ) of many of their traits and the limitation of respective world-views.
Psychology
1. The Lower Unconscious
2. The Middle Unconscious
3. The Higher Unconscious or Superconscious
4. The Field of Consciousness
5. The Conscious Self or "I"
6. The Higher Self
7. The Collective Unconscious
I presuppose that potential readers are acquainted with the "egg" diagram (
left), so I'll emphasize just "spiritual" elements, neglecting psyche as a whole ( the unconscious, ego, etc.).
Two central actors are Transpersonal Self (TS) and the radiant ray of small "I", which, having become enmeshed with the psychophysical apparatus, gets hypnotized and irresistibly swept into the vortex of "life”.
The question of the nature of "I" has puzzled me a lot, until I've realized that the profile of meditative approach somehow shapes the experience.
Briefly: if you dis-identify ( non-verbally) from the mental/emotional flux, you gradually expand your field of consciousness ( lose the awareness of your body, environment, etc.- yet, you find yourself, so to speak, "centered" as an energy-entity.
The field of awareness is extended ( say, twice your body ), you encompass your body ( which is, you're now definitely certain, not "you" ).
Centering deeper & deeper, you grow in the state of power, energy, ( it's as if a new dimension, extratemporal, has opened within & outside.)
That's as far as I could go.
I didn't experience:
a) TS or "cosmic consciousness" ( I've read about it, but dont have a first-hand experience; I'd say: I can have "transpersonal", but not "transhuman" experience ).
b) the reality of "I"-just an "I"less field of energy/consciousness.
It took me some time to realize where I'd made a mistake.
Non-dual meditative approach, when pushed that far, naturally "draws" the ray of "I" back to the source (TS), or at least to a significant degree of proximity.
If you practice the exercise of disidentification (d-i) to the degree where you're just aware of mental/emotional/sensational flux as if sitting at the bank and watching a river flow, the sense of energized "I" appears.
This "I" can be anywhere ( in the head or somewhere in the chest).
Nothing transcendent or "spiritual" about it.
Just a silent power watching.
From that point one can create or discreate mental patterns at will.
To recapitualate: the sun of TS and the ray of "I" ( the "I" not a separate entity; yet, the one true protagonist of the process-it's "I" who awakens, directs, watches, controls, "travels",..).
On theoretical level, TS is "Higher Self", a wave in the ocean of Universal Self ( "The Act of Will", page 260.).
This "trinity" ( Universal Self, Transpersonal Self, "I" ) appears in practically all spiritual doctrines.
TAOISM
Literature: Blofeld "Taoism: Quest for Immortality",
also "The Secret & the Sublime"; Li Kuan Yu (Charles Luk):"Secrets of Chinese Meditation",
also-
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/7395/taoring.html
There is an exact correspondence:
Universal Self =
T'ai Ch'i ( Grand Ultimate )
Transpersonal Self =
Hsing ( original nature )
"I" =
Shen ( spirit )- a "travelling" entity, a part of Ching, Ch'i, Shen triad.
Methods: mainly, taoist yoga (
inner alchemy) and contemplative discipline (
quan ).
HINDU TANTRA
Literature:Eliade "Yoga, Immortality and Freedom",
A.Bharati:"The Tantric Tradition",
A.Avalon:"Serpent Power",
also-
http://www.hubcom.com/tantric/
Universal Self = Paramatman/Shiva
Transpersonal Self = Atman
"I" = jivatman( soul)
Because the main intention of this post is to present comparative psychology, I shall completely avoid the trademarks of Tantra (
Shiva/Shakti,
chakras, kundalini, 5 m, etc.).
The central similarity with Assagioli is accent on perpetual awareness, the awakening and empowering of "I".
Methods: whatever imaginable
BUDDHIST TANTRA
Literature:Evans-Wentz "Tibetan Yoga and Secret Doctrines", "Bardo Thodol/Tibetan Book of the Dead",
Govinda "Foundations of Tibetan Mysticism",
also-
http://scribers.midwest.net/billw/dharmaring/ Buddhist Tantra proclaims mobile principle of consciousness (
vijnana ), and Clear Light that can have various degrees ( Mind of Clear Light, pure Clear Light ).
