A MATTER OF HEART AND SOUL:

TOWARDS AN INTEGRAL PSYCHOLOGY FRAMEWORK

FOR POSTCONVENTIONAL DEVELOPMENT

by

Elizabeth Marie Teklinski

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty

of the California Institute of Integral Studies

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in East-West Psychology

California Institute of Integral Studies

San Francisco, California

2016

 
 CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL

I certify that I have read A MATTER OF HEART AND SOUL:

TOWARDS AN INTEGRAL PSYCHOLOGY FRAMEWORK FOR

POSTCONVENTIONAL DEVELOPMENT by Elizabeth Marie Teklinski, and

that in my opinion this work meets the criteria for approving a dissertation

submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of

Philosophy in East-West Psychology at the California Institute of Integral Studies.

_______________________________________________
Bahman A. K. Shirazi, PhD, Chair
Faculty, East-West Psychology

_______________________________________________
Carol Whitfield, PhD,
Faculty, East-West Psychology

_______________________________________________
Matthijs Cornelissen, MD,
External Committee Member,
Director, Indian Psychology Institute
© 2016 Elizabeth Marie Teklinski
Elizabeth Marie Teklinski
California Institute of Integral Studies, 2016
Bahman A. K. Shirazi, PhD, Committee Chair

A MATTER OF HEART AND SOUL:

TOWARDS AN INTEGRAL PSYCHOLOGY FRAMEWORK
FOR POSTCONVENTIONAL DEVELOPMENT

ABSTRACT

This dissertation seeks to formulate an integral psychology framework to

better understand the nature and unfoldment of postformal, or postconventional,

characterizations of individual consciousness evolution. To this end, an extensive

critical evaluation and problematization of the disparate theoretical literatures

indicated that while the egocentric and cosmocentric dimensions have been taken

into account by various models, the psychocentric, or more specifically, the

evolutionary soul dimension and its role in postconventional development has

been largely overlooked.

With this background, there appeared to be hardly any substantial signs of

agreement in the extensive and rapidly expanding literatures on human

development. Such division has resulted in increasingly heated disagreements

and debates concerning controversies of shape, goals, and, particularly, direction

(e.g., structural-hierarchical versus spiral-dynamic models). Further, it was found

that egocentric and cosmocentric biases bring to the fore a related set of problems

that, in present-day formulation, can be summarized as the issue of

epiphenomenalism along with the problem of identifying a facilitative agent (an

iv
ontological reference point that might help explain the how and why of stage

change), which has apparently all but escaped developmental psychologists.

As a dialogue partner, the study adopts Sri Aurobindo and the Mother’s

rich integral acumen concerning the psychic being as an alternative assumption

ground to both reveal and challenge some of the taken-for-granted assumptions

found to underlie much of the ongoing theoretical debate. The guiding purpose of

this dissertation, then, has been to advance the fields of both Western and integral

yoga psychologies by contributing new and unique pathways to postconventional

development—an integral psychology framework that places the deeper inmost

source of evolution at the very center of a comprehensive whole person vision of

human growth and development.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT...........................................................................................................iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.....................................................................................xii
EPIGRAPH...........................................................................................................xiv
CHAPTER 1: HISTORICAL OVERVIEW............................................................1
Significance of the Study..............................................................................6
Personal Significance................................................................................13
CHAPTER 2: CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.............................17
Formal Operations.....................................................................................19
Postformal Development............................................................................21
Humanistic and Eastern Influenced Psychospirituality.................24
Structural-Hierarchical and Spiral-Dynamic Maps.......................27
Transformation..........................................................................................32
Adaptation and Problem of Finding a Facilitative Agent.........................37
Personal Plus versus Personal Minus Debate...........................................40
Intimations of an Authentic Self.................................................................41
Summary....................................................................................................44
CHAPTER 3: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS...............................................46
Privileged End Points................................................................................47

Invisible Metaphysical Biases...................................................................50

Positivism.......................................................................................53
The Cartesian-Kantian Legacy......................................................54
Emphasis on Scientific Measurement............................................58
Limits of Formal Operational Logic..............................................60
Transpersonal Scientism................................................................62
Theoretical Frameworks and Qualitative Research..................................66

vi
 Conceptual Frameworks as Lens, Map, and Myth....................................69
Further Considerations..............................................................................74
CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY.........................................................................77
Towards an Integrated Psychocentric Framework....................................78
Problematization as Alternative Research Strategy.......................80
Dialogue with an Alternative Assumption Ground.......................82
Hermeneutics of the Soul...........................................................................83
Theoretical Hermeneutics..........................................................................87
Methodological Considerations.................................................................89
Validity..........................................................................................90
Limitations.....................................................................................93
Ethical Epistemology.....................................................................94
Reprisal from the Field..................................................................96
Procedures......................................................................................97
Statement of the Research Question........................................................102
Subquestions............................................................................................102
Statement of the Main Thesis...................................................................102
CHAPTER 5: PROBLEMATIZATION OF THE LITERATURE.....................106
The Egocentric Sphere.............................................................................109
Philosophical Underpinnings.......................................................111
Epiphenomenalism.......................................................................113
Identifying a Facilitative Agent...................................................114
Summary of Egocentric Concerns...............................................119
The Cosmocentric Sphere........................................................................121
Self as Impermanent Illusion.......................................................123
Philosophical Underpinnings.......................................................124
Kantian Anthropocentrism...........................................................127
vii
 Transcendence versus Transformation........................................130
Missing Ontological Referent......................................................135
Summary of Cosmocentric Issues................................................138
The Psychocentric Sphere........................................................................141
Wilber Excludes the Soul Altogether..........................................142
Jung’s Kantian Biases against the Soul.......................................151
Further Anti-Soul Biases..............................................................154
Wade Comes Closest to Intimating the Soul...............................155
Death of the Soul.........................................................................157
Soul has Become Self..................................................................159
Implications of a Transmigrating Soul........................................164
Summary of the Argument..........................................................166
Discussion and Conclusions....................................................................168
Secularized Self Cannot Account for Individuation.................................174
CHAPTER 6: ALTERNATIVE ASSUMPTION GROUND..............................178
Integral Cosmological Framework..........................................................181
Involution and Evolution..........................................................................183
Parts and Planes of Being........................................................................185
Vertical Planes of Being..............................................................187
Concentric Realms of Being........................................................192
The Psychic Being....................................................................................195
Psychic Entity, Jīvātman, and Ātman..........................................200
Further Clarification.....................................................................203
On Integral Transformation.....................................................................205
Experience, Realization, and Transformation.........................................206
Three Transformations............................................................................208
The Psychic Transformation........................................................209
viii
 The Spiritual Transformation.......................................................210
The Supramental Transformation................................................211
CHAPTER 7: FRAMEWORK FOR POSTFORMAL DEVELOPMENT.........213
A Matter of Dimensionality......................................................................214
Outlines of a Multidimensional Integral Framework..............................215
The Rational Sphere.................................................................................220
Many Paths Beyond the Mind..................................................................222
Nirvana.........................................................................................225
Spiral Around the Lower Nature..................................................225
Mental Superstructures................................................................226
Integral Path Beyond Mind..........................................................227
Uniqueness Factor: A Bright and Shining Thread..................................227
Answer to Research Question..................................................................229
Subquestion Number One............................................................230
Subquestion Number Two...........................................................231
Subquestion Number Three.........................................................233
Subquestion Number Four...........................................................236
Subquestion Number Five...........................................................237
Further Discussion...................................................................................238
Problem with Assuming a Rational Basis....................................239
Supermind as Integrating Light...................................................243
Individuation/Non-Individuation Bifurcation..............................243
CHAPTER 8: FINAL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION................................250
Dialectical Interchange: Three Paradigmatic Lenses.............................252
Emergent Psychocentric Territory...........................................................255
Towards a Tri-Spheric Integral Framework............................................258
Significance of the Framework................................................................260
ix
 Theoretical Synthesis: Three Victories....................................................264
The First Victory..........................................................................264
Anarchic Impulse Toward Deconstruction..................................268
The Second Victory.....................................................................269
The Third Victory........................................................................270
Conclusion...............................................................................................272
Strengths and Limitations of the Study........................................276
Suggestions for Further Research................................................278
Ending on a Personal Note...........................................................279
REFERENCES....................................................................................................283

x
 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Figure 1: The Concentric System........................................................................195

xi
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am indebted to many who have made this dissertation finally possible

after five long challenging years. First and foremost, I dedicate this work to the

Divine. Secondly, I wish to thank the brilliant professors and scholars who have

guided me during my long journey from the Institute of Transpersonal

Psychology to the California Institute of Integral Studies. To this, I extend

profound appreciation to my beloved teacher and intercessor Ana Perez-Chisti for

her penetrating wisdom, integrity, and prayers, which have guided me through

every storm. Next, I would like to express a special heartfelt thank you to my

committee chairperson Bahman Shirazi who has been such an outstanding mentor

for me, giving me significant intellectual guidance and invaluable feedback. I am

truly grateful for Bahman’s deep insights and encouragement that made it

possible to, at long last, pursue this important research. I would like to thank my

committee members: Carol Whitfield and Matthijs Cornelissen. Carol is a

brilliant professor and an outstanding exemplar of humility, trustworthiness, and

ethical epistemology in theoretical research. Matthijs you are a very special

person to my own heart. I have come to appreciate your essential insight: “The

most crucial bridge is the inner bridge, the bridge between our psyche and our

outer being, between our soul and our mind and vital.” Additionally, I give thanks

to the extraordinary integral and critical thinkers who have so thoughtfully

inspired me—particularly, Jorge Ferrer, Brant Cortright, Eric Weiss, and Craig

Chalquist. Exceptionally, Jorge, your participatory vision, invoking the

enticement god Dionysus, first beckoned me far out beyond the safe and familiar

xii
transpersonal shore to explore these much less charted waters of the “deep and

ample multidimensional cosmos.” Brant’s book Integral Psychology: Yoga

Growth and Opening the Heart has been a most significant book in terms of

helping me realize my own swadharma. Furthermore, my ongoing conversations

with Eric have been especially helpful in fostering my understanding and

integration of Sri Aurobindo’s exceptionally multifaceted cosmology. I also want

to thank Craig for helping me discover and live in the light of my own personal

mythic story of Ariadne: Mistress of the Labyrinth. I extend a message of thanks

to Yasuhiko Genku Kimura for introducing me to Elizabeth Rausche’s

magnificent work on the toroid nature of the holographic anthropic multiverse.

Unequivocally, I devote my deepest recognition to Sri Aurobindo and the Mother

for their powerful and mysterious role in bringing me to an awareness of the

psychic being and, especially, for their part in my own personal healing and

transformation. Lastly, with all my heart and soul, I give such profound thanks

for the patient support and unconditional love of my family especially Andrew,

my Love and my husband, and our precious children. Thank you to all who have

suffered and celebrated with me throughout this long albeit intensely

transformative and satisfying journey.

xiii
 EPIGRAPH

All that transpires on earth and beyond are parts of an illimitable plan The One
keeps in His heart and knows alone. Our outward happenings have their seed
within, and even this random fate that imitates chance, this mass of unintelligible
results, are the dumb graph of truths that work unseen: the laws of the unknown
create the known. The events that shape the appearance of our lives are a cipher
of subliminal quiverings which rarely we surprise or vaguely feel, are an outcome
of suppressed realities that hardly rise into material day: they are born from the
Spirit’s sun of hidden powers digging a tunnel through emergency. But who shall
pierce into the cryptic gulf and learn what deep necessity of the Soul determined
casual deed and consequence? Absorbed in a routine of daily acts, our eyes are
fixed on an external scene; we hear the crash of the wheels of circumstance and
wonder at the hidden cause of things.
—Sri Aurobindo (1950/1997b, p. 52)

When we have passed beyond knowings, then we shall have Knowledge.

Reason was the helper; Reason is the bar.
When we have passed beyond willings, then we shall have Power.
Effort was the helper; Effort is the bar.
When we have passed beyond enjoyings, then we shall have Bliss.
Desire was the helper; Desire is the bar.
When we have passed beyond individualizing, then we shall be real Persons.
Ego was the helper; Ego is the bar.
When we have passed beyond humanity, then we shall be the Man.
The Animal was the helper; the Animal is the bar.
Transform reason into ordered intuition;
let all thyself be light. This is thy goal.
Transform effort into an easy and sovereign overflowing of the soul-strength;
let all thyself be conscious force. This is thy goal.
Transform enjoying into an even and objectless ecstasy;
let all thyself be bliss. This is thy goal.
Transform the divided individual into the world-personality;
let all thyself be the Divine. This is thy goal.
—Sri Aurobindo (1998, p. 199)

Remember why thou cam'st:

Find out thy soul, recover thy hid self,
In silence seek God's meaning in thy depths,
Then mortal nature change to the Divine.
—Sri Aurobindo (1950/1997b, p. 476)

xiv
 CHAPTER 1: HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

The word psychology comes from two Greek words, psyche and logos.
Psyche means soul, and logos, in this context, means study. Thus, the
word psychology literally means “the study of the soul.” Other key words
of our profession also point toward the soul. As Benner (1989) said, the
word therapist originally meant servant or attendant. Thus,
etymologically, a psychotherapist is a “servant or attendant of the soul.”
Even the word psychopathology refers to the soul. It comes from the
Greek words psyche and pathos and literally means “the suffering of the
soul.” These are the etymological roots of our profession. They are
poignant, powerful words that reach back to Greece and are rich with
connotative meaning and theoretical implications. Modern psychology
chose to cut itself off from these roots, however, and to graft itself onto the
tree of the physical sciences. Thus, one will find few psychology books
that define psychology as the study of the soul and many that define it as
the science of behavior. Some believe that the abandonment of the soul
was a major historical mistake and that it is time for psychology to return
to its roots, to be again the discipline that studies the soul. (Elkins, 1995,
pp. 78–79)

As noted above, the etymological origin of the word psychology literally

means “the study of our soul, our deepest self, or essence” (Goldsmith, 2011, p.

79). By comparable definition, a psychotherapist becomes an attendant or a

servant (i.e., therapeia) of the soul. Beginning in the seventeenth century,

however, the soul virtually disappeared from the Western philosophical

vocabulary. Historically, it seems with Newton’s (1687/1999) most famous and

influential work Principia Mathematica the ghost was apparently taken out of the

machine (Koestler, 1967; Ryle, 1949/2009) and the soul was removed from

matter, as the evolution of the universe was incrementally reduced to reliable,

self-sufficient clockwork. Hence, modern-day psychology “chose to cut itself off

from [its] roots . . . and to graft itself onto the tree of the physical sciences”

(Elkins, 1998, p. 168). Psychology “became a self-explanatory system with its

own laws, methodology, and language, not requiring spirits, mysticism, or

1
superstition to explain itself . . . Matter—the uniform, invisible substance that

underlies all appearances—[was to be] governed by a single set of rules” (Du

Toit, 2007, p. 5). The ensuing mechanical worldview left neither purpose nor

meaning for the soul.

Increasingly, for over 300 years, the conception of the soul has faced a

series of further paradigmatic and philosophical setbacks (Kroth, 2010; see the

works of Thomas Hobbes, Rene Descartes, Anne Finch Conway, G. W. Leibniz,

David Hume, and Immanuel Kant). Thus, the secularized soul—the self, the

modern-day notion of the mind or ego—has become the “dominant motif of

psychology” (Beck, 2002, para. 44) and, moreover, the prevailing subject of

treatment by psychotherapists and theorists. As a result, the self-concept replaced

the soul as the foundation for most of the schools of Western psychology (i.e.,

psychoanalytic, behaviorism, cognitive, humanistic, etc.).

For a good part of the past century, there has evidently been growing

interest in the study of the self and its growth processes and evolution, or what

Piaget (1930/1999), Kohlberg (1969), Loevinger (1976), and other psychologists

have termed human development. Especially in the past 40 years, developmental

theorists have apparently charted over 100 diverse maps of human development

(R. Anderson, personal communication, August 28, 2011). As will be established

in the upcoming literature review chapter, when neo-Piagetian or post-Piagetian

theories (e.g., Basseches, 1980, 1984a, 1984b, 1986; Commons, 1989; Commons

& Richards, 1984a, 2003; Labouvie-Vief, 1980, 1992, 2000, 2006; Pascual-

Leone, 1984; Riegel, 1973, and many others) are examined for patterns of

2
congruence and dissimilarity, psychologists seem to agree that development of the

self: (a) advances cross-culturally by means of an invariant, linear, and vertical

progression (Basseches, 1984a, 1984b; Berry, Poortinga, Segall, & Dasen, 1992;

Commons, 1989, 1999; Commons, Armon, Richards, & Schrader, 1989;

Commons & Richards, 1984a; Dasen, 1972, 1977a, 1977b; Dasen & Heron, 1981;

Gardiner & Kosmitzki, 2004; Graves, 1970, 2005; Kohlberg, 1971, 1981, 1984;

Kohlberg, Levine, & Hewer, 1984; Kohlberg & Nisan, 1984; Labouvie-Vief,

1982; Lasker, 1974a, 1974b, 1977, 1978; Pascual-Leone, 1983; Riegel, 1973;

Snarey, 1982, 1986; Snarey & Blasi, 1980; Weinreich, 1977); (b) evolves towards

a particular end point (see Brandtstädter, Wentura, & Rothermund, 1999;

Broughton, 1979; Broughton & Zahaykevich, 1988; Day & Naedts, 1995; King &

Kitchener, 1994; Kohlberg, 1981,1984; Krettenauer, 2011; Moshman, 1998,

2003; Piaget, 1932/1965; Vaillant, 1977); (c) develops through a series of

qualitatively and quantitatively distinct cognitive, social, moral, and ego related

lines of development (see Flavell‚ 1971; Lerner‚ 1985; Wohlwill, 1963, 1973);

and (d) progresses from prerational, preconventional, and prepersonal

characterizations of awareness to increasingly complex, rational, conventional,

and personal stages of adult development (see Basseches, 1980, 1984a, 1984b,

1986; Commons, 1989, 1999; Commons & Richards, 1984a, 2003; Commons,

Richards, & Armon, 1984; Commons, Richards, & Kuhn, 1982; Commons,

Sinnott, Richards, & Armon, 1989; Cook-Greuter, 1999, 2000; Kohlberg, 1969;

Labouvie-Vief, 1982; Loevinger, 1976; Pascual-Leone, 1983; Riegel, 1973;

Stevens-Long, 1979, 1990, 2011).

