Brief History of Trans Personal Psychology

8/8/2019 Brief History of Trans Personal Psychology

1/9


2/9


3/9


4/9


5/9

International Journal of Transpersonal Studies 50 Grof

levels o the psyche (in my own terminology, perinataland transpersonal experiences) have a certain quality that he called (a ter Rudolph Otto) numinosity . Teterm numinous is relatively neutral and thus pre erableto other similar names, such as religious, mystical,magical, holy, or sacred, which have o ten been usedin problematic contexts and are easily misleading. Tesense o numinosity is based on direct apprehension o the act that we are encountering a domain that belongsto a superior order o reality, one which is sacred andradically di erent rom the material world.

o prevent misunderstanding and con usion thatin the past compromised many similar discussions, it iscritical to make a clear distinction between spirituality and religion. Spirituality is based on direct experienceso non-ordinary aspects and dimensions o reality. Itdoes not require a special place or an ofcially appointedperson mediating contact with the divine. Te mystics donot need churches or temples. Te context in which they experience the sacred dimensions o reality, includingtheir own divinity, are their bodies and nature. Insteado ofciating priests, the mystics need a supportive groupo ellow seekers or the guidance o a teacher who is moreadvanced on the inner journey than they are themselves.

Spirituality involves a special kind o relationshipbetween the individual and the cosmos and is, in itsessence, a personal and private a air. By comparison,organized religion involves institutionalized groupactivity that takes place in a designated location such asa temple or a church, and involves a system o appointedofcials who might or might not have had personalexperiences o spiritual realities. Once a religion becomesorganized, it o ten completely loses the connection withits spiritual source and becomes a secular institution thatexploits human spiritual needs without satis ying them.

Organized religions tend to create hierarchicalsystems ocusing on the pursuit o power, control,politics, money, possessions, and other secular concerns.Under these circumstances, religious hierarchy as a rule

dislikes and discourages direct spiritual experiencesin its members, because they oster independence andcannot be e ectively controlled. When this is the case,genuine spiritual li e continues only in the mysticalbranches, monastic orders, and ecstatic sects o thereligions involved. While it is clear that undamentalismand religious dogma are incompatible with the scien-ti c world view, whether it is Cartesian-Newtonian orbased on the new paradigm, there is no reason why wecould not seriously study the nature and implications o

transpersonal experiences. As Ken Wilber (1983) pointedout in his book, A Sociable God , there cannot possibly be a con ict between genuine science and authenticreligion. I there seems to be such a con ict, we are very likely dealing with bogus science and bogus religion,

where either side has a serious misunderstanding o theothers position and very likely represents a alse or akeversion o its own discipline.

ranspersonal psychology, as it was born inthe late 1960s, was culturally sensitive and treated theritual and spiritual traditions o ancient and nativecultures with the respect that they deserve in view o the ndings o modern consciousness research. It alsoembraced and integrated a wide range o anomalousphenomena, paradigm-breaking observations thatacademic science has been unable to account or andexplain. However, although comprehensive and wellsubstantiated in and o itsel , the new eld representedsuch a radical departure rom academic thinking inpro essional circles that it could not be reconciled witheither traditional psychology and psychiatry or with theNewtonian-Cartesian paradigm o Western science.

As a result o this, transpersonal psychology was extremely vulnerable to accusations o beingirrational, unscienti c, and even akey, particu-larly by scientists who were not aware o the vast body o observations and data on which the new movement wasbased. Tese critics also ignored the act that many o thepioneers o this revolutionary movement had impressiveacademic credentials. Among the pioneers o transper-sonal psychology were many prominent psychologists,such as James Fadiman, Jean Houston, Jack Korn eld,Stanley Krippner, Ralph Metzner, Arnold Mindell,

John Perry, Kenneth Ring, Frances Vaughan, Richardarnas, Charles art, Roger Walsh, as well as othersrom many disciplines (e.g., anthropologists, such as

Angeles Arrien, Michael Harner, and Sandra Harner).Tese individuals created and embraced the transper-sonal vision o the human psyche not because they were

ignorant o the undamental assumptions o traditionalscience, but because they ound the old conceptualrameworks seriously inadequate and incapable to

account or their experiences and observations.Te problematic status o transpersonal

psychology among hard sciences changed very radically during the rst two decades o the existenceo this edgling discipline. As a result o revolutionary new concepts and discoveries in various scienti c elds,the philosophy o traditional Western science, its basic


6/9

International Journal of Transpersonal Studies 51Brief History of Transpersonal Psychology

assumptions, and its Newtonian-Cartesian paradigm were increasingly challenged and undermined. Likemany other theoreticians in the transpersonal eld,I have ollowed this development with great interestand described it in the rst part o my book,Beyond the Brain, as an e ort to bridge the gap between the

ndings o my own research and the established scien-ti c worldview (Gro , 1985).