It's principle of consciousness who is the central actor in the drama of existence ( vijnana suffers various intermediate states in "
Bardo Thodol/Tibetan Book of the Dead"; also, it can be projected in living creatures (
pho-wa) or, into the Clear Light (
trong-jug ); hence, enlightenment-see, Evans-Wentz "Tibetan Yoga & Secret Doctrines", or Assagioli "Psychosynthesis", page 202.)
The
trikaya doctrine ( Dharmakaya, Nirmanakaya, Sambhogakaya), assimilated with Clear Light as Supreme Reality helps make a difference between Higher Self and Universal Self.
I wouldn't presume to differentiate between various aspects of Reality- suffice it to say that Clear Light is the Reality "above".
So:
Universal Self = Clear Light ( Sva-Sambhogakaya ?)
Higher Self = Clear Light (Para-Sambhogakaya ?)
"I" = principle of consciousness (vijnana/manas)
Methodology is wide-ranging, from (poly)theistic devotional practices to various yogas ( either "mind-oriented" or "energy/consciousness oriented"; the latter, especially highly ritualized
anuttarayogatantra (Highest Yoga Tantra )or the six yogas of Naropa only for "otherworldly" temperaments.
In my humble opinion: unnecessary complex with many superfluous "baroque" elements; suited only for extremely "orientally minded" ( or for stars like R. Gere.)
HERMETICISM & ALCHEMY
Literature:Sayyed Hossein Nasr:"Islamic Cosmological Doctrines",
Frances Yates "Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition";
Titus Burckhardt:"Alchemy", Carl Jung :" Psychology and Alchemy",
also, accessible, but hardly understandable without a clue, " Corpus Hermeticum" at
http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/welcome.html).
Universal Self= Theos/Nous
Transpersonal Self = Nous/Logos/Word (
ho de ek Noos foteinos)
logos hyios theou ); Lapis Philosophorum in Alchemy
"I" = anthropos ("man")
The process is best described in "Poimandres", where the revelation of Poimandres as God/Nous to Hermes draws vivid ( sometimes too fantastic ) picture of the descent & ascent of anthropos through the spheres of created universe ( here, we're dealing with Ptolemaic spherical cosmos ).
Other terms, which shift the meaning & perspective are omitted ( psyche, pneuma, Demiurge, hyle,..).
The main thing remains: the divine spark or ray- anthropos is the protagonist in the drama of life.
Methods: in Hermeticism, gnosis & theistic praxis (prayer etc.); in Alchemy, ritualized meditation combined with invocation & magical/protochemical practice.
CHRISTIAN NEOPLATONISM
Literature: Underhill :"Mysticism",
Eckhart:"Selected Writings",
http://www.ccel.wheaton.edu
This is a brief summary of various strands ( especially Dominicans (Eckhart, Tauler, Suso)).
In man's soul one can find "
Imago Dei" ( German "
fuenklein", apex of the soul,
scintilla animae- "I").
When man looks with the "eye of the soul" ( Imago Dei ), he finds the Son of God in his heart ( Inner Christ, Indwelling Spirit), then progresses towards God.( Won't elaborate on unmanifest Godhead-this is the pole that is beyond the subject ).
Also, albeit this does not include Spanish Carmelitans like
St. Theresa, similar phraseology can be found in Protestant contemplatives like
Boehme or Law.
Universal Self = God
Transpersonal Self = the Son, Inner Christ
"I" =
Imago Dei,
scintilla animae
Methods:
vita contemplativa
SUFISM
Literature: Mir Valiuddin "Contemplative Disciplines in Sufism",
William Chittick:"Rumi",
Burckhardt :"Introduction to Sufi Doctrine";
also,
http://www.naqshbandi.net
The "soul","I"( not psyche ), ruh, who is the traveller in the worlds ( material, subtle, causal -nasut, malakut, jabarut), finds God in the heart ( the equivalent of
Logos -
Nur-i-Muhammadi / "Muhammadan Light" ), then Allah in his fullness.