3
 Invariably though, consensus among developmental theorists appears to

significantly unravel when attempting to render the overall shape, goal, and

direction of individual consciousness evolution that extends beyond Jean Piaget’s

(1896–1980) last envisaged formal operations stage (Piaget, 1970/1972a,

1975/1977, 1974/1978)—characteristic of the West’s ideal, the autonomous and

rational self, and long-thought “the highest achievement of development” (Irwin,

2002, p. 6; see also Neimark, 1985; Shayer, Demetriou, & Pervez, 1988). As will

be seen in the following, Ferrer (2002) aptly indicated that beyond formal

operations, psychological theories of human development have tended to follow

one of two divergent pathways in terms of their differing assumptions and goals:

(a) the structural-hierarchical path (e.g., Cook-Greuter, 1999; Graves, 1970,

2005; Wade, 1996; Walsh, 2001; Walsh & Vaughan, 1993,1994; Wilber, 1980,

1986, 1995, 2000a, 2000b, 2006) and (b) the spiral-dynamic path (e.g.,

Washburn, 1994, 2003)—not to be confused with Beck and Cowan’s (1996)

Gravesian spiral dynamics. Today, ostensible controversy and schism between

these two rivaling explanatory paradigms is evidenced by “a kind of civil war

[that has] emerged, engulfing the field” (Tarnas, 2002, p. xii). In Ferrer’s (2002)

words, “And these divergences are not merely about minor theoretical issues, but

often about the central philosophical and metaphysical foundations of the field,

for example, the understanding of transpersonal phenomena, the meaning of

spirituality, or the very nature of reality” (p. 7), which has led to “something of a

Gordian knot for . . . the better part of [three] decades” (Wilber, 2006, p. 89).

4
 In summary, as the twenty-first century gets underway, nearly 100 years

after the establishment of the American Psychological Association (APA), there

appears hardly any agreement in the extensive and rapidly expanding literatures

concerning the precise nature and processes of postformal, or postconventional,

characterizations of consciousness. Indeed, the current state of the advanced

developmental debate appears far more heterogeneous, contradictory, and

vehemently argumentative than it was just three decades ago, as it has come to be

characterized as a “theoretical Tower of Babel” (Lewis, 2000, p. 36) and

consequently “finds itself divided into bitterly quarreling factions” (Leahey, 1992,

p. 308).

It seems Hillman (1976/1992) may have correctly identified the heart of

the problem when he proclaimed that psychology had lost its integrating

framework when it abandoned the soul. Hillman believed that without this

ontological basis, the field of psychology could never define the boundaries of its

profession, nor, more importantly, define its focus, its center. To this contention,

Hillman declared, “Where there is connection to soul, there is psychology; where

not, what is taking place is better called statistics, physical anthropology‚ cultural

journalism, or animal breeding” (p. xvii). Elkins (1995) echoed this sentiment

and added, “Make no mistake, soulless therapies produce soulless results” (p. 82).

Hillman thereby challenged psychologists to stop forcing psychology to meet

superficial standards set forth by the natural sciences and return most

fundamentally to the field’s roots: the study of the soul.

5
 Significance of the Study

While conceptions about the most advanced levels of development vary

(Alexander & Langer, 1990; Miller & Cook-Greuter, 1994), there is a
general recognition that most adults do not fully unfold their potential for
meeting the cognitive and interpersonal demands of modern life (Kegan,
1994). Yet, high levels of self-development are critical not only for the
individuals who would benefit from such development but also for society
as a whole (Csikszentmihalyi & Rathunde, 1990). Maslow (1976)
observed that those at the highest levels of psychological development are
more capable of contributing to the moral, aesthetic, intellectual, and
social progress of human civilization. . . . Thus the investigation of
practices, which could promote high levels of psychological development
has far-reaching importance. (Chandler, Alexander, & Heaton, 2005, p.
93)

A clear understanding of the evolution of individual consciousness, its

transformation, and particularly, its nature and unfoldment beyond formal

constructs of the mind and ego, is of personal and academic as well as

psychospiritual importance. Developmental psychology, as a field, indeed owes

its greatest debt to the work of American psychologist Abraham Maslow (1908–

1970). According to Maslow (1968), there are quite good indications that

advanced human development (defined here as postconventional stages that

extend beyond the formal operational stage characterization) is quite beneficial

for both individuals and for overall societies as well.

First coined by Lawrence Kohlberg (1969) to describe the highest stages

of moral development, the term postconventional has come to inform much of the

literatures on postformal thought. Generally, postconventional development

describes the movement beyond identification with the formal structures of the

mind towards a less self-interested identification—one that is committed to larger

ethical concerns “often associated with maturity, moral integrity, constructive

6
generativity, social responsibility, and individual agency and autonomy”

(Labouvie-Vief, 1984, p. 160). For instance, a detailed analysis of Cook-

Greuter's (2004) work, has thrown light on the many benefits for individuals who

achieve postconventional consciousness, such as: “autonomy, freedom, tolerance

for difference and ambiguity, as well as flexibility, reflection and skill in

interacting with the environment” (p. 277). Cook-Greuter recommended,

“[Society] needs visionaries who can anticipate and creatively adapt to changing

contingencies and life circumstances. As the speed and reach of global change

and challenge increase, it becomes more urgent for society that more people

develop postconventional capacities” (p. 278).

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1969) also recognized that higher stages of

psychospiritual realization are immensely favorable for both individuals and

societies alike, as they serve as “the basis of all other forms of development” (p.

255). On the reverse side of this contention, there is also a perceived downside

for overlooking such postconventional stages, as spiritual emergencies and

cultural maladies appear to emerge in the “absence of meaningful pathways to

authenticity” (Pederson, 2011, p. 5; see also Baumeister, 1987; Jung, 1933/2001;

Maslow, 1968). For these reasons and others found throughout the foremost

literatures, Commons and Richards (2002) provided, “Contemporary challenges

in the society increasingly call for transition to postformal and postconventional

responses on the part of both individuals and institutions” (p. 159).

Despite an apparently vast range of higher development, researchers

themselves (e.g., Cook-Greuter, 1999, 2000; Hy & Loevinger, 1996; Loevinger,

7
1998) have been quick to point out that only a very small portion of the human

population will likely ever evolve into the postconventional tier—most familiarly

known as Maslow’s (1968) self-actualization. Accepting the argument that such

stages exist, Kohlberg estimated that approximately 2.5 percent of the general

adult population (Colby & Kohlberg, 1987, p. 23; n.b., Cook-Greuter, 2000, p.

229 estimated less than nine percent) would exceed conventional development

levels. Further research by Colby, Kohlberg, Gibbs, and Lieberman (1983; see

also Snarey & Keljo, 1991) found that individuals reaching Kohlberg's sixth and

highest stage were practically nonexistent. Krettenauer (2011) found this

scarceness to be “true for all domains in which structural-developmental theories

have been proposed” (p. 75; see also Neimark, 1985; Piaget, 1950/1970).

This being said, the general consensus in the literature appears to suggest

that postconventional development represents a particularly rare and important

achievement that improves the well-being of both individuals and societies

(Kramer & Woodruff, 1986). On a more practical level, however, few studies

have explored: (a) why development appears to plateau relatively early in adult

life (Cohn, 1998); (b) what exactly facilitates postformal, or postconventional,

development (Marko, 2006, 2011); (c) why higher development remains such a

rare occurrence (Manners & Durkin, 2000, 2001; Manners, Durkin, & Nesdale,

2004); and (d) “what could be done to change that. The lack of pertinent research

has not allowed us to come to any conclusions about how such development can

be promoted” (Pfaffenberger, 2007b, p. 10).

8
 Daniels (2005), quoting Frick (1982), reasoned that the demonstrated

failure for many people to advance to these higher stages is due, at least in part, to

the lack of conceptual language in present-day society for personal growth and

transformation. Such language, Daniels maintained, would

have an “evocative and transformative power” (p. 41) that structures

experience, expands awareness, and may release unconscious energies. . . .
In the absence of this support, [higher development] will not occur
because people fail to realize it is a possibility, and because they lack the
vocabulary to express their experiences and to guide progress. (pp. 140–
141)

Consider, for instance, in the six “decades that have passed since self-

actualization theory was first published, no integrating framework for the

empirical exploration of advanced development has emerged” (Pfaffenberger,

2007b, p. 10). Granted, while Wilber’s (1984, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2011)

epistemological map—i.e., the spectrum of consciousness theory—claims to

integrate the conclusions of over 100 different developmental models, Wilber

(2007) himself has conceded that he and other developmental theorists have

remained at a relative loss in terms of specifying a coherent and plausible

facilitation factor, which once found could help provide the key to understanding

mechanisms of human growth and development and, moreover, allow

psychologists to better provide beneficial tools in terms of guiding individuals in

their cognitive, moral, and spiritual development.

Beyond conceptual frameworks and beyond the want for them,

Cornelissen warned of the dangers of incomplete or flawed epistemologies, a

concern rarely addressed explicitly in the literatures:

9
 It looks to me that what is harmful is the presence of bad maps (like the
materialist one). Distorted maps are very much amongst us, and as the
world gets more and more educated, they do more and more harm. As the
only way to get rid of bad maps is to replace them with better ones,
developing these remains crucial. (M. Cornelissen, personal
communication, July 6, 2014)

Fiction writer McCarthy (2010) similarly echoed the dichotomy of false versus

true maps. He wrote, “A bad map [is] worse than no map at all for it engender[s]

in the traveler a false confidence and might easily cause him to set aside those

instincts which would otherwise guide him if he would but place himself in their

care” (p. 185). Wherefore, much like ancient ships attempting to navigate

uncharted oceans, the main problem with bad maps is that they can lead the naive

seeker into blind passageways and “useless distractions as well as snares and

serious, painful traps” (Hawkins, 2003, p. 139). The significance is “not just a

choice between alternative ideas, rival concepts, or different ways of speaking.

Rather, it is a question of appropriate and liberating versus inappropriate and

oppressive postures in relation to the world” (Broughton, 1984, p. 411).

In terms of spiritual practice, unreliable frameworks can be problematic as

well. More precisely, bad maps might breed “potential pitfalls of the spiritual

path: spiritual narcissism and integrative arrestment” (Ferrer, 2002, p. 34). Ferrer,

for instance, indicated that there can arise certain disastrous effects “known

popularly in spiritual circles as the collection of experiences (i.e., the search for a

periodic access to spiritual highs outside the context of a genuine transformative

process)” (p. 38). Accordingly, certain psychospiritual aims “become merely

peak-experiences—temporary gratifications for an ego hungry for subjective

10
spiritual heights, but often leading to further self-absorption and narcissism—the

antithesis of what an authentic spiritual path strives for” (p. 27).

The significance of that which is at stake cannot be overstated, because the

practical work of theory can be futile if it results in inefficient or inaccurate maps.

But more pragmatically, failure to explicitly examine and address obstacles

hidden within the theoretical terrain can lead to severe consequences for clinical

and spiritual practitioners in the field as well. As Daniels (2005) opined,

“Theoretical and conceptual issues are of primary concern, as many of the

problems and difficulties that arise in practice may be the direct result of

inadequate theory or conceptual misunderstandings” (p. 131). And if the field is

to derive effective treatment plans from such maps, it seems research in these

areas would go a long way to clarify and, moreover, accurately chart this more

difficult and nuanced terrain.

Increasingly problematic—as is commonly known at least within various

therapeutic and spiritual circles (see Bragdon, 1990; S. Grof & C. Grof, 1989,

1990)—the postconventional landscape presents itself as considerably more

difficult to navigate especially in terms of “disturbances, which can arise at the

various stages of spiritual realization” (Assagioli, 1961, p. 36). Assagioli stated

further:

So fundamental a transformation is marked by several critical stages,

which are not infrequently accompanied by various nervous, emotional,
and mental troubles. These may present to the objective clinical
observation of the therapist the same symptoms as those due to more usual
causes, but they have in reality quite another significance and function,
and need very different treatment. The incidence of disturbances having a
spiritual origin is rapidly increasing nowadays, in step with the growing
number of people who, consciously or unconsciously, are groping their

11
 way towards a fuller life. Moreover, the heightened development and
complexity of the personality of modern man and his more critical mind
have rendered spiritual development a more difficult and complicated
process. In the past a moral conversion, a simple wholehearted devotion
to a teacher or savior, a loving surrender to God, were often sufficient to
open the gates leading to a higher level of consciousness and a sense of
inner union and fulfillment. Now, however, the more varied and
conflicting aspects of modern man’s personality are involved and need to
be transmuted and harmonized with each other: his fundamental drives,
his emotions and feelings, his creative imagination, his inquiring mind, his
assertive will, and also his interpersonal and social relations. (p. 36)

Against this background, Ferrer (2002) offered that the integration of genuine

psychospiritual emergence into “everyday life is arguably one of the most urgent

tasks of modern transpersonal psychology” (p. 36). By any measure, the “failure

to adequately integrate [such] openings . . . is widely regarded as a potential

source of psychotic and spiritual pathologies” (Ferrer, 1999, pp. 46–47; see also

S. Grof & C. Grof, 1989). According to Corbett (2009), these hazards have been

characterized variously in the depth psychology literatures “as a creative illness, a

descent into the underworld, a bout with insanity, a narcissistic self-deification, a

transcendence, a midlife breakdown, and an inner disturbance” (p. 36). Carl Jung

(1875–1961), Swiss psychiatrist and psychotherapist who founded analytical

psychology, went so far as to warn that this psychospiritual passageway almost

always involves the risk of madness expressed, in some cases, as excruciating

dark nights, mental health breakdowns, spiritual crises, and other spiritual

emergencies that oftentimes arise along the path. In the words of Jung

(1913/1961), one might be “menaced by a psychosis” (as cited in Corbett, 2009,

p. 36). Elsewhere, in a similar manner, he described how a person’s mental state

might devolve into “doing a schizophrenia” (p. 36).

12
 By its very nature, Hawkins (2006) warned that this distinctive landscape

signifies a most arduous psychospiritual endeavor, as has been aptly described by

the “recorded histories of Christian saints [such as] in the ‘Temptation of St.

Anthony’ and the ‘Confessions of St. Augustine.’ The Buddha also described how

he was attacked by illusions of the negative demon energies of Mara” (p. 46). Of

great importance, then, it behooves postconventional theorists to accurately frame

their maps so that they might best guide modern aspirants through such a “virgin

forest beset with snares and ambushes” (Dalal, 2007, p. 58).

Personal Significance

The original impetus for this dissertation study was a surprising

nonphysical encounter I had with Sri Aurobindo (mostly unfamiliar to me at the

time) during a doctoral seminar in January of 2011 exploring experientially the

effects of Holotropic-like breathing. In this altered state, I saw a vision of Sri

Aurobindo’s face merging from behind my own until his nonphysical eyes were

seemingly peering out through mine. With this enhanced perception, I was able

to see the metaphysical source of an agonizing pain syndrome (reflex sympathetic

dystrophy) with which I had been suffering for nearly a year. As N. Kramer

(2015) so poignantly described, it seemed that this supposedly incurable diagnosis

might represent the painful implications of false perception:

So . . . it is like the Divine impulse on this planet compels you to do it for

yourself and until you do, it will punish you with confusion and vagueness
and as you say suffering as the Hindus called it Dukkha, which is “false
perception creates pain.” Right? So the way to eliminate pain in life . . .
the suffering, the struggle of life, to diminish that and maybe even to
eliminate it, is to perceive correctly. So it is only when we have false
perceptions, we have misunderstood something, that pain is generating.
So pain is the result of false perceptions. . . . It demands of us true

13
 perception, to do the work for oneself, and to go one’s own way—perhaps
best articulated in terms of the Latin adage Aut Inveniam Viam Aut
Faciam, which translates into “Find a way or make one.” (para. 6)

This meeting no doubt led to a profound physical healing. Consequently,

as I continued to familiarize myself with the teachings of Sri Aurobindo, and then

eventually with the Mother, I found an entirely satisfying understanding of the

deepest parts of my being. More precisely, their writings helped sum up the false

perceptions, or ontological and epistemic difficulties, I had been experiencing

with the existing state of the transpersonal field—difficulties I had intuitively

attributed to having some role in my degenerative and debilitating condition. For

so many years, that is, I had felt increasingly isolated for my differences in

ontological vision. The following sentiment provided by Rachel (2012)

concerning his personal encounter with the transpersonal field could be my own

words:

I began to notice the extraordinary degree to which the larger community

of transpersonal scholars and traditional practitioners had internalized the
biases of perennialism, monistic metaphysics, and those mystical
orientations that focus on realities disclosed in unitive states of
consciousness with an ineffable source. . . . What struck me most about
these encounters with my fellow practitioners was the sense of
encountering a group-think that was at once highly charged, yet somehow
vitiated, on one hand superficially tolerant, yet on the other subtly
intolerant. Indeed, there was an acute resemblance to those perennialist
philosophers, described by Ferrer (2002), as being not “able to listen to
what other people are saying, because all new or conflicting information is
screened, processed, or assimilated in terms of the perennialist
framework” (p. 94). Despite having extraordinarily profound experiences
that were changing how they lived their lives, it seemed that these
practitioners were immediately interpreting these experiences through
doctrinal lenses of which many of these practitioners were probably not
even aware. (pp. 8–9)

14
 On a more personal note, a few years ago, I encountered an anonymous

quote that read, “Set a goal so big that you cannot achieve it until you grow into

the person who can.” I recognize now, that the nearly five years of constant work

that often averaged up to fourteen hours a day, sometimes seven days a week,

developing my research—transcribing hundreds of theories and amassing a

database comprising of thousands of written pages—was in fact the initiatory

process for my own sādhanā (spiritual discipline). Markedly, in a very deep and

personal way, this ongoing preparation proved to represent the conditioning

required to eventually reach the elusive goal I had set for myself many years

ago—that is, to see (with true perception hopefully) psychicization from a

developmental standpoint. Given all this, in December of 2013 (i.e., in my eighth

year of doctoral work), I felt guided to transfer to a different graduate school so

that I could receive the support I felt lacking from the transpersonal community

and ultimately follow that long-sought-for-goal inspired by that incredible healing

I had experienced with Sri Aurobindo in the darkest of hours.