Te in ux o this exciting new in ormationbegan by the realization o the pro ound philosophicalimplications o quantum-relativistic physics, oreverchanging our understanding o physical reality. Teastonishing convergence between the worldview o modern physics and that o the Eastern spiritualphilosophies, oreshadowed already in the work o

Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, ErwinSchrdinger, and others, ound a ull expression in theground-breaking book by Fritjo Capra (1975), his aoo Physics . Capras pioneering vision was in the ollowingyears complemented and re ned by the work o Fred

Alan Wol (1981), Nick Herbert (1979), Amit Goswami(1995), and many others. O particular interest in thisregard were the contributions o David Bohm, ormerco-worker o Albert Einstein and author o prestigiousmonographs on the theory o relativity and quantumphysics. His concept o the explicate and implicateorder and his theory o holomovement expounding theimportance o holographic thinking in science gainedgreat popularity in the transpersonal eld (Bohm,1980), as did Karl Pribrams (1971) holographic modelo the brain.

Te same is true or biologist RupertSheldrakes (1981) theory o morphic resonance andmorphogenetic elds, demonstrating the impor-tance o non-physical elds or the understanding o

orms, genetics and heredity, order, meaning, and theprocess o learning. Additional exciting contributions

were Gregory Batesons (1979) brilliant synthesis o cybernetics, in ormation and systems theories, logic,

psychology, and other disciplines, Ilya Prigogines (1980)studies o dissipative structures and order out o chaos(Prigogine and Stengers 1984), the chaos theory itsel (Glieck, 1988), the anthropic principle in astrophysics(Barrow & ipler, 1986), and many others.

However, even at this early stage o thedevelopment, we have more than just a mosaic o unrelated cornerstones o this new vision o reality.

At least two major intellectual attempts at integratingtranspersonal psychology into a comprehensive new

world view deserve to be mentioned in this context.Te rst o these pioneering ventures has been the

work o Ken Wilber. In a series o books beginning with his Spectrum o Consciousness , Wilber (1977) hasachieved a highly creative synthesis o data drawn roma vast variety o areas and disciplines, ranging rompsychology, anthropology, sociology, mythology, andcomparative religion, through linguistics, philosophy,and history, to cosmology, quantum-relativistic physics,biology, evolutionary theory, and systems theory. Hisknowledge o the literature is truly encyclopedic, hisanalytical mind systematic and incisive, and his ability to communicate complex ideas clearly is remarkable.Te impressive scope, comprehensive nature, and intel-lectual rigor o Wilbers work have helped to make ita widely acclaimed and highly in uential theory o transpersonal psychology.

However, it would expect too much rom aninterdisciplinary work o this scope and depth to believethat it could be per ect and awless in all respects anddetails. Wilbers writings thus have drawn not just enthu-siastic acclaim, but also serious criticism rom a variety o sources. Te exchanges about the controversial anddisputed aspects o his theory have o ten been orce uand heated. Tis was partly due to Wilbers o tenaggressive polemic style that included strongly wordedad personamattacks and was not conducive to productivedialogue. Some o these discussions have been gatheredin a volume entitled Ken Wilber in Dialogue (Rothberg& Kelly, 1998), and others in numerous articles andInternet websites.

Many o these arguments about Ken Wilbers work ocus on areas and disciplines other that transper-sonal psychology and discussing them would transcendthe nature and scope o this paper. However, overthe years Ken and I have exchanged ideas concerningspeci cally various aspects o transpersonal psychology;this involved both mutual compliments and criticalcomments about our respective theories. I rst addressed

the similarities and di erences between Kens spectrumpsychology and my own observations and theoreticalconstructs in my book Beyond the Brain(Gro , 1985). Ilater returned to this subject in my contribution to thecompendium entitled Ken Wilber in Dialogue (Rothberg& Kelly, 1998) and in my own Psychology o the Future (Gro , 2000).