The ray of ruh has returned to the sun of God.
Universal Self = God
Transpersonal Self = Indwelling God,
Nur-i-Muhammadi
"I" =
Ruh
N.B.
This is a representation of
wahdat-i-wujud (Unity of Being) doctrine, in its Neoplatonic variant, as exposed in
Bektashi, Malami-Bairami, Mevlevi or Halveti orders.
Vedantist Sufism (some branches of
Chisti),or
wahdat-i-shuhud (
Suhrawardi ) are not covered here.
Also, Naqshbandi order has a system similar to chakras-
lataif.
Here, correspondences are:
Universal Self =
Akhwa
Transpersonal Self=
Sirr
"I" =
Ruh,
these "subtleties" corresponding to various dimensions of spiritual reality.
Methods: religious life ( prayer, contemplation-
muraqaba,
dhikr -repetition of God's name(s), etc).
VISISTADVAITA VEDANTA
Literature: S.Radhakrishnan "Indian Philosophy",
Zaehner:"Hinduism";
also-
http://www.best.com/~mani/sv.html
Universal Self =
Purushottama, Uttama Purusha
Transpersonal Self = Krishna
"I" = jivatman(soul)
The best exemplification is given in "Bhagavad Gita" ( which, however,is also claimed by Advaitists; in my opinion, this assertion is not so well founded.) Again, the true actor is jivatman.
"These bodies come to an end,
It is declared, of the eternal embodied soul,
Which is indestructible and unfathomable.
Therefore fight, son of Bharata!
Who believes him a slayer,
And who thinks him slain,
Both these understand not:
He slays not, is not slain".
Methods: karma, bhakti, jnana yoga
The aim of this post is to clarify
Psychosynthesis ( personal & spiritual ), putting it into perspective delineated by its own map of mind, the "egg" diagram (
left, and see also colour figure at bottom of page and on
index page).
We may divide spiritual "paths" according the the question: who is the chief protagonist of psycho-spiritual "ascent" ?
Following the egg diagram, the three answers are offered:
1. The Transpersonal Self (TS)-the sun presiding over the "egg" of psyche. This is the position of non-dual schools like Advaita Vedanta or Ch'an ( Zen) Buddhism.
2. The "I"-radiant ray of TS. This is the position of various schools, having different goals.
For brevity:
3. The psyche- the psychomental complex; in the diagram, it's the "egg" as if cut off from the the sun of TS ( of course, it never happens: just, in this process psyche/soul is an entity longing to contact & fuse with TS/God, who is experienced as "the other").
This is the way of majority of traditional mysyicisms, as well as some modern therapies (
Jung ).
In the 1st approach ( let's say, the Ch'an ( Zen ) school ), the correspondence is:
Transpersonal Self = Hsing, Buddha Nature,
Buddhakaya
"I"= manas/mano-vijnana/vijnana ( various terms designating the same entity, principle of consciousness, are used )
"the egg of psyche"= skandhas complex ( psychic conglomerate)
The methodology of this, so to speak, "atheist mysticism", are the set of meditative techniques ( in the branch of gradual enlightenment ) or various "shocks" ( kung-an/koan technique in the branch of sudden enlightenment ), both aiming to "catapult" the aspirant into the TS.
" I am the Transpersonal Self" could serve as the credo of this school ( in PS parlance, of course ).
As one can see from various authoritative sources ( Hui Neng's "The Platform Sutra", "The Diamond Cutter of Doubts", Blofeld's work on Hui Hai ), "I am Buddha Nature" is the starting point & the goal alike.
It differs from the
Tantric Buddhism ( or PS ) insofar as it doesn't empower the "I" ( manas/vijnana), nor does it use it in moulding of the psyche.
In this respect, it is completely "otherworldly" ( though, its tough humor & non-comformism have wide appeal, somehow dimming the essence & core, which is the awakening to the supra-rational One, who you really
are ).
"I" is not seen as an entity; just a projection of TS energy "vivifying" the psychomental complex.