From the many spiritual transformations I have since undergone, I have

chosen to devote my entire being, my research, and writing to the work of Sri

Aurobindo and the Mother. Indeed, it seems that even if nothing more comes

from this long and arduous process, I have experienced my own night sea journey,

feeling tested and confronted by every possible falsehood and weakness in my

being—every hostile force—to come out a very much transformed person. If it

helps others, then I hope that the preliminary work presented in this research

study will inspire further interest and, ultimately, encourage other psychologists to

15
contribute towards an integrated framework of psychospiritual development from

a renewed appreciation for the meaning and purpose of the evolutionary soul. My

deepest aspiration at this time is that this work can be offered to the greater Will

of the Divine and aid in others’ progress, understanding, and transformation

toward the deepest wisdom of their own eternal soul, the psychic center, their true

psychospiritual identity.

16
 CHAPTER 2: CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Following the work of Swiss psychologist and pioneering developmental

theorist Jean Piaget (1896–1980), a tremendous body of research (e.g., Cook-

Greuter, 1999; Flavell, 1963; Gilligan, 1982; Gowan, 1974; Hy & Loevinger,

1996; Kegan, 1982, 1994; Kohlberg, 1981, 1984; Loevinger, 1976; Piaget,

1936/1952, 1937/1954; Rose & Fischer, 2009; Torbert, 1972; Wade, 1996;

Wilber, 1986) has shown that individual consciousness appears to develop

through a series of distinct stages that follow a linear and invariant structural

sequence (see Snarey, Kohlberg, & Noam, 1983). Piaget’s (1950/1970)

groundbreaking epistemology has garnered a great deal of respect among a wide

variety of disciplines and represents one of the most influential theories in the

history of developmental psychology. Indeed, his model serves as the very

foundation for many of the field’s central concepts that are still dominant to this

day. Piaget’s theory was the first to indicate, for instance, that over the course of

the human lifespan, individuals move through an ordered succession of: (a)

hierarchically arranged and qualitatively distinct organizations, structures, or

schemes of individual perception; (b) each with its own worldview or unique set

of paradigmatic lenses; (c) considered to be quantitatively measurable; and

furthermore, (d) integrative, as each new stage is believed to emerge out of and

subordinate its preceding structure.

Unlike empiricist theories that describe the gradual acquisition of

knowledge through experience or nativist theories that describe development in

terms of unfoldment of innate knowledge, Piaget’s (1936/1952, 1975/1977)

17
epigenetic stage theory is considered constructivist, meaning that it assumes that

individuals formulate knowledge and abilities by constructing mental

representations of the world around them. Specifically, Piaget identified four

major phases of individual consciousness development: (a) the sensorimotor

period (roughly from birth to year 2); (b) the preoperational period (years 2–7);

(c) the concrete-operational period (years 7–11); and (d) the formal operational

period (years 12 and up). Though Piaget only applied his theory formally to the

cognitive development of children, there appears to be a significant overlap

between Piaget’s rational structures and the overall evolution of personality

(Baltes, Lindenberger, & Staudinger, 1998; see also Cartwright, 2001; Lee &

Snarey, 1988; Sinnott, 1994). Thus, many social, moral, and ego theorists (e.g.,

Fowler, 1981; Kohlberg, 1969; Loevinger, 1976) “who study ideal development

have adopted Piaget’s framework because it allows for the conceptualization of

phenomenon that are not frequently found through empirical research”

(Pfaffenberger, 2007b, p. 12).

Generally speaking—whether emphasizing logic, needs, values, or

morality—developmental findings seem to confirm a similar preconventional to

conventional growth curve (e.g., Cook-Greuter, 1999; Kohlberg, 1969; Labouvie-

Vief, 1980; Loevinger, 1976; see Cohn, 1998). That is, as individuals mature,

their interpretive paradigm of reality appears to progress from pre-rational and

pre-personal characterizations towards increasingly complex, rational, egoic, and

personal stages (Sullivan, McCullough, & Stager, 1970; Sullivan & Quarter,

1972). McIntosh (2007) noted, essentially, “these same stages were encountered

18
by psychological researchers throughout the twentieth century whenever they

investigated the development of human consciousness” (p. 30). Though minor

variations appear to exist between models, the universality of Piaget’s stages, at

least up until his last formal operational stage, appears to be consistently validated

and revalidated by more than four decades of psychological research (see

Commons et al., 1989; Dasen, 1977a, 1977b; Graves, 1970, 2005; Kohlberg,

1971, 1981, 1984; Kohlberg, Levine, & Hewer, 1984; Lasker, 1974a, 1974b,

1977, 1978; Kohlberg & Nisan, 1984; Snarey, 1982, 1986; Snarey & Blasi, 1980;

Weinreich, 1977). Thus, at least in terms of pre-conventional to conventional

stages, the evidence is remarkably consistent even among demographically

diverse and cross-cultural populations.

Formal Operations

The most fundamental cornerstone in the Piagetian model of genetic

epistemology (after Baldwin, 1908) appears to be the formal operational construct

itself (Inhelder & Piaget, 1955/1958; Piaget, 1975/1977, 1974/1978). It is here at

Piaget’s ultimate theorized end point that many mainstream psychological models

terminate (Wade, 1996). By definition, formal operational reasoning is

characterized by the ability to reason logically and thus marks the epitome of

generalized abstraction (Fischer, 1980; Fischer, Hand & Russell, 1984; see also

Case, 1978; Commons & Richards, 1984b, 2003; Pascual-Leone, 1970, 1976,

1980; Pascual-Leone & Smith, 1969). In the technical terminology of logic, the

formal operational concept (Inhelder & Piaget, 1955/1958) is a linear one of

19
causality whereby events are conceived as resulting from either specific

antecedents or from a succession of prior events (Commons et al., 1984).

One of the most striking features that emerges from a comparative view of

models across the Piagetian tradition (Piaget, 1970/1972b) is that formal

operational thinking is considered to constitute “the essence of the logic of

educated adults, as well as the basis of the elementary forms of scientific thought”

(p. 6). From this perspective, the formal operational stage provides criteria for

evaluating whether or not a person is capable of employing formalistic, systematic

reasoning (Gilligan & Murphy, 1979; Labouvie-Vief, 1982). For this objective,

Piaget assessed “formal thought, using scientific or mathematical problems,

regarding a reliance on scientific, hypothetical-deductive modes of thought as

evidence for cognitive sophistication” (Cartwright, 2001, p. 214). In

psychological terms, Piaget’s highest stage of development seeks to characterize

the behavior and ideas of mature adults (Labouvie-Vief, 1984). This formal

construct “applies not only to cognitive, but also to affective and moral

development since Piaget's most recent position on domains of development

makes cognitive structures paradigmatic for all modalities of consciousness”

(Broughton, 1984, p. 395).

Piaget's claim concerning the “finality and ultimacy of formal operations

in development is a clear and definite one” (Broughton, 1984, p. 396).

Nevertheless, beginning with Riegel (1973), “an intrepid band of post-Piagetians

have spoken out against the idea that the formal operational structure is an

adequate terminus to the developmental process” (Broughton, 1984, p. 396).

20
Thus, for these theorists, “formal operations is not an end but a beginning”

(Fischer et al., 1984, p. 43). With immediate relevance to this research inquiry,

then, Broughton summarized, “Although it stands for the end of development, the

final [formal operational] stage is, for all intents and purposes, the true point of

departure for developmental theory” (p. 395).

Postformal Development

Commencing formally as a subdiscipline in 1981—namely with the field’s

first symposium held at Harvard University on postformal thinking that also

resulted in the book titled Beyond Formal Operations (Commons et al., 1984)—

numerous developmental theorists have since laid the groundwork to establish

both empirical and anecdotal evidence suggestive of rare postformal stages.

Against this background, the term postformal has come to refer to the various

stage characterizations that both include the fullest capacity of the rational mind

“found in Piaget's last stage formal operations” (Commons & Richards, 2003, p.

199) and yet qualitatively exceed it. Other names for equivalent sequences or

continua have included: postconventional (Colby & Kohlberg, 1987; Hewlett,

2004; Kohlberg & Ryncarz, 1990; Marko, 2011; Miller & Cook-Greuter, 1994,

2000; Torbert, 2004; see also Bauer, 2011; Blumentritt, 2011; Chandler et al.,

2005; Cook-Greuter, 2011; Combs & Krippner, 2011; Heaton, 2011; Page, 2011;

Pfaffenberger, 2007b); postautonomous (Cook-Greuter, 1999; Helson, Mitchell,

& Hart, 1985; Hewlett, 2004); transpersonal (Daniels, 2005; Walsh, 2001;

Washburn, 1988, 1994, 1995, 1998, 2003; Wilber, 1986, 1989; postlinguistic

(Cook Greuter, 1990); postpersonal, integral and vision-logic (terms employed

21
interchangeably by Wilber, 1995, 1998, 2000a, 2000b, 2000c, 2006, 2007;

Wilber, Engler, & Brown, 1986); postconformist (Loevinger, 1976); self-

actualization (Brennan & Piechowski, 1991; Maslow, 1968; Pascual Leone, 1990;

Piechowski, 1975, 1978; see also Alexander, Rainforth, & Gelderloos, 1991;

Shostrom, 1968; Sumerlin & Bunderick, 1996); authentic consciousness

(Assagioli, 1988/1991; Firman & Gila, 2002; Graves, 1970, 2005; Wade, 1996;

see also Cortright, 2007; Labouvie-Vief, 1984; Pederson, 2011; Perry, 1970);

individuation (Jung, 1923/1944, 1939/1969; see also Henderson, 1967; Henderson

& Oakes, 1990; Jacobi, 1967, 1973; von Franz, 1968); integration (Loevinger,

1976; Labouvie-Vief, 1980); fifth order consciousness (Kegan, 1994); wisdom

and intuition (Baltes, Dittmann-Kohli, & Dixon, 1984; Baltes & Staudinger, 2000;

Clayton & Birren, 1980; D. Kramer, 1983, 1990, 2000; Labouvie-Vief, 1997;

Orwoll & Perlmutter, 1990; Pascual-Leone, 1990; Staudinger, Maciel, Smith, &

Baltes, 1998; Sternberg, 1990; 1998a, 1998b); and aperspectival consciousness or

integral consciousness (Gebser, 1949/1986).

There still appears significant debate, however, concerning the true nature

and extent of postformal operational development (Broughton, 1984). In

theoretical terms, for instance, questions remain regarding how such levels come

about (Labouvie-Vief, 1980, 1992, 2000, 2006), their goals, and, particularly,

their direction (Krettenauer, 2011), and if, in fact, such rare and elusive stages

even exist (Linn & Siegel, 1984). In their effort to extend the psychological

territory beyond the traditional Piagetian map and chart a more complete account

of higher consciousness development, theorists have described postconventional

22
thinking in the following terms: (a) dialectical (cf. Arlin, 1975; Basseches, 1984a,

1984b; Commons & Richards, 1984b, 2003; Edelstein & Noam, 1982; Fischer et

al., 1984; Fowler, 1981; Habermas, 1979; Kegan, 1982, 1994; D. Kramer, 1983,

1990, 2000; Pascual-Leone, 1984; Riegel, 1973, 1975, 1976, 1978; Sinnott &

Guttman, 1978; Sternberg, 1981); (b) logical relativistic (cf. Broughton, 1979;

Gilligan, 1982; Jaques, Gibson, & Isaac, 1978; Kitchener & King, 1981; Perry,

1968, 1970; Sinnott, 1984, 1991); (c) cross-paradigmatic and metacognitive-

metasystematic (cf. Basseches, 1980, 1984a, 1984b, 1986; Commons & Richards,

1984b, 2003; Commons, Richards & Kuhn, 1982; Cook-Greuter, 1990; Fischer,

1980; Koplowitz, 1984; Pascual-Leone, 1984; Sinnott, 1981; Sternberg &

Downing, 1982; Stevens-Long, 1979, 1990, 2011; van den Daele, 1975); (d)

metaphysics of relations (cf. Sinnott, 1981; Tolman, 1981); (e) systematic nature

of logical and arithmetic analyses (cf. Commons, Richards, & Kuhn, 1982;

Richards & Commons, 1984, 1990; Jaques et al., 1978; O'Brien & Overton,

1982); (f) epistemic wisdom (Murray, 2008); (g) intuitive, interactive, empathic,

and interpersonal (cf. Benack, 1984; Case, 1978; Labouvie-Vief, 1984;

Loevinger, 1976; Perry, 1970; Sternberg & Downing, 1982; Stevens-Long, 2011);

(h) contradictive and paradoxical (cf. Basseches, 1980, 1984a, 1984b, 1986;

Loevinger, 1976; Riegel, 1973; Stevens-Long & Commons, 1992); and (i)

general systems-like reasoning (cf. Koplowitz, 1984; Labouvie-Vief, 1984;

Powell, 1980; Richards & Commons, 1984, 1990; Sinnot, 1984).

Any effort to summarize here nearly 100 different models spanning more

than a century of psychological literature cannot help but prove inadequate. As

23
Cornelissen (2001) warned, “One must be wary of undue generalizations” (p. 1).

Yet still, along this line of inquiry, it seems reasonable to suggest that dramatic

transformations of consciousness clearly can and do come about beyond formal

characterizations of individual consciousness development. That said, however,

as these above-cited researchers have methodically shown, in some cases, there

does appear to emerge more “complex, dialectical, imaginative, self-reflective,

and spiritual ways of thinking, living, and loving” (Gidley, 2007, p. 117) that

come about after achieving formal operational thinking.

Humanistic and Eastern Influenced Psychospirituality

Borrowing from both humanistic psychology and Eastern philosophies, an

essential driving idea promoted by a number of postconventional theorists (e.g.,

Cook-Greuter, 1999; Fischer & Bidell, 2006; Gilligan, 1982; Gowan, 1974;

Kegan, 1982, 1994; Kohlberg, 1981, 1984; Kohlberg & Ryncarz, 1990; Maslow,

1971) has been that as the rational ego advances toward higher development,

formal thinking gives way to a broader form of spiritual awareness. A fitting

example of this trend would be Maslow’s (1968) pioneering delineation of self-

actualization—a most influential and “elegant theory of motivation and

development that has served as a generally accepted description of advanced

psychospiritual development in humanistic psychology” (Pfaffenberger, 2007b, p.

5). According to Pfaffenberger, Maslow’s (1969) seminal research into the

farthest reaches of psychological health and well-being was the “first systematic,

empirical study of advanced development, and it [has since] laid the foundation

for all later work” (p. 5). Maslow’s guiding concept of self-fulfillment and

24
actualization has since inspired many theorists of positive adult development

(Commons, 1999; Demick & Andreoletti, 2003; Sinnott, 1987).

Maslow's writings (1968, 1971) on self-actualization reveal, for instance,

that higher stages of development most often involve the realization of “talents

and potentialities, positive mental health, the ability to listen to ‘inner signals’ or

‘impulse voices,’ the development of an integrated life style, ‘peak’ or mystical

experience, existential authenticity, or the actualization of universal values and

transcendent meanings” (Daniels, 2005, p. 131). Self-actualizers, according to

Maslow, move past the basic needs for physical and psychological survival

towards a greater spiritual order, or realm, of being. In other words, he

recognized that self-actualization is indicated by a shift in motivation away from

being externally driven towards a more internal orientation to life and personal

growth experienced as “the ongoing actualization of potentials, capacities, and

talents as fulfillment of a mission . . . as a fuller knowledge of, and acceptance of,

the person's own intrinsic nature, as an unceasing trend toward unity, integration,

or synergy within the person” (Maslow, 1968, p. 25).

To reiterate, postconventional stage characterizations almost unanimously

have been described in terms of ego-transcendence (e.g., Alexander, & Langer,

1990; Cook-Greuter, 1999, 2000; Fischer & Bidell, 2006; Gilligan, 1982; Gowan,

1974; Kegan, 1982, 1994; Kohlberg, 1981, Kohlberg & Ryncarz, 1990; Maslow,

1971; Washburn, 1988, 1995) and appear to generally correspond with Eastern

notions of awakening (see Austin, 1998; Cook-Greuter, 1990; Metzner, 1980;

Underhill, 1911/1961; Wade, 1996; Washburn, 1999, 2003). Without exception,

25
postconventional stages as well as “Maslow’s highest stage share a focus on

exceptionally advanced, psychosocial maturity—the pinnacle of progressively

increasing capacities to think complexly, deeply, and richly about the self and

others” (Bauer, Schwab, & McAdams, 2011, p. 121). Given these shared

insights, “virtually all major theoretical models of psychological growth

increasingly emphasize selflessness if not explicit spirituality at the highest levels

of development” (Combs & Krippner, 2011, p. 217).