In my attempt to critically evaluate Wilberstheories, I approached this task rom a clinical perspec-tive, drawing primarily on the data rom modern


7/9


consciousness research, my own and that o others. Inmy opinion, the main problem o Ken Wilbers writingson transpersonal psychology is that he does not haveany clinical experience and the primary sources o hisdata have been his extensive reading and the experiences

rom his personal spiritual practice. In addition, he hasdrawn most o his clinical data rom schools that useverbal methods o psychotherapy and conceptual rame-

works limited to postnatal biography. He does not takeinto consideration a large portion o the clinical evidenceamassed during the last several decades o experientialtherapy, with or without psychedelic substances.

For a theory as important and in uential asKen Wilbers work has become, it is not sufcient thatit integrate material rom many di erent ancient andmodern sources into a comprehensive philosophicalsystem that shows inner logical cohesion. While logicalconsistency certainly is a valuable prerequisite, a viabletheory has to have an additional property that is equally i not more important. It is generally accepted amongscientists that a system o propositions is an acceptabletheory i , and only i , its conclusions are in agreement withobservable acts (Frank, 1957). I have tried to outline theareas where Wilbers speculations have been in con ict

with acts o observation and those that involve logicalinconsistencies (Rothberg & Kelly, 1998).

One o these discrepancies was the omissiono the pre- and perinatal domain rom his map o consciousness and rom his developmental scheme.

Another was the uncritical acceptance o the Freudianand post-Freudian emphasis on the postnatal origin o emotional and psychosomatic disorders and ailure toacknowledge their deeper perinatal and transpersonalroots. Wilbers description o the strictly linear natureo spiritual development, inability to see the paradoxicalnature o the pre-trans relationship, and reduction o theproblem o death (thanatos ) in psychology to a transition

rom one developmental ulcrum to another have beenadditional areas o disagreement.

An issue o considerable dissent between us hasbeen Ken Wilbers insistence that opening to spirituality happens exclusively on the level o the centaur, Wilbersstage o psychospiritual development characterized by

ull integration o body and mind. I have pointed out,in undamental agreement with Michael Washburn(1988), that spiritual opening o ten takes the orm o aspiral combining regression and progression, rather thanin a strictly linear ashion. Particularly requent is theopening involving psychospiritual death and rebirth, in

which case the critical inter ace between the personaland transpersonal is the perinatal level. Tis can besupported not just by clinical observations, but also by the study o the lives o mystics, such as St. eresa o

Avila, St. John o the Cross, and others, many o whom Wilber quotes in his books. Particularly problematic andquestionable is Wilbers (2000) suggestion that we shoulddiagnose clients in terms o the emotional, moral, intel-lectual, existential, philosophical, and spiritual problemsthat they show according to his scheme, and assignthem to several di erent therapists specializing in thoserespective areas. Tis recommendation might impressa layperson as a sophisticated solution to psychologicalproblems, but it is nave and unrealistic rom the pointo view o any experienced clinician.

Te above problems concerning speci c aspectso Wilbers system can easily be corrected and they donot invalidate the use ulness o his overall scheme as acomprehensive blueprint or understanding the natureo reality. In recent years, Ken Wilber distanced himsel

rom transpersonal psychology in avor o his own visionthat he calls integral psychology. On closer inspection,

what he re ers to as integral psychology reaches arbeyond what we traditionally understand under thatname and includes areas that belong to other disci-plines. However broad and encompassing our visiono reality, in practice we have to pare it down to thoseaspects which are relevant or solving the problems weare dealing with. With the necessary corrections andadjustments discussed above, Wilbers integral approach

will in the uture represent a large and use ul context ortranspersonal psychology rather than a replacement orit; it will also serve as an important bridge to mainstreamscience.

Te second pioneering attempt to integratetranspersonal psychology into a new comprehensive

world view has been the work o Ervin Laszlo, the worldsoremost system theorist, interdisciplinary scientist, and

philosopher o Hungarian origin, currently living in

Italy. A multi aceted individual with a range o interestsand talents reminiscent o great gures o the Renais-sance, Laszlo achieved international ame as a childprodigy and concert pianist in his teens. A ew yearslater he turned to science and philosophy, beginning hisli etime search or understanding o the human natureand the nature o reality. Where Wilber outlined whatan integral theory o everything should look like, Laszloactually created one (Laszlo, 1993, 1996, 2004; Laszlo& Abraham, 2004; Laszlo, Gro , & Russell, 2003).