You either ascend the ladder of dis-identification(d-i) ( simple mindfulness ), passing through a multitude of states of consciousness until you reach the goal of TS/Buddha Mind/Buddha Nature, or you're catapulted through the agency of koan-induced shock into the TS state ( the ray has, as it were, instantaneously returned to the source ).
The 2nd path, that of Tantra or Psychosynthesis, is achieved by d-i technique aiming to isolate the "I", empower it by activating its most essential attribute, will, and with this new, enriched & more efficient "I", mould the psyche & ascend the ladder of more & more heightened awareness, with the final goal of blending "I" with the source, the TS.
In contrast to the 1st approach, it is an "activistic" one, projecting the "I" into a variety of states of mind/psyche.
In
Buddhist Tantricism there is a technique of identifying the dis-identified principle of consciousness/"I" with the multitude of real or imagined objects ( heart of guru; identifying with
Boddhisattva of, say, compassion; entering the yantra/mandala signifying some aspect of Trikaya/Buddha Nature ).
In Psychosynthesis, especially in the 1st & 2nd books, one can find almost exact parallel to these exercises.
"The Act of Will" in particular, offers wide spectrum of imaginal/mental/spiritual objects/symbols as "gates" of various layers of consciousness.
After achieving a degree of d-i and relatively balanced psyche in personal PS, the ascent of crystallized "I" begins, in course of which "I" controls, moulds & expands areas of awareness.
On the way to & through the superconscious, the liberated "I" reshapes fields of conscious life, achieving a new position of center of conscious life & widening the channell through which the influx of spiritual energies feeds the psyche.
The Assagiolian approach, as contrasted to orthodox ones (
Tibetan,
Taoist,
Shaivite,..) has a few novelties to offer:
- It is free from culturally conditioned symbols ( better, it uses them freely without being confined to a specific symbolism ).
- Its exercises are given in "distilled" form ( especially in "The Act of Will"), hence not burdened with extremely complex & superfluous visualisation trappings which impede the spiritual progress.
- In the true Western fashion, TS is not just the target of "I", the impersonal Self-it is the living source, the fount of symbols, messages and the guide. In this respect, Assagioli merges Eastern Tantric tradition ( d-ied "I" who becomes the chief actor of "projective" experiences of identification with various symbols of the superconscious/Bardo) and Western tradition of TS as living guide ( Inner God, Christ, Lapis).Also, Assagioli draws on wide field of experiential material of existential psychology ( Maslow, Frankl,..).
The 3rd path is that of the psyche/soul.
I must admit: I see Assagioli's 3rd book, "Transpersonal Development" in this tradition.
In this, Hermetic/
Neoplatonic tradition, as exemplified by Dante, St.John of the Cross or
Rumi, the psyche/soul as a whole journeys towards TS/God. There is a conspicuous absence of dis-identification in Assagioli's third book.
The protagonist of the entire psycho-spiritual drama remains soul/psyche, not the d-ied "I", which is different from the first two books.
"Transpersonal Development", a compilation of loosely knit essays, remains Assagioli's contribution to wisdom literature.
Not quite a science, nor philosophy, it remains psychology in the vein of Aristotle's "De Anima”.
As a meditation on life it has precursors in Epictetus, Montaigne, Thoreau or Nietzsche, every writer analyst of man's condition.
Among the more professional kin: Freud, Fromm or
Jung, in their most essayist and generalizing disposition.
This work, however readable it may be, is not a significant step forward, either in theory ( if we define theory as having more explicative value, not being just an inspired reflection on vita religiosa ) or in practice, so my opinion is that it is more representative of Assagioli's personal "journey", than being a guide to self-actualization & realization, unlike "Psychosynthesis" and "The Act of Will”.
Moreover: I'd say that it remains questionable whether it can be judged as a complement to the previous books or is an "aberration" in a sense that it presents methodology in some ways contrary to that exposed in previous books.
In short, it's the 3rd path, while PS, as defined in 2 books, is an example of modern representative of the 2nd path.