In terms of the literature on adult development, it is here with this apparent

spiritual turn that the already fervent debate on the nature of higher developmental

stages has only intensified, typically, along the following lines. On the one hand,

there have been many voices coming from lifespan developmental theorists

who—beginning with German-born American developmental psychologist Erik

Erikson (1902–1994)—have commonly acknowledged that, with age,

development moves from narrowly egocentric interests towards increasingly

larger societal and spiritual concerns. On the other hand, especially during the

second half of the twentieth century, there has emerged a group of psychologists

and psychiatrists (e.g., Stanislav Grof; Abraham Maslow; Anthony Sutich; Miles

Vich; Ken Wilber; and others like them), who have sought to expand the “field of

humanistic psychology beyond its focus on the individual self and towards the

creation of a still ‘higher' Fourth Psychology, transpersonal, transhuman, centered

in the cosmos rather than in human needs and interests, going beyond humanness,

identity, self-actualization, and the like” (Maslow, 1968, as cited in Ferrer, 2002,

p. 5). On both theoretical and empirical grounds, Baltes, Staudinger, and

26
Lindenberger (1999) explained that the highest stages of adult development have

consistently posed the greatest ontological difficulty for the former group, or the

lifespan theorists:

Originally, research on wisdom was motivated primarily by the search for

positive aspects of human aging. Meanwhile, this intellectual agenda has
been extended to include aspects of clinical psychology (Smith et al.,
1994), cultural psychology (Staudinger, 1996), and the cognitive
psychology of heuristics. As to the latter, Baltes (1998) argues that
wisdom is a cognitive and motivational metastrategy that orchestrates
diverse bodies of knowledge toward human excellence. As such a high-
level heuristic about the conduct of life, wisdom (a) protects against the
fragmentation of knowledge (Stich, 1990) and (b) enhances the control of
one's vices and the optimization of one's virtues. In this sense, wisdom is
a lifetime general-purpose heuristic aimed at the well-being of oneself and
that of others. (p. 494)

Thus, as an academic area of empirical inquiry—with its central foci

concerned with the human life cycle along with the normative aspects of

ontogenesis from conception into old age—lifespan developmentalists have arisen

out of the epistemic scaffolds of genetics and biological evolutionism.

Transpersonal psychologists, alternatively, have attempted to go further beyond

the exclusive study of human ontogeny to explore and trace the fullest and

deepest contours of individual consciousness evolution. With this latter

perspective, transpersonal psychologists have consistently held that cognitive

complexity alone cannot do full justice in terms of explaining the apparent

spiritual or mystical nature of advanced human growth and development.

Structural-Hierarchical and Spiral-Dynamic Maps

Critical scholar, participatory theorist, and professor of psychology Jorge

Ferrer (e.g., 2002) recognized that transpersonal theoreticians who have attempted

to map advanced human consciousness beyond formal constructs of the mind and

27
ego (defined here as postconventional stages) have tended to fall within one of

two divergent paradigmatic camps—structural-hierarchical or spiral-dynamic.

The structural-hierarchical perspective was first elucidated by American

philosopher Ken Wilber (e.g., 1980, 1995, 1998, 2000a, 2000b, 2000c, 2001,

2007) and further advanced by theorists like Walsh and Vaughan (1993),

Alexander, Heaton, and Chandler (1994), and Cook-Greuter (2000). Relying

mostly on “personal reports of putative sages and mystics” (Combs & Krippner,

2011, p. 213), structural-hierarchical models have basically incorporated

advanced meditative progressions gleaned from Eastern philosophies that promote

“higher states of consciousness in which self-identity is not mediated by symbolic

thought but grounded in awareness of transcendental Being” (p. 232; see also

Cook-Greuter, 2000). Wilber’s model is perhaps most indicative of this line of

thinking.

In a hypothesized transcend-and-include manner, Wilber’s (1984, 1993,

2001, 2007, 2011) spectrum of consciousness theory stresses vertical, invariant,

and ladder-like sequences of acquired structural abilities and capacities that move

linearly from prerational, or pre-personal, levels to increasingly personal, egoic,

and rational stages of human development. Wilber’s preliminary claim is that

individual consciousness essentially evolves “beyond the formal, abstract,

intellectual mode towards a postformal, integral mode [called] vision-logic”

(Gidley, 2007, p. 117). And, in sum, his structural-hierarchical progression is

depicted as a one-directional, additive accumulation of “ever-increasing structural

28
complexity and inclusiveness, a process that, in moving to higher basic structures,

does not leave lower, transcended structures behind” (Washburn, 2003, p. 5).

Wilber’s spectrum, moreover, views the human being as a monological,

multi-leveled expression comprising of one ultimate consciousness. According to

him, each successive altitude can be characterized by it own particular sense of

identity—while, at the furthest end, there is said to exist a consciousness of

infinite causality and, at its opposite extreme, he characterized a narrow and

contracted pre-egoic identification (Dalal, 2000). Wilber’s model accordingly

describes human development as a holarchy; that is, a nested hierarchy of

fundamental ascending self-structures. In this way, Wilber (1999) explained:

A simple metaphor may be useful to explain this distinction. The basic

structures themselves are like a ladder, each rung of which is a level in the
Great Chain of Being. The self (or self-system) is the climber of the
ladder. At each rung of that climb, the self has a different sense of
identity, a different type of morality, a different set of self-needs, and so
on. These changes in the sense of self and its reality, which shift from
level to level, are referred to as transition structures, or, more often, as the
self-stages (since these transitions intimately involve the self and its sense
of reality). (p. 90)

It is perhaps important to note, in recent years, Wilber (1998, 2000b) has

amended his model to draw more inclusively from Gardner’s (1983/2011;

Gardner & Moran, 2006) findings on multiple intelligences. Wilber’s theory now

includes that which he referred to as various lines and levels of development (e.g.,

cognition, morals, and spiritual realization). For instance, Wilber (2001)

maintained, “a person can be at a relatively high level of development in some

lines (such as cognition), medium in others (such as morals), and low in still

others (such as spirituality)” (p. 259). In this structural-hierarchical scheme, there

29
still exists, nevertheless, a unidimensional ascent of structure-stages. That is, for

each line and level, there is still theorized an ever-increasing hierarchical

scaffolding whereby postconventional stages build off of formal structures of the

rational mind to culminate at the impersonal Ātman or nondual Suchness

(Buddhist concept of tathātā). The structural hierarchical path, then, could be

summarized as follows: “Development is evolution; evolution is transcendence;

and transcendence has as its final goal Atman, or ultimate Unity Consciousness”

(Hemsell, 2002, para. 7).

For this reason and others, the structural-hierarchical perspective has been

the target of both praise and strong criticism. For instance, structural-hierarchical

theories have been criticized for elevating egoic and mental structure-stages to an

ultimate cosmic and transcendental status. Ferrer (2002) further elaborated,

“These [critiques] include an a priori [or given] commitment to a nondual

monistic metaphysic and an endorsement of objectivism and essentialism in

knowledge claims about ultimate reality” (p. 110). More severely, Wilber, in

particular, has been accused of merely stacking various Eastern meditation stages

on top of formal operational constructs (Rowan, Daniels, Fontana, & Walley,

2009).

Given these varied ideas and criticisms, the spiral-dynamic view is,

alternatively, represented by theorists who have envisaged that beyond the

pinnacle realization of formal cognitive development, the self spirals back

through regression to a nonpersonal, pre-egoic origin of consciousness, or the

Ground of Being, which represents an individual’s “connection with the earliest

30
sources of . . . existence” (Washburn, 2003, p. 2) to only return again restored at a

higher-order integration. Representationally, the spiral path signifies a viewpoint

with roots that extend back to Jungian psychoanalytic, existential-

phenomenological, and depth psychologies as well as Eastern philosophies.

According to Washburn, the models of Grof (1985) and Levin (1985), in

particular, along with Jungian theorists like Kremer (1997) and Smith (1997)

appear to be in fundamental agreement with his spiral-dynamic developmental

sequence.

The spiral-dynamic course “can be formulated as follows: we must spiral

back to the deep psyche if we are to spiral up to life lived in its fullness”

(Washburn, 2003, p. 2). It should be noted that spiral-dynamic theories

essentially appear to be in overall accord with structural-hierarchical ascent

models insomuch that both paths render a similar pre-egoic to increasingly

rational-egoic growth curve. At the formal operational juncture, however, one of

the most important features of spiral-dynamic maps is their depiction of a

downward loop, spiral, U-turn, or that which Washburn (1994, 1995, 2003) has

called regression in service of transcendence, which according to him is

evidenced by a breakdown and a regression. As Wade (1996) astutely observed:

“One of Washburn's most valuable contributions is his detailing of psychic

deconstruction that occurs on the path . . . In effect, he translates some of the

Eastern meditation maps into Western psychological terms” (p. 293).

Despite rich and archetypal support found throughout the historical record

for at least some semblance of a spiral path, representatives of the structural-

31
hierarchical perspective (viz. mainly Wilber) have nevertheless been rather open

in their vehement criticism of spiral-dynamic maps of development, particularly

Washburn’s envisaged postconventional U-turn. Citing the “pre/trans fallacy,”

Wilber (1998, p. 88; see also 1980, 1982, 1993, 1998, 2000a, 2000b, 2000c, 2001,

2002, 2005, 2007, 2011), decisively in somewhat dogmatic fashion, has

repeatedly charged Washburn’s spiral model with confusion of transcendence for

regression (see also Daniels, 2005; Ferrer, 2002; Rothberg & Kelly, 1998;

Washburn, 1999). Moreover, according to Wilber, spiral-dynamic models fail to

distinguish between pre-personal and trans-personal modes of consciousness, as

both characterizations, according to Wilber, are unequivocally non-personal. This

anti-personal prejudice expressed in regards to the higher theorized postformal, or

postconventional, developmental stages represents a most basic charge repeated

by much of the transpersonal literature as a whole and will be revisited in more

detail in the chapters to follow.

Transformation

In addition to rendering conceptual models to chart the unfoldment of the

self’s actualization over time, theorists have increasingly become concerned with

the principles, goals, and internal workings underlying such epistemological

changes. After all, “development in its deepest meaning refers to transformations

of consciousness” (Cook-Greuter, 2004, p. 3). There indeed appears to be great

discussion of this word transformation evidenced throughout most of the bodies

of developmental literature. The term, however, presupposes a vast range of

different meanings and connotations depending on the given school of thought—

32
so much so, the whole elucidation is far too voluminous for the present review.

Suffice to say, psychological models depicting conceptualizations of

transformation of consciousness appear prolific in the extant literatures (e.g.,

Beck & Cowan, 1996; Dabrowski, 1964, 1967; Graves, 1970, 2005; Kegan, 1982,

1994; Piaget, 1936/1952; Wade, 1996; Washburn, 1999; Wilber, 2000a; and

others).

Although there appear to be some descriptive divergences, a stage change

of human psychological development is commonly defined in the

postconventional literatures as a transition from one state of existence to another.

“The continuum of change is divided into stages for convenience” (Wade, 1996,

p. 21). The basic pattern found expressed throughout most spiral-dynamic change

models are existential crises, which have been assumed to facilitate profound

transformations of individual consciousness. To illustrate, Washburn (1999)

maintained, “the individual may come to a point of deep dissatisfaction arising

out of sentiments such as ‘Is this all there is?’ or ‘What’s the use?’ respectively”

(as cited in Pederson, 2011, p. 35). Krettenauer (2011) elucidated that structural-

hierarchical theories, on the other hand, tend to “assume powerful, internal

devices that move individuals toward higher stages of greater psychological

maturity” (p. 77). As will be very generally shown, regardless of mechanism,

theorists of every school appear to agree that transformation involves, at least to

some degree, the shedding of one interpretive paradigm or worldview (e.g., Beck

& Cowan, 1996; Kegan, 1982, 1994; Torbert, 2004) and the consequent adoption

of another more appropriate set of assumptions about reality (Marko, 2006, 2011).

33
 It is thought, for instance, that once stress becomes adequately acute, a

person’s existing worldview falls apart beyond repair to allow for the emergence

of higher depictions of consciousness. As a case in point, Dabrowski’s theory

(1964, 1967) of positive disintegration hypothesized transformation comes about

by the building up of tension in an individual’s dominant worldview that

eventually requires resolution. Pederson (2011) explained, “each of Dabrowski’s

stages is characterized by a series of dynamisms, or inner psychic processes that

can both inhibit and facilitate continued transformation” (pp. 33–34). In terms of

the particular shift towards transpersonal consciousness, Dabrowski proposed an

increasing need for “self-awareness, self-control, and ability to reflect on oneself

and others without reactivity” (p. 34). Constructive-developmental theorist

Robert Kegan (1994) likewise argued that discomfort arises as the result of the

environment demanding that the individual function at a new quality of self-

referentiality and world-referentiality. Another constructivist, Jane Loevinger

(1976), in a comparable way, pointed to developmental demands she believed to

exist within an individual’s surroundings that ultimately disappoint the person’s

expectations enough to enable a path toward higher levels of complexity of

thinking about self, others, and one’s reality.

In similar accord with the models of change just mentioned, Graves’

(1970, 2005) theory of advanced human development he called “emergent

cyclical double helix model of the adult human psychosocial development”

(Graves, 1981, p. 1) conceptualized that transformation occurs when an individual

encounters a severe enough existential crisis in the course of his or her lifetime—

34
one that cannot be resolved by the person’s presiding paradigm. Graves based his

theory on thousands of interviews conducted over the course of nearly three

decades. From his research, Graves concluded that individual consciousness

evolves towards a trans-rational second-tier by means of: (a) extraordinary

conditions arising in one’s immediate environment coupled with (b) ideal human

genetics.

Wade’s (1996) extension of Graves’ model argues stage change takes

place when self-searching leads “an individual to encounter a problem he [or she]

is highly motivated to solve, but for which no resolution exists within the

(perceived) reality permitted by his [or her current] state of consciousness” (p.

262). A reconfiguration then occurs within the person’s worldview, which results

in a more “sophisticated set of assumptions” (Marko, 2011, p. 88). As life

conditions change, Wade called these existential crises transition dilemmas and

defined them according to her own catalog of core assumptions (i.e., expectations

of reality). Wade further maintained that at each given developmental

conversion, the problematic discrepancy between one’s core assumption

contrasted with his or her actual experience of reality must be eventually resolved

and transcended in order for the next stage change to be established.

In sum, there indeed appears to be broad consensus among theorists that

the transformation of consciousness happens when an individual is “confronted by

severe and even prolonged anomalies [and especially] when a conflict or logical

inconsistency becomes sufficiently acute” (Wade, 1996, p. 262). Evidently, that

is, at each crucial transformative juncture, the research literature frequently cites a

35
breakdown and crisis, chaos, and disruption. There is a “loss and a falling apart

as we divest ourselves of our old skins of conventional and personal existence”

(Irwin, 2002, p. 192). Invariably, change is presumed to happen because

“previous meanings are stripped away, previous ways of interacting with the

world are utterly insufficient, and new approaches to life experience must be

entertained” (King, 2011, p. 167).

It is interesting to note, however, that there does appear to be a persistent

assumption, especially expressed among structural-hierarchical theories, that

positive growth continues steadily without stop. This bias endures despite

frequent findings in the literature that commonly report (e.g., Assagioli, 1961;

Cartwright, 2001; Fowler, 1981; S. Grof & C. Grof, 1989; C. Grof & S. Grof,

1986, 1990; Hamilton & Jackson, 1998) that rather than an inevitable stage

transition or transformation of consciousness, there is frequently a breakdown, a

spiritual emergency, or even a psychosis especially when there is a general lack of

adequate ego-strength, which inherently cannot meet the challenges imposed by

adaptation (B. Shirazi, personal communication, February 3, 2016). In view of

such breakdowns, Assagioli (1961) explained:

Some are more harassed by intellectual doubts and metaphysical

problems, in others the emotional depression or the moral crisis is the
most pronounced feature. These various manifestations of the crisis bear a
close relationship to some of the symptoms regarded as characteristic of
psychoneuroses and borderline schizophrenic states. . . . Sometimes the
reaction presents a more pathological aspect and produces a state of
depression and even despair, with suicidal impulses. This state bears a
close resemblance to psychotic depression . . . the impression of going
through hell, which may become so vivid as to produce the delusion that
one is irretrievably damned; a keen and painful sense of intellectual
incompetence; a loss of will power and self-control, indecision and an
incapacity and distaste for action. . . . St. John of the Cross uses words

36
 curiously similar in speaking of the condition called “the dark night of the
soul.” (pp. 38–43)

Suggesting that such disturbances can in fact represent the conditions

necessary to motivate further growth, Dabrowski (1964, 1967) contended that

such crises are oftentimes necessary in order to disintegrate deficient previously

held psychological structures. Irwin (2002) explained that mental health

providers can fail to recognize that such an unexpected spiritual emergency can

arise at any time along the developmental path and can even represent in “itself a

sign of growth” (p. 181), as practioners tend to be “unacquainted with the

possibilities of higher development and oblivious of the vicissitudes of

consciousness at higher stages” (p. 181).

Adaptation and Problem of Finding a Facilitative Agent

To reiterate, it is commonly accepted that people change and develop in

response to stress and dissatisfaction experienced in their outer life situations.

Furthermore, each subsequent level of consciousness is believed to be organized

around the structures of consciousness themselves. The earlier levels thus are

presumed to become the basis for more advanced stages—each emerging as: a

new and more complex psychology (i.e., belief systems, feelings, behavior,

attitude, ethics, values, cognition, motivations, learning systems, coping

mechanisms, etc.); an emergent ontological perspective of reality; and-or, an

evolving epistemological approach to meaning making that is particular to that

stage. The process is typically assumed to be marked by a transcend and include

progression understood to mean subordination of an older interpretive lens for a

more advanced perspective.