8/9

International Journal of Transpersonal Studies 53Brief History of Transpersonal Psychology

In an intellectual tour de orce and a series o books, Laszlo has explored a wide range o disciplines,including astrophysics, quantum-relativistic physics,biology, and psychology. He pointed out a wide rangeo phenomena, paradoxical observations, and paradig-matic challenges or which these disciplines have noexplanations. He then examined the attempts o variouspioneers o new paradigm science to provide solutions

or these conceptual challenges. Tis included Bohmstheory o holomovement, Pribrams holographic modelo the brain, Sheldrakes theory o morphogenetic elds,Prigogines concept o dissipative structures, and others.He looked at the contributions o these theories and alsoat problems that they had not been able to solve.

Drawing on mathematics and advances in hardsciences Laszlo then o ered a solution to the currentparadoxes in Western science, which transcends theboundaries o individual disciplines. He achieved thatby ormulating his connectivity hypothesis, the maincornerstone o which is the existence o what he callsthe psi- eld, (Laszlo, 1993, 1995; Laszlo & Abraham,2004). He describes it as a subquantum eld, whichholds a holographic record o all the events that havehappened in the phenomenal world. Laszlo includes inhis all-encompassing theory quite explicitly transper-sonal psychology and the spiritual philosophies, asexempli ed by his paper on Jungian psychology and my own consciousness research (Laszlo, 1996) and his lastbook, Science and the Akashic Field: An Integral Teory o Everything (Laszlo, 2004).

It has been very exciting to see that all the newrevolutionary developments in science, while irreconcil-able with the 17th century Newtonian-Cartesian thinkingand monistic materialism, have been compatible withtranspersonal psychology. As a result o these conceptualbreakthroughs in a number o disciplines, it has becomeincreasingly possible to imagine that transpersonalpsychology will be in the uture accepted by academiccircles and become an integral part o a radically new

scienti c world view. As scienti c progress continues toli t the spell o the outdated 17th century materialistic worldview, we can see the general outlines o an emergingradically new comprehensive understanding o ourselves,nature, and the universe we live in. Tis new paradigmshould be able to reconcile science with experientially based spirituality o a non-denominational, universal,and all-embracing nature and bring about a synthesis o modern science and ancient wisdom.

References

Alexander, F. (1931). Buddhist training as arti cial cata-tonia. Psychoanalytic Review, 18, 129.

Barrow, J. D., & ipler, F. J. (1986). Te anthropic cosmo-logical principle . Ox ord, UK: Clarendon Press.

Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature: A necessary unity .New York: E.P. Dutton.

Bohm, D. (1980). Wholeness and the implicate order .London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Capra, F. (1975). Te ao o physics . Berkeley, CA: Shamb-hala Publications.

Corbin, H. (2000). Mundus imaginalis, or the imaginary and the imaginal. In B. Sells (Ed.), Working withimages (pp. 71-89). Woodstock, C : Spring Publica-tions.

Frank, P. (1957). Philosophy o science: Te link betweenscience and philosophy . Englewood Cli s, NJ: Pren-tice-Hall.

Gleick, J. (1988)Chaos: Making a new science . New York:Penguin Books.

Goswami, A. (1995). Te sel -aware universe: How consciousness creates the material world . Los Angeles: J.P. archer.

Gro , S. (1985). Beyond the brain: Birth, death, and transcendence in psychotherapy . Albany, NY: StateUniversity o New York Press.

Gro , S., & Bennett, H. Z. (1992). Te holotropic mind:Te three levels o human consciousness and how thshape our lives . San Francisco: HarperCollins.

Gro , S. (1998a). Ken Wilbers spectrum psychology:Observations rom clinical consciousness research.In D. Rothberg & S. Kelly (Eds.), Ken Wilber indialogue: Conversations with leading transpersonathinkers (pp. 85-115). Wheaton, IL: Quest Books.

Gro , S. (1998b). Te cosmic game: Explorations o the rontiers o human consciousness . Albany, NY: StateUniversity o New York Press.

Gro , S. (2000). Psychology o the uture: Lessons

modern consciousness research. Albany, NY: StateUniversity o New York Press.Gro , S. & Gro , C. (1989).Spiritual emergency: When

personal trans ormation becomes a crisis . Los Angeles: J. P. archer.

Gro , C. & Gro , S. (1991).Te stormy search or the sel A guide to personal growth through trans ormationcrises . Los Angeles: J. P. archer.

Harner, M. (1980). Te way o the shaman: A guide to power and healing . New York: Harper & Row.