37
 It can be argued, however, that developmental models tend to place too

significant of an onus on conceptions of biological and environmental

determinates of change (e.g., Beck & Cowan, 1996; Graves, 1970, 2005; Kegan,

1982, 1994; Piaget, 1936/1952). As Shirazi put it, such views are rather

incomplete, as they apparently equate transformation with adaptation and, more

severely, tend to involve assumptions that indicate a bias toward

epiphenomenalism—the doctrine that mental activities are purely epiphenomena

or the result of neural processes in the brain (B. Shirazi, personal communication,

March 27, 2014). Perhaps the best way to illustrate this charge is to consider

Wade’s (1996) above-mentioned Gravesian framework that further adds variables

such as enculturation along with increasingly demanding situational dilemmas

arising from a person’s outer environment, which essentially come together to

destabilize evolving neuronal structures in the right and left hemispheres of the

brain (after Prigogine’s, 1980, dissipative structures and chaotic state transition

theory). Thus, stage change, according to her, is theorized to be facilitated by

complex dynamical systems (i.e., nonlinearity, self-organization, and emergence)

effectuated by epiphenomenal and supervenient causation.

In Prigogine’s model of the brain as a dissipative structure, change

becomes possible when high motivation amplifies the systemic
fluctuations that destabilize consciousness (and/or the brain's organization)
(Prigogine & Stengers, 1984). At this bifurcation point, the system can
reduce the external exchanges and internal excitation by closing its
boundaries (ignoring input, denial), dissolve into chaos (regress), or arrive
at some higher level of organization. Transition to a higher level of
organization seems to involve accessing new neurological capacities.
Without this ability, the person does not progress but stabilizes at one
level or regresses to an earlier one. (Wade, 1996, pp. 95–96)

38
In rare circumstances, when such conditions become most ideal, the person might

eventually arrive at a fully-actualized and authentic stage of adult

consciousness—characterized by Wade as intuitive, spatial, and holistic or “whole

brain thinking” (p. 166; after MacLean’s, 1990, triune brain in evolution theory).

In the literatures, it is generally presumed that a change model must

simply, yet accurately, account for the means by which a developmental stage

change takes place. And while there appear countless possible triggering agents

(see Helson & Roberts, 1994; Helson & Srivastava, 2001; Kegan, 1982) and

potential antecedent factors (e.g., Hoyer & Touron, 2003; Moshman, 2003) that

might precipitate a new developmental stage of thinking or behavior (Marko,

2006, 2011), the change theories reviewed so far appear to assume that the

structures of the mind can form the sufficient foundation to automatically

generate stage change by themselves. Thus, such models function almost

exclusively without describing an underlying referent of consciousness evolution

that might help explain how and why people transform in the first place (Demick

& Andreoletti, 2003). Still at issue, then, the fundamental and underlying source,

origin, cause, and-or basis for psychological growth and development has

apparently all but eluded developmental thinkers.

When considering any such developmental framework, “the mechanisms

of transition from one stage to the next must be accounted for” (Wade, 1996, p.

21). As such, thinkers like Kohlberg (1969, 1981), Commons (1984), Fischer et

al. (1984), Sternberg and Downing (1982), Commons and Richards (2002), and

Pascual-Leone (1983, 1984) have devoted considerable attention to the difficulty

39
of specifying a facilitative agent, a mechanism, or catalyst for human change,

which reflects a critical issue in developmental theory remaining to this day (see

Commons, Richards, & Kuhn, 1982; Commons, Trudeau, Stein, Richards, &

Crause, 1998; Marko, 2006; Page, 2005). To clarify, a facilitative agent has been

described variably throughout the developmental literature as a theoretical

construct, impetus, enabling factor, or intrinsic aspect of personal consciousness

that can impel psychological change to happen “anywhere along the change

continuum moving it incrementally forward or through a bolt of sudden

awareness” (Marko, 2011, p. 88).

Although “the presence of facilitative agents has been alluded to in the

literature throughout history” (Marko, 2011, p. 88)—such as near death

experiences and other “sudden life-changing events related to the conversion

experience chronicled in Christian literature” (p. 88; see also Bucke, 1901/1969;

James, 1902/1985)—the present-day literatures on human development, however,

do not make explicit “what that variable might be” (Pfaffenberger, 2007b, p. 37;

see also Demick & Andreoletti, 2003). From previous studies, Pfaffenberger

(2003) elaborated: “We can say that although extensive research has been

undertaken in regard to factors that are associated with advances in ego

development, most of the studies add little to our understanding of what actually

fosters growth to the postconventional tier” (p. 31).

Personal Plus versus Personal Minus Debate

Recent scholarship has not settled the question of whether or not the

transpersonal tier (i.e., psychospiritual stages) means formal operations plus or

40
formal operations minus (see Wilber, 1995), and thus two camps of scholars have

subsequently emerged in recent decades. Among the formal-operations-plus band

of theorists, there still remain fundamental questions regarding whether or not

postconventional thinking should be conceptualized as an additional stage or a

“different manifestation of the same stage” (Commons et al., 1984, p. xxvii).

Alternatively, researchers epitomizing the formal-operations-minus side tend to

hold metaphysical assumptions in accord with spiral-dynamic and depth

psychologists. Such is the case with Linn and Siegel (1984) who did not envision

further structure stages above and beyond the formal operational terminal point,

reasoning,

in so far as the evidence has been reviewed, no clear indication of a logical

Piagetianlike stage of postformal reasoning has been identified.
Moreover, such a stage seems impossible since there is no logic more
logical than formal-operational logic. (p. 247)

Along this line of thinking, Cook-Greuter (1999), similarly, posed that

development following formal operations could perhaps be best envisioned as a

successive “step by step deconstruction of the modern rational, analytical

mindset” (pp. 242–243). In this sense, Cook-Greuter explained that such a

reversal would involve “a conscious uncoupling from the conventions that lead to

its acquisition as well as the gradual divestiture of absolutizing tendencies, as

these are part of the reification paradigm” (p. 243).

Intimations of an Authentic Self

The above-mentioned deconstruction process posed by Cook-Greuter

might better explain an oft-noted separate but also connected self (Gilligan, 1982;

Wade, 1996; see also Cook-Greuter, 2000; Fowler, 1981; Gibbs, 1979; Kegan,

41
1982; Kohlberg, 1981, 1984; Loevinger, 1976; Perry, 1968) that appears to

emerge as the frontal ego breaks down beyond formal operational thinking. In

differing ways, this observation has been implied by an interdisciplinary group of

psychologists who speak of an authentic or integrating self, which is said to

emerge somewhere along the postconventional continuum. According to Marko

(2011), it has yet to be seen as to whether this integrated self comes to the fore at

the same time or after the unraveling of the frontal ego:

In the higher levels of development, however, the origin of these

inconsistencies is thought to be not only from feedback from the
environment but may be from nonphysical, transcendent sources . . . Only
sketchy evidence currently exists to indicate that movement through the
lower stages of development may also involve, to some extent, a similar
type of transcendent consciousness. (p. 88)

The neo-Piagetian literature suggests that this underlying intrinsic

intelligence possesses holistic, systems-like qualities that are intrinsically related

to the ability to take a fourth-person perspective (Ingersoll & Zeitler, 2010).

Further, the evolvement of postconventional consciousness suggests that the

“individual's self-identity and moral compass become increasing independent of

outer influences” (Heaton, 2011, p. 182; see also Loevinger, 1976). Travis and

Brown (2011), for instance, noted a unique quality of a knower that seems to

develop beyond formal operational cognition, which essentially alters the

meaning-making process for the individual. For other researchers who have

observed this phenomenon, “self-reflection and totalistic meaning-making are

central” (Commons et al., 1984, p. 384).

Unfortunately, that which makes this inference of an authentic self

“difficult to grasp is that its proponents are not always clear about the structural

42
and temporal relationships that this contemporary psychic quality bears to formal

logical thought” (Broughton, 1984, p. 398). In other words, theorists “often leave

unclear the question of whether the additional cognitive quality is supposed to co-

exist with logical cognition or succeed it” (p. 398). For instance, Gibbs (1977),

Philibert (1981), and, to a lesser extent, Guindon (1978) following Edelstein and

Noam (1982) represent the first Piagetians to have “tackled this issue directly and

clearly” (Broughton, 1984, p. 398). They all have emphasized ways in which

such an existential “perspective can and must complement and enlarge the more

physical version of formal cognition” (Broughton, 1984, p. 400). Withal,

according to Broughton, theorists “typically fail to discuss in any depth whether

the mode of consciousness that they propose is qualitatively superior to formal

thought, whether it presupposes formal thought, or whether it comprises of an

alternative endpoint” (p. 398).

With all this in mind, it seems safe to say that postformal research and

transpersonal thinking often converge with recognition of this alternative form of

consciousness that seems to guide development beyond identification with the ego

and mind. Consistently, the authentic self (e.g., Cook-Greuter, 1990; Graves,

1970, 2005; Jung, 1959/1968, 1985; Maslow, 1968, 1969, 1970; Wade, 1996)

appears to represent “a clear counterpoint to the Piagetian formal structure”

(Broughton, 1984, p. 398) and remains constant amidst a far broader range of

changes than formal reasoning can equilibrate” (Basseches, 1984b, p. 229). Here,

Cortright (2007) attempted to shed some light on why Western models of

43
psychology, nevertheless, so frequently struggle with this most fundamental

identity:

All systems of depth psychology describe a frontal authentic self that is

who we most truly are. Even though there is profound depth dimension to
this frontal self, Western psychology does not penetrate to its most inward
spiritual core. Rather, Western psychological systems describe this
authentic nature in entirely psychological terms—gestalt therapy calls it
the wisdom of organismic self-regulation, existential therapies call it
authenticity, self psychology uses the phrase nuclear self, object relations
uses true self, Jung calls it the Self—but they are all pointing to a deeper,
more authentic level of our being that is the key to a fulfilling life. (p. 27)

Summary

To conclude this chapter, Irwin (2002) proposed after careful study of the

psychological and theological literatures, of mythology, “of human ideas, of

philosophies, and of art” (p. 192) that an increasingly spiritual story of human

development is revealed “that goes beyond the mundane one, a story that

transforms and transcends the day-to-day reality of conventional existence” (p.

192). Meanwhile, “for most individual lives, and indeed for most of social

history, the story of conventional ego and [mind-bound] consciousness

development has been the only story” (p. 192). However, there certainly does

appear to be clear evidence to confirm that rare individuals can and do grow

beyond the limitations posed by the mind and ego and thereby surpass the

conventional territory provided by Piaget’s two-dimensional map. To this

development, Irwin affirmed, “While the story of development from the

preconventional to the conventional is easily recognized and understood, the shift

from the personal to the trans-personal” (p. 192)—transformation from ego

44
identification to psychospiritual emergence—is not so easily understood. And it

is this latter shift that will be of primary concern here.

45
 CHAPTER 3: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS

Related to the foregoing, Cortright (2007) observed, “All psychological

systems arise within a particular spiritual and philosophical context and construct

their view of the human being from basic assumptions embedded in this context”

(p. 2). He continued, “Whether this philosophical context is materialistic or

spiritual has profound implications for the psychology that emerges” (p. 2). It

certainly appears true that over the past 40 years, theorists have effectively

associated personality development with spiritual notions of awakening.

Nevertheless, there is good reason to suggest that whether ascending, descending,

or otherwise (see Daniels, 2005; Wilber, 2007), advanced models of human

development have apparently failed to overcome certain stubborn problems,

biases, and limitations that continue to pervade the established bodies of

theoretical literature. In terms of the wider community of psychologists, Miovic

(2001) reasoned that underlying such conceptual problems, there exist invisible

metaphysical lenses, or worldviews, that lead to the ultimate questions that are not

inconsequential in terms of their implications “because the answers we select for

them determine the framework of metapsychology, and that in turn influences

clinical practice. The answers to these questions depend largely upon what we

believe to be the ultimate nature of reality” (para. 2).

Developmental theories, in particular, tend to presuppose a certain set of a

priori suppositions that enable theorists to conceptualize human growth and

development (Daniels, 2005). Beginning with Aristotle (384–322 B.C.), for

example, it has become increasingly evident that processes of growth and

46
maturation seem best understood when “inserted within an extra-logical

framework of metaphysical concepts and principles (being, becoming, potential,

and so on)” (Broughton, 1984, p. 403). As has been systematically pointed out by

numerous scholars (e.g., Lerner 1985; Lerner & Tubman, l989; Werner, 1957),

the issue of metaphysics is one that goes to the very core of developmental

psychology, perhaps more so than any other field of inquiry, because

developmental frameworks are concerned with highly subjective and invisible

processes “purely determined by theory” (Jarvis, 1997, p. 19). At the explanatory

level, for instance, determining a psychological stage change is not as

straightforward as it seems. The following excerpt from Jarvis highlights the

heart of this challenge.

On first consideration‚ the question of whether or not a change has

occurred may appear to be uncomplicated. After all, either something has
changed‚ or it hasn't. . . . With regard to developmental issues in
particular‚ the determination of change‚ and the specification of what
exactly it is that has changed‚ is far from straightforward. This stems to a
large degree from the fact that concluding that a developmental change
has occurred‚ is far from a purely empirical issue. Nor‚ is the concept of
development itself‚ as Reese and Overton (Reese & Overton, 1980 in
Sugarman, 1989) have observed‚ an empirical one. Thus‚ neither the
determination of change‚ nor the conclusion that development has
occurred emerge in an obvious way from empirical data. Rather, both
concepts are significantly shaped by the set of assumptions and value
judgments guiding the interpretation of what has been observed
(Gergen‚1969). As a consequence‚ the statement that a change has
occurred with regard to issues of human development‚ is not‚ in and of
itself‚ very informative. (pp. 13–15)

Privileged End Points

While there remains an “understandable reluctance to discuss

metaphysics” (Broughton & Zahaykevich, 1988, p. 189) within the larger field of

developmental psychology, many critical scholars have nevertheless noted that

47
metaphysical considerations still fundamentally inform how theorists

conceptualize and render the overall course, goals, and direction of their disparate

developmental maps. For a particularly relevant case in point, consider the

concept of privileged end points. Daniels (2005) explained that posing a

hypothesized end point, is, in fact, a highly revealing act, as it represents the

cause, or telos, of a given developmental stage sequence. Broughton and

Zahaykevich (1988) added that the “telos or goal of growth in a developmental

theory not only defines maturity, but serves to order all previous levels and

explains why and how they are legitimately construed as intermediate steps on the

way to the final stage” (p. 191). In reality, then, an end point functions as “a

regulatory idea that helps to order lower stages and bring them into a

developmental sequence” (Krettenauer, 2011, p. 76). Here, Irwin (2002) expands

upon this basic idea:

Conceptions of the highest stages of development inform what

developmental researchers conceive earlier development to consist of.
Such conceptions inform the way that observations are interpreted, the
way frameworks are used to categorize descriptions, and the way
methodologies and measurements are constructed, articulated, and refined.
(p. 4)

By conceiving of human development in terms of a priori philosophic

categories, Labouvie-Vief (1984) added that a theory’s end point, or apogee,

results in a kind of self-fulfilling prophesy, which also “serves both as a

theoretical observation point as [it does] a conceptual filter” (p. 158). Arguably,

then, an end point intimates a core set of epistemological, metaphysical, clinical,

and educational assumptions as much as it reveals about psychological science.

To a greater or lesser extent, terminal end points, represent illustrative exemplars

48
that epitomize a perfected goal toward which all people ought to achieve.

Therefore, it reasonably follows that the ultimate stage, either explicitly or

implicitly, communicates that which is most important and valuable about a

human being. This notion of assigning a fundamental value to a certain universal

goal seems in overall accord with the liberal view of progress (see Broughton,

1981; Karier, 1972; Manning, 1976), which represents one of the oldest doctrines

in the Western philosophical tradition since the time of Plato, which essentially

asks: What is the single highest good for the human being?

Against this backdrop, Piaget's developmental map appears to serve as a

particularly salient example of the progressive view of liberalism, as it assumes

the same goal principally for all people. That is, by theorizing formal operations

as the final apex of his developmental framework, Piaget was essentially

testifying to his adamant belief in the centrality of logic in terms of the

mechanism and essential telos for all human development (Broughton, 1984).

Since Piaget’s defined his ideal end point as the mind’s most sophisticated

capacity to reason about abstract (single variable, if-then) postulations within a

logical system of scientific reasoning (Cartwright, 2001), then it seems reasonable

to conclude that the rules of logic (e.g. the capacity to solve the most advanced

scientific equations posed by physicists and chemists alike) now become the

wider end to which all individuals should essentially strive.

Critical opposition to the Piagetian doctrine of liberal progress are well

known in the literatures and need not be elucidated here. Suffice to say, formal

operational logic has arguably become “the standard by which acts of reasoning

49
are evaluated as more or less intelligent” (Broughton, 1984, p. 395). Hence, by

placing such emphasis so exclusively on human intelligence and reasoning

processes, the formal operational construct has, in turn, exerted powerful and far-

reaching consequences “not only for psychologists and students, but [for]

educationalists . . . nurses, social workers, counselors, and broad sections of the

public [as well]” (Daniels, 2005, p. 115). On the face of it, Labouvie-Vief (1984)

concluded, “If Piaget's assertion that formal thought constitutes the crowning

achievement of human ontogeny is accepted, such a pessimistic view of adulthood

becomes a logical necessity” (p. 158).

Invisible Metaphysical Biases

Based upon the above discussion, it appears that—akin to a fish that

cannot see it is swimming in water—psychological theories sometimes fail to

perceive their own fundamental biases and limitations. That is, they cannot seem

to get a perspective outside of their own dominant paradigmatic lenses or

worldviews. As has been shown by many scholars and researchers such as

Husserl (1900–1901/1970), Heidegger (1927/1981), Merleau-Ponty (1945/1962),

Gadamer (1960/1975), Berger and Luckmann (1966), Foucault (1972), Derrida

(1967/1978), Bourdieu (1990), Giddens (1984, 1993), Searle (1995), and Schutz

(1945, 1953, 1932/1967), and consistent with the basic assumptions underlying

critical theory, social theory, gender theory, and other deconstructionist theories,

certain ontological and epistemological assumptions, suppositions, or prejudices

should be acknowledged as a starting point for attempting any truth claim about a

given subject matter (see also Alvesson & Deetz, 2000; Alvesson & Kärreman,

50
2000a, 2000b; Atkinson, 1988; Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Blumer, 1969;

Bourdieu, 1990; Calas & Smircich, 1996; Denzin, 1997, 1999; Derrida,

1972/1981; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Foucault, 1972; Garfinkel, 1967; Geertz,

1973; Giddens, 1984, 1993; Habermas, 1979; Harding, 1986; Heritage, 1984;

Kilduff, 1993; Mead, 1934/2009; Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Potter & Wetherell,

1987; Weber, 1947/1964; Weick, 1995).

To be consistent with these and other critical theories, the research

presented here thus presupposes that it is better to explicitly examine contextual

biases “than to suffer the consequences of unexamined, implicit assumptions in

our psychological systems” (Cortright, 2007, p. 2). In order to assess the

metaphysical assumptions that underlie many of the dominant developmental

theories, the present writing, then, draws largely from the work of integral scholar

and professor of psychology Bahman Shirazi. In articulating a framework, the

researcher has employed Shirazi’s (1994) three broad-spectrum metaphysical

considerations (paradigmatic categories or spheres) of subjective self-experience

that he termed: (a) the egocentric, or the composition of egoic (i.e., mental, vital,

and physical) dimensions of the individual associated with the embodied surface

personality (the outer being in integral yoga); (b) the cosmocentric (Ātman-

Brahman in integral yoga) or pure awakening to the impersonal Self or Ultimate

Reality; and (c) the psychocentric, which is the awareness of the entirely unique

and personal aspect of individual consciousness known as the evolutionary soul

(psychic being or the inmost being in integral yoga).

51
 As will be elucidated in the fifth chapter, an exhaustive review and critical

examination of the extant developmental literatures has indicated that while

egocentric and cosmocentric epistemic assumptions appear widespread

underlying much of the contemporary theories of advanced human growth and

development, the psychocentric perspective (or more specifically the individual

soul dimension) and its role in psychospiritual development appears to have been

largely ignored. Strictly speaking, even the highly influential theories of the

transpersonal or higher-Self—first proposed by transpersonal pioneers like Jung

and Assagioli respectively—have been largely abandoned by developmental

researchers in favor of a “much narrower conception of scientific psychology” (E.

F. Kelly, 2007, xvii).

There are several reasons in this researcher’s estimation that might help

explain why the psychocentric dimension has never been successfully studied or

integrated into the larger developmental discourse. That is, the evolutionary soul

dimension has been largely ignored or rejected by the following doctrinal lenses:

(a) positivism; (b) the Cartesian-Kantian legacy; (c) emphasis on scientific

measurement; (d) limits of formal operational logic; and (e) transpersonal

scientism. In this regard, the writer does not pretend to assume that these

categorizations are by any means exhaustive. Precluded by limitations of space,

however, the purpose of the forthcoming analysis is to sketch out, at least

provisionally, the rough and simplified outlines of these five interrelated anti-

psychocentric themes. Indeed, their larger parameters will be revisited in the

upcoming chapters exploring both their nature as well as how these problems

52
might be overcome through an alternative framework, an integral psychology

framework for postconventional development.

Positivism

The first postulated reason for scientific dismissal of the psychocentric

dimension appears related to the field’s rigorous adherence to the verificationist

doctrine associated with the school of positivism, which effectively reduces the

phenomenology of the human soul to epiphenomenal dimensions of neurological

and cognitive complexity. To this point, Shirazi (2015) explained how

positivism, deeply rooted in nineteenth century thought, decidedly severed

metaphysics from that which would be deemed as acceptable scientific inquiry.

In other words, science is a method of knowing, rather than a body of

knowledge. However, as many recent thinkers (Tart, 2009; Sheldrake,
2012) have noted, an unofficial fusion of materialism and science has
produced a dogmatic belief system known as scientism which relies on
either a conscious or an unconscious assumption that material reality is the
only reality, and that all other phenomena such as emotional, mental, and
spiritual phenomena are evolutionary byproducts of matter and the
nervous system. Material monism holds the fundamental assumption that
only matter is real. In this view the metaphysical, including spiritual,
realities are either deemed to be figments of human imagination,
subjective beliefs, or illusions of the mind. These subjective states are
believed to be the source of bias or error and every attempt is made to
isolate or eliminate them. Objective observations are the building blocks
of information that produce scientific facts, which must be replicable and
thus reliable as the basis of firm scientific knowledge under all
circumstances. The so called positivist view which began emerging in the
middle of the 19th century further sealed the scientific method by rejecting
and excluding all metaphysics from science. (p. 18)

E. F. Kelly (2007) remarked how contemporary psychology, rooted in a

Newtonian-reductionist metaphysical framework, has deliberately attempted to

achieve the much-coveted “status of the ‘hard’ sciences, especially physics” (p.

xvii) through an identical emulation of their successful positivistic methods. To

53
this end, Ferrer (2008) contended that a significant problem with positivism is that

it essentially amounts to reductionism, as it holds that “there exists a single

method for all valid knowledge (methodological monism), and that the natural

sciences represent this methodological ideal for all other sciences (scientism)” (p.

58). According to Ferrer (2002), the danger with positivism is not only its

tendency to reduce “valid knowledge to sensory evidence, but also [its]

assimilation of all human inquiry (aesthetic, historical, social, spiritual, etc.) to the

methods and aims of the natural sciences (experimentation, replication, testing,

verification, falsification, etc.)” (p. 56). In light of these reductionistic penchants,

as Sheldrake (2012) put it, conventional scientific thinking has come to represent

a powerful “belief system” (p. 258). “This is tricky and delicate business,” E. F.

Kelly (2007) explained, “for when current scientific opinion hardens into dogma

it becomes scientism, which is essentially a type of fundamentalism, a secular

theology, and no longer science” (pp. xxiii–xxiv).

The Cartesian-Kantian Legacy

In our civilization, we have come to privilege the findings of what we call

“scientific research.” Among the various branches of science, we grant
the greatest honors to the so-called “hard sciences”—that is, to those
sciences which model themselves most closely on the discipline of
physics. We tend to believe that the hard sciences give us true access to
the ultimate realities, which constitute the universe that we inhabit. Now
the hard sciences are based on measurements, and on the discovery of
invariant mathematical relationships among the results of those
measurements. . . . But if we agree that the ultimate realities are those
disclosed by these sciences, then we are committed to the idea that the
ultimate realities are [impersonal], automatic, unconscious, uninfluenced
by purpose, and situated in a spacetime which can be characterized by a
metrical geometry. More simply, we are committed to the proposition that
the ultimate realities are all “physical.” (Weiss, 2004, p. 2)

54
 It seems psychological research has indeed become much like a secular

theology accepting and exploring only those things that are considered to

objectively exist according to specific measurements within a physical space-time

reality. Why is that? Weiss (2003) has perhaps offered some important insight.

He argued that the critical metaphysical turn occurred “when people began to

imagine space as what we now call a Cartesian grid, that grid spread itself out to

cover not only the Earth, but all of the celestial spheres as well” (p. 6). By its

nature, Weiss (2012) explained, “All measurement involves either a ruler (which

physicists rather suggestively call a ‘rigid rod’) or a clock (which physicists call a

‘periodic oscillator’). In either case, the argument is that measurement requires a

fixed standard for comparison, and standards are either spatial or temporal” (pp.

161–162). He further wrote:

If I want to measure something in time, I compare its duration to the ticks

of a clock. If I want to measure something in space, I take a ruler (which
is a standard) and I count how many units designated on that ruler it takes
to equal the extent of the object I am measuring. It is very plain.
Whenever you measure something—whether reading a dial, a digital
readout, or anything else—it all comes down to comparisons between
what we are measuring, on one hand, and rulers and clocks on the other.
But why are rulers and clocks good for measurement? What gives them
this ability? If you think about it you will realize that the reason rulers and
clocks work is because compared to the characteristics we care about, they
are invariant. Periodic oscillators continue to oscillate regularly even
when they are moved, and rulers hold the same length over time and
across space. For very good reasons, we don’t use the songs of birds as
periodic oscillators, or snakes and rubber bands for rulers. (p. 162)

Reflecting Weiss’s observations, Iverson (2008) recalled that the

“modernistic world of positivistic science was constructed on certainties, facts,

and hierarchies of truth about the material world that extended to the social world

and the individual subject's place within it” (p. 119). Consequently, idealists like

55
Kant came to assume that Cartesian space-time must then necessarily serve as a

“precondition for conscious experience” (Weiss, 2004, p. 59). More specifically,

Kant, Spencer, and other agnostics tried to know human consciousness “in the

same way as they know objects. All the objects must conform to the categories of

space, time, etc. in order to be known as objects” (Miśra, 1998, p. 139). Thus

formulated, the ensuing Cartesian-Kantian paradigm has come to strongly

privilege the laws of matter in terms of governing the evolutionary processes of

the mind as well (Broughton & Zahaykevich, 1988).

Weiss (2012) elucidated, “Conditioned by the ideas of the European

Enlightenment, the standard view of reality is based on two basic—and for the

most part unquestioned—assumptions” (p. 231). The first assumption is based on

the phenomenal world, which is considered to be the actual world of matter and

assumed to strictly obey the fixed laws of Newtonian physics. Particularly still

dominant and taken-for-granted in the West today, Sheldrake (2012) summed up

this scientific creed as follows: (a) life is essentially mechanical; (b) matter is

unconscious; (c) “nature is purposeless, and evolution has no goal or direction”

(p. 7); (d) “minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activities of brains” (p.

7); and (e) human knowledge and experience are “stored as material traces in

brains and are wiped out at death” (p. 8). Primarily, then, what should be clear

from this brief outline is that, for current advocates of scientism, it is considered a

given fact (not an assumption) that the physical world is “not conscious, has no

aim, and has no value for itself” (Weiss, 2012, p. 231).

56
 The second above-stated Kantian assumption essentially maintains the

view that while there may exist a transcendent noumenal world, it is

fundamentally unknowable (Weiss, 2012). Therefore, metaphysical concerns

such as the ontological status of a God, questions concerning the immortality of

the soul, and extra-physical (spiritual) realities should be of “no immediate

concern to human beings, who live and seek meaning in the phenomenal realms

of psychological and interpersonal realities” (Daniels, 2005, p. 91). Expanding

upon the latter assumption, Ferrer (2011) provided:

At its heart rests the Kantian belief that innate or deeply seated epistemic
constraints in human cognition render impossible or illicit any knowledge
claim about such metaphysical realities. In other words, metaphysical
realities may exist, but the only thing we can access is our situated
phenomenal awareness of them. The legitimacy of metaphysical
agnosticism is thus contingent on the validity of a neo-Kantian dualistic
metaphysics, which, although not necessarily wrong (based on its
metaphysical status, that is), nonetheless undermines the professed
neutrality of metaphysical agnosticism (cf. King, 1999, pp. 169–186;
Lancaster, 2002). (p. 11)

Similarly stated, metaphysical agnosticism regards the senses, intellect, and

logical reason as the sole means of acquiring knowledge. Here is where

metaphysical agnosticism, characteristic of the postmodern age, can turn slippery.

Cortright (2007), for example, explained that these kinds of agnostic postulations

ultimately come down to the “same fundamental position, namely, the human

mind can never know Truth” (p. 3). Therefore, the argument follows that truth is

eternally relative and, moreover, comprised of an infinite number of constructed

and equally valid viewpoints (that must all essentially be equally true as well).

Relativistic formulations, then, seem to easily slide down the materialistic slope

toward a nihilistic (i.e., atheistic) doctrine. That is, there is no absolute truth.

57
Indeed, this last conclusion seems thoroughly entrenched in postmodern thought

today. In Cortright’s words:

Postmodernism leaps beyond its own recognized limits to assert a claim

that it has just conceded cannot be made, an observation made by several
commentators but that has not yet corrected the problem (e.g., see Smith,
1982). It is a seductive leap, yet a strictly postmodern position can only be
agnostic on the question of ultimate truth. (p. 3)

From “Washburn (1995) to Friedman (2002) to Daniels, (2001, 2005),”

Ferrer (2011) opined, it seems many postmodern developmental theorists have

“prematurely committed themselves to a neo-Kantian dualistic epistemology that

is in fact ideologically tied to a naturalistic, and often materialistic metaphysics”

(p. 27). Despite, in some cases, loud and confident protests voiced against

materialist reductionism, Ferrer noted, throughout the transpersonal literatures,

there appears to be an implicit allegiance to a Cartesian-neo-Kantian dualistic

approach to knowledge that demands the psychological researcher to “bracket or

deny the existence of supernatural and metaphysical realities” (p. 11). This fact

notwithstanding, Ferrer issued a “plea to the transpersonal community to

scrutinize the neo-Kantian assumptions lying beneath agnosticism toward the

extra-physical and extra-psychological ontological status of spiritual realities” (p.

27).

Emphasis on Scientific Measurement

The apparent Cartesian-Kantian stress placed on instruments like the

senses, the intellect, and logical reason leads to a third perceived issue with

admitting the psychocentric dimension: that is, the just mentioned scientific

operation of measurement itself. Especially in the last century, it appears

58
researchers have deployed a formidable array of increasingly sophisticated

clinical, cognitive, neurophysiological, and behavioral methodologies in their

efforts to account for how the brain and nervous system generate structural

development. Various measurement instruments and associated scoring manuals

have since been deployed (e.g., Armon, 1984; Cook-Greuter, 1999, 2004; King &

Kitchener, 1994; Kitchener & King, 1981; Perry, 1968).

While drawing upon several empirical sources, Loevinger and Wessler

(1970) generated a well-known and widely accepted measurement instrument to

assess adult development called the Washington University Sentence Completion

Test (WUSCT), which is “a widely used measure of developmental differences.

It is said to assess ego development encompassing impulse control, character

development, conscious preoccupations, cognitive complexity, and interpersonal

style” (Chandler & Alexander, 2005, p. 385). Along this line of inquiry, “in the

nearly 40 years since the publication of Loevinger and Wessler's [Sentence

Completion Test (SCT)] . . . more than 1,000 articles and book chapters have been

published examining nearly every conceivable aspect of the construct and

measurement of ego development” (Blumentritt, 2011, p. 153). In general, the

most influential postconventional frameworks found in the literatures today, such

as the full-range development theories of Loevinger (1976), Kohlberg (1969), and

Cook-Greuter (1999), all seem to share in common an empirical commitment to

the operationalization of data by means of highly refined psychological

measurement instruments (e.g., paper-and-pencil tests). This data driven

approach, according to Cook-Greuter (2004), has been consistently commended

59
as the “best validated in the field of personality assessment [and moreover] has

been used in thousands of research projects worldwide” (p. 276).

While a great deal of “methodological and substantive progress has been

made by scientific psychology in its first century, [that] can hardly be denied” (E.

F. Kelly, 2007, p. xx); nevertheless, such focus on measurement seems to expose,

once again, an institutional bias towards mechanistic reductionism. It could be

argued that rather than seeking to understand that which intrinsically transforms

and evolves consciousness from within (i.e., the psychocentric dimension),

developmental researchers (e.g., Loevinger, Cook-Greuter, and others) have

instead placed inordinate emphasis on the quantitative methods (i.e., fixed rulers

and rods) themselves—ranging from psychological instruments, scales, and

rigorous inventories of cognitive attributes to advanced models of factor

analysis—to merely measure the expressions, or content, of consciousness

evolution without ever really explaining it. An important point to realize, then, as

Weiss (2003) remarked:

The extraordinary sophistication of the devices that scientists use

for measurements, and the incredible precision of their results, tends to
obscure the humble fact that, in the end, every measurement comes down
to the recognition, in the mind of an actual scientist, of a correspondence
between some phenomenon that he is measuring and some standard that
he, or others, has set. In other words, no matter how complex and
sophisticated a measurement may be, it has, in the end, very important
formal and structural similarities with the simple act of using a ruler to
measure a length. (p. 124)

Limits of Formal Operational Logic

As will be discussed in exceeding detail throughout the present writing,

“major paradigms or schools of thought that underlie particular theoretical

60
frameworks shape the way the phenomena under study are investigated and

understood” (Paterson, Thorne, Canam, & Jillings, 2001, p. 97). As such, it will

be argued that the field’s preoccupation with measuring stimuli and response (the

foremost antiquated notion of a yardstick in psychological research) is not only

based in the logical empiricist’s premise of positivist philosophy but more

fundamentally, epitomizes a consequence of formal operational thinking itself.

Commons and Richards (2003) challenged, “For all its formal and empirical

power . . . [formal operational thinking] cannot be used to reason about certain

types of phenomena, notably those of a non-Boolean nature. Perhaps they cannot

even be used to observe phenomena [at all]” (pp. 200–201). Similarly, Broughton

(1984) provided, “formal operational intelligence is inadequate and, in fact,

grossly inappropriate as a way of understanding and of guiding action in

situations of a psychological or social kind” (p. 407).

Broughton (1981) explained that the Piagetian framework is a flawed

ruler, as it is limited “by metatheoretical, conceptual, empirical, methodological,

and practical desiderata, all of these being imbedded within systematic and

ideological distortions” (p. 408). More precisely, nonlinear conceptions of

causality are not sufficient to understand and describe the fluid reality and orders

of complexity involved in the transformation of human consciousness. Granted,

formal operational research methodologies might be quite sufficient when

employed to “formulate and analyze logical and causal relations [especially in

terms of] situations in which dependent and independent variables are postulated

to exist” (Commons & Richards, 2003, p. 201). But in terms of the psychological

61
study of human consciousness and particularly its evolvement beyond

identification with the mind and ego, formal operational research methodologies

are arguably much too narrow and, moreover, tend to be “unsatisfying for the

very reason that they leave the organization of elements of the phenomena they

describe unexplained” (Commons et al., 1984, p. xxi). For these reasons,

Commons and Richards (2003) concluded, “Almost all theories, including

developmental theories, require, at minimum, the use of [postformal thinking in

terms of] systems to adequately explain the phenomena they address” (p. 201; see

also Commons & Richards, 1984b; Commons, Richards, & Kuhn, 1982).