9/9


Heisenberg, W. (1971). Physics and beyond: Encounters and conversations . New York: Harper & Row.

Herbert, N. (1979). Mind science: A physics o conscious-ness primer . Boulder Creek, CA: C-Li e Institute.

Jung, C. G. (1964). Collected works: Vol. 10. Psychology o religion: East and west . Bollingen Series 20. Princ-eton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Laszlo, E. (1993). Te creative cosmos: A unifed science o matter, li e, and mind . Edinburgh, UK: FlorisBooks.

Laszlo, E. (1996). Subtle connections: Psi, Gro , Jung,and the quantum vacuum. Te International Society

or the Systems Sciences and Te Club o Buda-pest. Retrieved May 14, 2008, rom < http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/1996/subtle.html>

Laszlo, E., Gro , S., & Russell, P. (2003).Te conscious-ness revolution: A transatlantic dialogue . Las Vegas,NV: El Rock Productions.

Laszlo, E., & Abraham, R. H. (2004). Te connec-tivity hypothesis: Foundations o an integral science o quantum, cosmos, li e, and consciousness . Albany, NY:State University o New York Press.

Laszlo, E. (2004).Science and the Akashic Field: An integral theory o everything . Rochester, V : Inner raditions.

Maslow, A. (1969). Te arther reaches o human nature. Journal o ranspersonal Psychology , 1, 1-9.

Pribram, K. (1971). Languages o the brain. EnglewoodCli s, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Prigogine, I. (1980). From being to becoming: ime and complexity in the physical sciences . San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.

Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984).Order out o chaos: Mans dialogue with nature . New York: BantamBooks.

Rothberg, D., & Kelly, S. (Eds.). (1998). Ken Wilber inDialogue: Conversations with leading transpersonal thinkers . Wheaton, IL: Quest Books.

Schrdinger, E. (1967). What is li e?: With mind and matter . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

Press.Sheldrake, R. (1981). A new science o li e: Te hypothesiso ormative causation. Los Angeles: J. P. archer.

Sutich, A. (1976). Te ounding o humanistic andtranspersonal psychology: A personal account.Doctoral dissertation, Humanistic Psychology Insti-tute, San Francisco, Cali ornia.

Sutich, A. (1976). Te emergence o the transpersonalorientation: A personal account. Journal o ransper-sonal Psychology , 8 , 5-19.

Washburn, M. (1988). Te ego and the dynamic ground . Albany, NY: State University o New York Press.

Wilber, K. (1977). Te spectrum o consciousness . Wheaton,IL: Quest Books.

Wilber, K. (1980). Te atman project: A transpersonal view o human development . Wheaton, IL: Quest Books.

Wilber, K. (1983). A sociable god: Brie introduction to atranscendental sociology . New York: McGraw-Hill.

Wilber, K. (2000). Integral psychology: Consciousnesspirit, psychology, therapy . Boston: Shambhala Publi-cations.

Wilber, K. (1995). Sex, ecology, and spirituality: Te spirit o evolution. Boston: Shambhala Publications.

Wol , F. A. (1981). aking the quantum leap. San Fran-cisco: Harper & Row.

About the Author

Stan Grof, MD, is a psychiatrist with more than ty years o experience in research o non-ordinary stateso consciousness induced by psychedelic substancesand various non-pharmacological methods. Currently,he is Pro essor o Psychology at the Cali ornia Insti-tute o Integral Studies (CIIS) in San Francisco and

Wisdom University in Oakland, CA, conducts pro es-sional training programs in holotropic breathwork andtranspersonal psychology, and gives lectures and seminars

worldwide. He is one o the ounders and chie theo-reticians o transpersonal psychology and the oundingpresident o the International ranspersonal Association.In October 2007, he received the prestigious Vision 97

Award rom the Dagmar and Vaclav Havel Foundationin Prague. Among his publications are over 140 papers inpro essional journals and the booksRealms o the HumanUnconscious ; LSD Psychotherapy ; Te Adventure o Sel -Discovery ; Beyond the Brain; Te Cosmic Game ; Psychology o the Future ; When the Impossible Happens ; Te Ultimate Journey ; Spiritual Emergency ; and Te Stormy Search or the Sel (the last two with Christina Gro ). He may be

reached at: stanG@in oasis.com.

Brief History of Trans Personal Psychology

Documents

Transcript of Brief History of Trans Personal Psychology