Transpersonal Scientism

A final matter to be offered up for consideration is a larger methodological

issue, termed here as transpersonal scientism (Ferrer, 2014), which seems to give

shelter to the above-mentioned but under one conceptual umbrella. In terms of

the overall field of transpersonal psychology, Ferrer (2002) reasoned that there is

an apparent fixation, especially among transpersonal researchers, with the need to

be regarded as scientific by the larger psychological community. He explained

that this obvious preoccupation proceeds from “the vast technological success and

social prestige of empirical science in the twentieth century” (p. 20) but perhaps

even more unavoidably with “the modern marginalization of spirituality to the

status of subjective experiences” (p. 20). That is, it seems transpersonalists still

cling to the materialistic and epiphenomenal convictions of “the nineteenth

century founders of scientific psychology [who assumed that] matter is the

primary, independent factor in the universe and that mind is a secondary,

62
dependent byproduct of it” (E. W. Kelly, 2007, p. 53). This tendency toward

epiphenomenal reductionism seems to be the case despite the fact that

transpersonal psychologists have long paid lip service to the ambition of

overcoming the inherent challenges posed by the Cartessian-Newtonian paradigm.

Thus, for many transpersonal theorists, it seems “the modern spell [has] not yet

[been] fully exorcised. It breathes with ease” (Ferrer, 2002, p. xix). Ferrer

explained, to turn transpersonal inquiry

into a modern scientific discipline achieves precisely what

[transpersonalists seek] to avoid, that is, binding transpersonal psychology
to a singular naturalistic worldview with a metaphysical status equivalent
to religious supernaturalism. Although transpersonal psychologists should
definitively remain vigilant against the infiltration of metaphysical or
religious ideologies in the field, scientific naturalism as an alternate
ideology should not be the exception. Whereas it might be impossible to
carry out scholarship without metaphysical assumptions, it is important to
be explicitly self-critical about them and avoid presenting naturalistic
science as less metaphysically biased or as the only path to progressive
knowledge. The alternative, I propose, is to work with a larger
naturalistic-inquiry framework that is open to the viability of a deep and
multidimensional cosmos in which modern science’s narrow
‘‘naturalistic’’ world does not necessarily exhaust the possibilities of the
real. (Ferrer, 2014, p. 176)

More specifically, as Ferrer (2002) has convincingly shown, there appears

to remain a pervasive set of assumptions that still plague psychological inquiry

into transpersonal development, and perhaps the field as a whole. That is, it

seems the current transpersonal argument is rife with a certain privileging of

“residual positivism” (p. 67) and is also flawed with an underlying neo-Kantian

bias in its most fundamental assumptions. Why is this the case? In the first place,

as Ferrer and others have observed, there apparently remains a stubborn “quasi-

obsessive preoccupation of transpersonalists with establishing the empirical

63
foundations of the field” (p. 20). To better lend insight to this issue, it seems

important to consider that many transpersonal practitioners hold certain

“theoretical allegiances [to] camps of scholarship in which adherence to a

particular way of theorizing ensures credibility or acceptance among certain

communities” (Paterson, et al., p. 94). Accordingly, credibility and acceptance

are often “associated with such factors as disciplinary traditions, available

mentors, academic pressure within certain departments, or the apparent simplicity

of particular theoretical options” (p. 94). More and more, then, it seems

transpersonal psychology has become beleaguered with

the burning ambition to be considered “scientific” or, rather, the dread of

being judged “unscientific” [that] may confine a psychologist’s field of
vision to those phenomena, which are wholly objective, relatively simple,
and mechanically measurable, and thus black out most of the [invisible]
activities of human beings. (Murray, 1951, as cited in Broughton &
Zahaykevich, 1988, p. 179)

Mainly, there appears to be a mistaken belief system that transpersonal

inquiry, as a scientific field in its own right, can rid itself of metaphysical

assumptions (Ferrer, 2014). For instance, Ferrer (2002) observed that the long-

sought-after legitimization of transpersonal research has been essentially

dependent upon embracing aforementioned metaphysical agnosticism. In other

words, to be recognized as valid and scientific, transpersonal methodologies have

sought to draw exclusively from naturalistic science, which demands of the

researcher to remain “value free, detached, and objective” (Singh, 2014, p. 41).

The fundamental dictate that follows is this: “Methodological and epistemic

validity claims . . . must be justified through scientific empiricism (e.g., as an

‘inner empiricism,’ a ‘science of human experience . . . a subjective

64
epistemology,’ a ‘science of consciousness,’ or more recently, ‘science of

spiritual experience’” (Ferrer, 1999, p. 87). Without such a naturalistic anti-

metaphysical stance, “transpersonal and spiritual knowledge claims would run the

risk of being charged . . . with subjectivism, solipsism, or even as pathological”

(p. 133).

Perhaps in its attempt to overcome many of postmodernity’s critiques, the

field has made this self-proclaimed post-metaphysical turn (see Wilber, 2004)

declaring itself now to be “free from all metaphysics” (McIntosh, 2007, p. 209).

Nevertheless, as Ferrer here has argued, transpersonal scientism invalidates the

field’s own earlier professed “goal to free the discipline from fidelity to any

metaphysical worldview” (Ferrer, 2014, p. 153; see also Broughton, 1984). As

McIntosh put it, in their seeking to overthrow a set of metaphysics, post-

metaphysical theorists themselves, in fact, engage in a particular practice of

metaphysics—not very meaningful or explanatory metaphysics, “perhaps, but

metaphysics all the same” (p. 207).

Closely related to the above charge, it seems transpersonal psychology is

not in its essence that different from traditional academic psychology, which also

relies principally on a physicalist anti-metaphysical view of reality. Ferrer

contended these metaphysical allegiances and other unrecognized “formidable

conceptual and practical problems . . . ultimately sabotage the transpersonal

perspective from within” (Ferrer, 2002, p. 8). In its place, Ferrer has argued for

the potential of direct knowability of multidimensional reality (see Ferrer, 2002,

2008, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015; Ferrer & Sherman, 2008; Hartelius & Ferrer,

65
2013). What is needed, Ferrer (2002) challenged, “is not to burden spirituality

with the concerns and demands of empiricist science . . . but to discern the logic

of spiritual inquiry and establish its own standards of validity” (p. 3).

Theoretical Frameworks and Qualitative Research

Seeking to overcome such limitations, this researcher found Anfara and

Mertz’ (2006, 2014) exceedingly innovative theoretical approach to be the first to

provide an exceptionally comprehensive and straightforward understanding of

what exactly a theoretical framework is. For Anfara and Mertz, theory

development represents a critical exploration into the inherent beliefs,

assumptions, expectations, and philosophical conceptions that explicitly or

implicitly frame and provide contextual basis for any kind of meaningful inquiry.

With regard to a postformal approach to research, Alvesson and Kärreman (2011)

claimed that theorizing demands of a researcher to understand metaphors,

translate ideas, and synthesize concepts across several different paradigmatic,

epistemological, and ontological contexts. Thus, as a cognitive exercise, they

maintained that theory essentially calls for higher-order, more intuitive, and

interpretive processes of knowing that arguably require a researcher to go beyond

formal operational thinking. For instance, comparing theorizing to standard

qualitative approaches (e.g., Denzin & Lincoln, 2000), Alvesson & Kärreman

(2011) wrote:

It is not so difficult to produce a description of what people do and say

through interviews, observations and other methods, but to continue
beyond that and suggest insights, concepts, explanations and other
“deeper” aspects offering a more abstract theoretical understanding that
goes beyond the relevance of a particular case or sample studied is not so

66
 easy. The empirical and theoretical elements are not always engaged in a
productive interplay. (p. 2)

As Anfara and Mertz (2006, 2014) have well-documented, there appears

to be a significant lack of clarity and understanding in the existing research

literatures concerning the meaning and role for theory, particularly in regards to

qualitative research. Anfara and Mertz elucidated, “Whereas there is little

disagreement about the role and place of theory in quantitative research” (p. 7)—

for example, physics, biology, economics, political science, and anthropology—

such is not the case with respect to qualitative research. Undeniably, there is

neither consensus about theory’s role in qualitative research, nor about what is

even being considered. To a large extent, Merriam (2009) explained that much

“confusion arises about the place of theory in qualitative research because

qualitative research is inductive, [and thus leads] to interpretive or analytical

constructs” (p. 70). More specifically, there appear at least three basic

understandings typically found in the extant qualitative research base about the

role of theoretical frameworks. Anfara and Mertz (2006) explained:

Much of what we credit as warranted knowledge about qualitative

research comes through the relatively small, albeit growing numbers of
textbooks in the field, materials widely used by teachers of research to
prepare and mentor students and neophyte researchers. Examination of
the most prominent of these materials for wisdom about the role of theory
in qualitative research leaves the reader with one of three different
understandings: first, that theory has little relationship to qualitative
research (Best & Kahn, 2003; Gay & Airasian, 2003); second, that theory
in qualitative research relates to the methodology the researcher chooses to
use and the epistemologies underlying that methodology (Crotty, 1998;
Denzin & Lincoln, 2003a, 2003b; Guba, 1990; Lincoln & Guba, 1985),
and to a subset of this position, that it is related to some methodologies
(Creswell, 1994, 1998, 2002; Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996; Patton, 1990; Yin,
1993, 1994); and third, that theory in qualitative research is broader and
more pervasive in its role than methodology (Bentz & Shapiro, 1998;

67
 Flinders & Mills, 1993; Garrison, 1988; Maxwell, 1996; Merriam, 1998;
Miles & Huberman, 1994; Mills, 1993; Schram, 2003; Schwandt, 1993).
(p. xix)

Anfara and Mertz (2014), thus, have called critical attention to “a

substantive body of work that equates theory in qualitative research with the

methodologies used in the conduct of the research and the epistemologies

underlying these methods” (p. 8). In other words, there appears to be a tendency

for qualitative researchers to confuse theoretical frameworks with the particular

methodology being used—assuming that they are one in the same. Hence, the

basic assumptions for many methodologists is that theories do not frame

qualitative inquiry itself; and, moreover, theoretical frameworks emerge out of

methodology in naturalistic value-free ways (e.g., Eisner 1990; Glaser, 1998;

Guba, 1990; Schwandt, 1993).

Anfara and Mertz (2014), however, have critically responded to those who

would seek to situate theory methodologically. According to their view, that is,

rather than equating theory with a particular methodological or disciplinary

tradition, Anfara and Mertz have attempted to define theoretical frameworks in

terms of the researcher and his or her own ontological lens, orientation, or stance,

which he or she brings to the research study. What is even more important,

Anfara and Mertz maintained that theoretical frameworks essentially come first,

as “theory profoundly affects the conduct of the research” (p. 13) and not the

other way around. Thus defined, then, a theory is “a unique way of perceiving

reality, an expression of someone's profound insight into some aspect of nature,

and a fresh and different perception of an aspect of the world” (p. 2).

68
 To understand a theory is to travel into someone else's mind and become
able to perceive reality as that person does. To understand a theory is to
experience a shift in one's mental structure and discover a different way of
thinking. To understand a theory is to feel some wonder that one never
saw before what now seems to have been obvious all along. To
understand a theory, one needs to stretch one's mind to reach the theorist's
meaning. (p. 2)

Given this insight, Anfara and Mertz (2006) contended that scientific

research should never be presumed to be value free or impartial. To the contrary,

they wrote: “Few of us now claim that we enter the field tabula rasa,

unencumbered by notions of the phenomena we seek to understand” (p. 13).

Schwandt (1993) put it succinctly when he said: “A theoretical research is

impossible” (p. 7). Hence, quoting Merriam (1998), Anfara and Mertz (2014)

concluded that theory plays a fundamental role in “framing and conducting almost

every aspect of the study” (p. 11).

Merriam (1998) argued that “many believe mistakenly that theory has no
place in qualitative study. Actually, it would be difficult to imagine a
study without a theoretical or conceptual framework” (p. 45). . . . For
Merriam [2009], the theoretical framework is derived from the “the
orientation or stance that you bring to your study” (p. 66) and draws on the
“concepts, terms, definitions, models, and theories of a particular literature
base and disciplinary orientation” (p. 67). For Merriam, then, theory
affects every aspect of the study from determining how to frame the
purpose and problem, to what to look at and for, to resolving how to make
sense of the data collected. Indeed, she argued that the entire process is
“theory-laden” (Merriam, 1998, p. 48), and that “theoretical framework
underlies all research” (Merriam, 2009, p. 66). (p. 11)

Conceptual Frameworks as Lens, Map, and Myth

Schiller (1905) proclaimed long ago, “For the facts to be ‘discovered,’

there is needed the eye to see them” (p. 60). In this spirit, Page (2011) provided,

“Without a framework to make sense of reality we flounder and lose direction,

[as] development theory asserts that the meaning we attribute to life is determined

69
by the lens through which we view our world and ourselves” (p. 119). As has

been very generally shown in the previous section, theoretical frameworks are not

methodologies. But rather, they help satisfy a most urgent and innate need for

individuals and collectives alike to locate themselves inside larger maps of reality.

That is to say, theory “provides a model or map of why the world is the way it is”

(Anfara & Mertz, 2006, p. xiv). Daniels, (2005) further explained:

Although we may deny the necessity of any such theoretical framework by

claiming the priority of direct experience through practical work, this fails
to recognize that experience must be interpreted if it is to have any lasting
influence—it must mean something—and that practical work can be futile
or inefficient if we are not sure what we are doing or why we are doing it.
. . . In the absence of any such overarching framework we become naked
and vulnerable; our sense of direction and our powers of discrimination
are limited to a reliance upon what “feels right,” and we are consequently
ripe for manipulation and exploitation by those who would seek to
capitalize upon our uncertainties. (p. 131)

Drawing on Korzybski’s (1933) famous pronouncement, Daniels (2005)

warned however, “maps can be useful; [but] they are not the territory. Also, of

course, it is vital that any map is both accurate and usable” (p. 265). The

adequacy of a psychological theory, Anfara and Mertz (2006) maintained, is more

than it being seen as true. For them, a useful framework represents a story with

aesthetic quality and, moreover, one that can provide a person with new insights

and can “expand our understanding of why we think the way we do and what

alternative ways of thinking might be possible if we shift our angle of vision only

slightly” (Paterson et al, 2001, p. 108). Accordingly, a worthwhile theory can be

used to “anticipate, if not control, the future” (Eisner, 1990, as cited in Anfara &

Mertz, 2006, p. 5) and thus in essence might allow for evolving ways of thinking

and seeing that help broaden understanding, provide new insights, and better

70
explain and predict phenomena. Moreover, it can be said that a theoretical

framework satisfies a most basic human impulse toward meaning-making that

leads to transformation.

Daniels (2005) provided, formally, “it is no longer appropriate to insist

that a theory forms a tight logically consistent conceptual framework from which

empirically testable hypotheses may be derived” (p. 141). Even if the truth of a

certain epistemological map can never be verified universally, there still appears

to be a very real human yearning to structure human experience and

understanding in teleological narrative forms (e.g., the hero’s journey of

transformation). Indeed, many thinkers (e.g., Campbell, Eliade, Freud, James,

Jung, Nietzsche) have recognized an exceedingly fundamental narrative structure

that appears to run through almost every myth or story ever told.

The existentialist psychologist, Rollo May (1991), for instance, considered

myth to be imperative not only for its capacity to “provide a sense of

belongingness and imbue existence with meaning” (Hoffman, Stewart, Warren, &

Meek, 2015, p. 119), but also for its ability to inform personal growth and

transformation (see also McAdams, 2007). Culturally, May (1975) saw

mythology as an expressive form of symbolic communication that powerfully

unites members of a society through a shared cause and sense of values. What is

more, Julich (2013) advocated that myth represents a much more meaningful and

accurate account of “the tremendous activity that goes on in humanity all the

time” (van der Post, 1957, as cited in Julich, 2013, p. 210). As Hoffman et al. put

it, “myths provide deep, sustaining meaning and help provide direction in life;

71
they are healthy, growth facilitating, and necessary” (p. 106). In Jungian

parlance, van der Post (1957) echoed, “Myth is the real history, is the real event of

the spirit” (as cited in Julich, 2013, p. 210). Without myth, he said, “no society

has hope or direction, and no personal life has a meaning. We all live a myth

whether we know it or not” (as cited in Julich, 2013, p. 210). With respect to

confirming the truth of myth, Chalquist (2014) offered that the genuine tragedy of

the present age is that myth now is defined essentially as a falsehood or as an

illusion.

“Myth” is a funny word in American culture. We tend to think of myth as

a lie or as an outdated explanation for a mystery long since cleared up by
science. But as Campbell and a host of other mythologists, writers, and
storytellers have observed, myth is actually a framework of meaning, a set
of collective fantasies that story our relationship to each other, the world
and the cosmos. To tell a myth is to tell a culture's dream about its inner
workings and truths. Myth does not convey these truths literally, however.
Like a night dream, a myth tells its tale through symbol, image, and
metaphor. That is why a literalistic approach cannot grasp myths. They
are too slippery, too rich, too multidimensional for that. They don't
explain so much as offer an enchanting, elevating or disturbing
experience, sometimes giving off bright future visions and sometimes
warning us about where we should not go. (para. 5)

Developmentally, May (1991) provided that an individual’s life story is in

itself a personal myth of transformation complete with characters, plots, themes,

struggles, relationships and various other narrative devices. Insofar as a theory of

development can explain anything, Daniels (2005) proposed developmental

theory provides “a myth of human development, a meaningful narrative that

enables people to make sense of their existence, to plan their route through life,

conjure elusive experiences and events, and to facilitate subtle transformations”

(p. 126). In Campbell’s (1949/2014) view, for instance, while it is typically

72
understood that the personal content of each story is unique, there still remain

certain universal symbols or guideposts along the journey that are clearly

unmistakable for all, as they “mark the way along a sacred path” (Halstead, 2000,

p. 2). Halstead offered the mythical “hero's journey consists of a sequence of

steps that, when taken together, also express a process of personal transformation”

(p. 2).

The story of the hero's journey has been told and retold in oral and literary
traditions for centuries. The hero motif captures the strength and
perseverance of the human spirit of men and women so elegantly that it
has not been bound by either cultural or religious tradition (Campbell,
1949). These stories, which tell of the challenges faced by women and
men, reveal a process of personal transformation. Such tales embody the
essence of that sacred space within which one evolves and comes to a
qualitative shift in conceptualizing self in relation to others and the world.
(p. 2)

Daniels (2005) maintained that developmental theory represents a kind of

mythology that serves as an “important attempt to characterize a process of

personal development that has been recognized in various forms throughout

recorded history” (p. 155). Daniels underscored that an “adequate theory would

provide a myth that provisionally outlines the goal, points the way forward,

anticipates the pitfalls and dangers, and describes the virtues necessary to

overcome adversity” (pp. 136–137). Arguably, the best kind of theory is one that

could be used not only as a map but also as a means by which to “reinforce

narrative structure . . . to encourage and to assist individuals and groups in their

quests for the human good” (p. 136). Daniels, nevertheless, challenged,

“Unfortunately, most psychologists have failed to recognize explicitly the

73
mythical nature of their developmental theories” (pp. 137–138). Daniels

continued:

Recognizing the role of social scientists as creators of active myths,

Phillips, Watkins, and Noll (1974) point out that [developmental] theory
“not only identifies individuals as mentally healthy, fully human, etc., but
also creates a rationale or personal philosophy for achieving a state or
process of what is described” (p. 61). In other words, many people are
going to orientate their lives in terms of psychologists’ conceptions of
self-actualization. For this reason, if for no other, it is vital either that
theories of self-actualization can be shown to be valid, or else that the
assumptions underlying them are clearly delineated and made explicit. (p.
120)

Further Considerations

Returning to an earlier point, according to Anfara and Mertz (2006, 2014),

there currently is no longer a comprehensive discussion going on concerning the

meaning or purpose for theoretical frameworks in qualitative research. It seems

reasonable to suggest that underlying this ostensible impasse exists certain

implicit beliefs and unexamined biases. Here, Singh’s (2001) overview of

postmodernity might help hit the mark.

The relativism to which postmodernism eventually culminates is not a new

realization in the history of mankind. The mystics since time immemorial
and across all cultures have recognized the pursuit of knowledge through
mind resulting in agnosticism and relativism. References to mind, with
reason and logic as its instruments, as an incompetent and inferior tool for
such an endeavor is a common feature in mystical literature. (p. 49)

Prejudices inherent in the postmodern paradigm of psychological inquiry might

bear some degree of responsibility, then, in terms of exaggerating a particular

sense of suspicion and-or antagonism against larger theories, myths, or

metanarratives. Closely related to myth, Marsh (2009) defined a metanarrative as

a comprehensive big-picture view of reality, a larger perspective on existence, or

74
a greater story that encompasses and explains a number of much smaller stories.

Metanarratives, moreover, order and elucidate knowledge and experience by

integrating lesser competing narratives together into a much greater and more

meaningful account.

Postmodernism has been self-defined by its incredulity toward guiding

myths or metanarratives (Lyotard, 1984). Ferrer (2002) elucidating this recent

postmodern development, noted that critical theorists (e.g., Bernstein, 1987;

Foucault, 1972; Habermas, 1979) generally regard larger explanatory theories

“today as exhausted and misleading” (p. 97). Many of modernity’s overarching

theoretical frameworks or guiding metanarratives have thus been systematically

replaced with much smaller and more culture-bound stories. To this trend, Marsh

(2009) responded,

To wit, simply to proclaim the end of metanarrative, as Lyotard does, is to

announce the beginning of a new metanarrative in turn. It solves little.
Moreover, despite the arguments, which have been advanced for the utility
of antifoundationalism, that human beings can legitimately live and
function as epistemological beings in the absence of any starting point for
insight or knowledge, it remains that even this is a starting point. There
can be no “beginning-less” experience. (p. 193)

Turning to Marsh’s (2009) more substantive point, he qualified that the

metanarrative that rejects the metanarrative becomes the metanarrative in turn, as

both are intimately intertwined. He wrote, “to posit the possibility of a groundless

postmodern narrative . . . seems to be a contradiction in terms” (pp. 195–196). A

baseless story with no reference point is essentially meaningless. Or put another

way, a disconnected narrative represents a reality that lacks form or substance and

verily offers no real way forward to help people chart their course through life.

75
Perhaps a more precise way to express the foregoing idea is to suggest that an

empty framework represents the ultimate consequence of a psychology without a

soul.

76
 CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY

Western psychology lacks an integrating framework and meaningful

context by which to understand its extraordinary discoveries. Eastern
psychology lacks a way to overcome the dense unconsciousness of the
self’s defensive structures, which pull ever downward. Only by enlarging
psychology to include the inmost depths can we construct a true
psychology of wholeness. This is the meeting of East and West, a union
of the West's outer, empirical science of psychology with the East's inner,
spiritual science of consciousness. (Cortright, 2007, p. 28)

The present writing advocates an integrated, whole person understanding

of postconventional development comprising of the egocentric, cosmocentric, and

psychocentric dimensions of the postconventional self. This being said, it is this

writer’s aspiring purpose to synthesize all three philosophical perspectives into a

larger more meaningful framework, which maintains the ultimacy of the

psychocentric dimension’s unique and necessary role in the transformation of

individual consciousness. This work essentially attempts to bring greater clarity

and awareness to the need to place the psychic being at the defining center of an

emergent metanarrative—one that stands in marked contrast to conventional (one-

sided) accounts. Therefore, the guiding research objective is to frame an integral

model that not only challenges established paradigms but also offers a new

synthesis and a more theoretically satisfying case for the evolutionary soul as a

facilitative catalyst for the evolution of postconventional consciousness.

Indeed, at first glance, the egocentric, cosmocentric, and psychocentric

spheres might appear to be mutually exclusive. However, as Cortright (2007) has

emphasized, a more encompassing perspective like integral yoga psychology

might reveal a hidden harmony between such implied subtleties of meaning (i.e.,

77
epistemology, ontology, and metaphysics) whereby “seeming divergences

converge and their contradictions are reconciled” (p. 28).

As a dialogue partner, this study adopts Sri Aurobindo and the Mother’s

integral yoga psychology as an alternative assumption ground for the

problematization of the extant literatures and to engage in a meaningful

interchange with the paradigmatic assumptions found underlying many of the

established theories. It is hoped that by employing an Aurobindonian theoretical

lens the researcher might be able to confer new meaning on existing

epistemological maps of advanced adult development and thus contribute to new

bases of knowledge and understanding. The ensuing dissertation study, for

instance, might bring about consideration of an alternative developmental account

informed by Sri Aurobindo and the Mother’s inner realizations and praxis

concerning the psychic being—a truly exciting and illuminating meta-synthesis of

egocentric, cosmocentric, and psychocentric spheres of integral becoming.

Towards an Integrated Psychocentric Framework

So now the question: How might a researcher move beyond

aforementioned metaphysical biases and go about the work to meaningfully

situate the psychocentric dimension into a larger integral account of

psychospiritual development? To this aim, the researcher initiated a four-year-

long quest to identify a fitting methodology that could interpret, evaluate, and

synthesize the extant developmental literatures using an Aurobindonian

interpretative lens. The researcher, for instance, explored the methods of a wide

range of approaches from phenomenology and ethnography to survey research,

78
narrative analysis, grounded theory, and heuristic inquiry as well as intuitive

inquiry, thematic analysis, and meta-analysis approaches—to no particular avail.

Verily, the researcher did not want to fall into the perceived trap of selecting a

method just because it is familiar, or because it has been previously employed in

the discipline, or pick a method purely based upon it being readily accepted as

legitimate inquiry. As compelling as the body of developmental knowledge may

be, it became apparent to the researcher, its underlying obsession with positivistic

methods “as the only valid means of acquiring new knowledge” (E. F. Kelly,

2007, p. xxviii) has steadily denigrated into methodolatry—“the methodological

face of scientism” (p. xxviii; see Bakan, 1967).

Cornelissen (2001) pointed out, “Every scientific discipline has its specific

protocols, procedures, and methodologies that are considered essential in order to

arrive at valid knowledge” (para. 1). As Sri Aurobindo (1940/2005) articulated, a

person’s preferred way of knowing ought to be commensurate with that which is

sought to be known. When the aim of research, then, is to contribute towards the

reintegration of the soul dimension in psychological theory, discipline, and

practice, it seems logical to insist that only those methods that would not bracket

nor deny an alternative metaphysical ontology should be considered. In a similar

way, when the goal is the understanding of postconventional consciousness, only

methodologies that go beyond the mind's fragmentary approaches and exceed

formal operational thinking should be envisaged. Indeed, there seems to be a

certain degree of futility in terms of endeavoring to employ formal operational

79
thought and analysis to understand and go beyond formal operational thought and

analysis.

The existing literatures nevertheless appeared virtually silent in terms of

illuminating such a methodology from which the researcher might draw. So

much so, the four-year search tended toward perpetually reinventing the wheel.

Then, rather late in the course of the research process, and almost by accident, the

researcher came across a set of somewhat unconventional albeit highly

encouraging approaches to theoretical and hermeneutic research. Embracing

values like openness, intuition, and interpretation along with the challenging of

ideas and championing the intrinsic discernment and wisdom of the researcher,

the research strategies of Alvesson and Sandberg (2011) and Romanyshyn (2007)

seemed to best satisfy the conditions set forth by the researcher from the outset.

The thread common to both approaches, for instance, is their strong focus on

providing an alternative approach to positivistic and neo-positivistic methods

typically favored by “advocates of objectivistic-dataistic qualitative research”

(Alvesson & Kärreman, 2011, p. 14).

Problematization as Alternative Research Strategy

Particularly in regards to postconventional research, Pfaffenberger (2011)

remarked that many “interesting and creative findings await us . . . if we are ready

to think outside the box and design innovative studies” (p. 22). In the extant

literature, and as can be seen, an increasing number of pioneers have emerged to

push the formal limits of qualitative research. By advancing a highly original and

rigorous approach to theory generation called problematization, organizational

80
researchers Mats Alvesson, Dan Kärreman, and Jörgen Sandberg (see Alvesson &

Kärreman, 2000a, 2000b, 2007, 2011; Alvesson & Sandberg, 2011, 2013a, 2013b;

Sandberg & Alvesson, 2011) have contributed to renewed debate concerning how

researchers might better arrive at exciting and persuasive theoretical

frameworks—less susceptible to the typical pitfalls characteristic of the

contemporary quantitative and qualitative research traditions.

Citing increasing demands for alternative approaches to theorizing,

Alvesson and Sandberg (2011) indicated, “It is increasingly recognized that what

makes a theory interesting and influential is that it challenges our assumptions in

some significant way” (p. 247). Alvesson and Sandberg have thus invited

researchers to critically rethink existing theories in the literature by challenging,

or problematizing, their underlying metaphysical, epistemological, ontological,

and-or theoretically taken-for-granted biases and assumptions. To problematize,

according to Alvesson and Kärreman (2011) is to question the “value of a theory

as well as to explore its weaknesses and problems in relation to the phenomena it

is supposed to explicate” (p. 15). Problematization, then, requires significant

critical thinking—the kind that challenges core institutionalisms.

Granted, “it can be tempting to concentrate primarily on what has gone

wrong or what is missing from previous research rather than on what the research

may have contributed to an understanding of the phenomenon” (Paterson et al.,

2001, p. 129). Here, it is important to make an essential philosophical distinction

between the strategic research approach advanced by Alvesson and Sandberg

(2011) and dialectical problematization, which underlies many variants of critical

81
theory today as established, for instance, by French poststructuralists such as

Michael Foucault and Jacques Derrida. Diverging along rather striking lines, the

former distinction has been said to engage in proactive knowledge building while

the latter “can run the risk of being perceived as tearing down the body of

knowledge rather than as contributing to its development” (p. 129).

Problematization, as outlined here, is neither an end in itself nor is it its aim to

destroy previous theories. To the contrary, it represents a positive research

agenda that seeks to discover a deeper and broader understanding through a fusion

of horizons (Freeman, 2008).

Dialogue with an Alternative Assumption Ground

History shows that phenomena, experiences, facts, and theories remain

unrecognized unless they can be combined with, integrated into and linked
up with existing knowledge and paradigms. A successful new paradigm is
not a paradigm, which suggests: Throw away the old stuff, I’ll give you
something completely new. In that sense voices coming from the
transpersonal camp and demanding a “new” science are not all that
helpful, if they cannot at the same time point out, how to really integrate
what is “new” with what is there. Quantum mechanics was successful not
because it was new, but because it could integrate what was there into a
new framework, which explained the same phenomena as well as the old
theories plus could make testable predictions and integrate some odd
phenomena left unexplained by Newtonian mechanics. (Walach, 2005, p.
25)

Walach (2005) qualified that “historians and theoreticians of science have

repeatedly noted that the progress of a scientific discipline is not simply a

cumulative process of increasing knowledge along the lines of accepted

methodology” (p. 16), but in fact, involves “constant discussing and debating [of

their] very foundations” (p. 16). Walach explained that an entirely new

understanding of reality can only be truly meaningful when it can be linked to

82
“given frameworks of accepted presuppositions” (p. 16). In terms of the

understanding the postconventional self, perhaps progress would be better served

by a multiplicity of voices, as Ferrer (2002) postulated, all debating, shaping, and

transforming each other.

Problematization, as outlined above, aims to advance the established bases

of knowledge through meta-theoretical dialogue between the inherent

assumptions of the field and an entirely unique theoretical framework or

alternative assumption ground. Alvesson and Sandberg (2013a) provided that an

alternative assumption ground represents a fresh and original perspective, or

theoretical lens, introduced by the researcher to help add new insights, richness,

and discovery to an already highly influential set of theories. Alvesson and

Sandberg stressed that “alternative assumptions are not necessarily ‘better’ than

those challenged” (p. 91) but offer, perhaps, a better manner in which to resolve

theoretical problems within the literatures and reframe contradictory ideas rather

than fight against them. Concerning the appropriateness of an alternate

theoretical framework, Alvesson and Sandberg posited, “The aesthetic dimensions

of the alternative assumption ground are also central in composing an appealing

and convincing argument” (p. 64).

Hermeneutics of the Soul

Anyone who wants to know the human psyche will learn next to nothing
from experimental psychology. He would be better advised to abandon
exact science . . . [and] reap richer stores of knowledge than text-books a
foot thick could give him, and he will know how to doctor the sick with a
real knowledge of the human soul. (Jung, 1916/1953, para. 409)

83
 Depth psychologist Robert Romanyshyn (2007) has attempted to provide a

hermeneutics of the human soul that neither attacks nor denies metaphysical

reality. Romanyshyn proclaimed his imaginal approach, called alchemical

hermeneutics, could be employed to reveal, introduce, and engage with this

invisible domain—an ontological realm in its own right, something distinct from

the realm of the intellect and of the senses. Alchemical hermeneutics, in its

present form, is an approach to research that appears “more complete [and] more

comprehensive in its service to soul, by making a place for those more subtle

ways of knowing too often marginalized by methods that do not take into account

the unconscious presence of the researcher to his or her work” (pp. 259–260).

Salaverry (2008) remarked, “If imaginal research is in service to awakening the

soul, then it is quite different from its conventional counterpart” (pp. 66–67).

The root meaning of the word hermeneutics comes from the Greek words

hermeneuein and hermeneis (pointing back historically to Hermes, the wing-

footed messenger-god of communication) and translates, in modern-day parlance,

to mean: to interpret, to explain, to translate, and to find deeper understanding

through dialogue. Attempting to further trace the origins of hermeneutics, Palmer

(1969) added that “the word hermeios refers to the god of prophesies, oracles, and

dreams” (as cited in Harman, 2012, p. 31). In mythology, that is, the god Hermes

“was known as a go-between, an interpreter. He worked to bring about positive

change and new possibilities” (L. Barrett, 2013, p. 26). Therefore, Hermes is the

one who moves through the middle way and provides an intermediary course

between the realms of the human and Divine, internal and external, individual and

84
collective. In the presence of Hermes, the hermeneutic approach recalls the “the

one who translates that gap” (Romanyshyn, 2007, p. 220), the one who transmutes

that which is hidden and moves beyond the realm of human understanding and

translates this knowledge “into a form that human intelligence can grasp”

(Palmer, 1969, p. 13).

Gibson-Kottler (2009) noted that hermeneutics offers an approach to

research that “requires the all-encompassing process where every aspect is

relevant and considered in the results. The outcome itself is from the beginning

shaped by the research” (pp. 60–61). Hence, right from the start, all of the

hermeneutical pieces are present in the dialogue while the researcher employs “an

interpretive system to render an exegesis that brings to surface the hidden

meaning” (Palmer, 1969, p. 43). This hermeneutic process necessarily moves

behind the text and beyond the intellect “to find what the text did not, and perhaps

could not, say” (p. 234).

Palmer (1969) described hermeneutics even more poignantly as a love that

overcomes any gap or separation. In loving union, that is, the interpreter and text

become the “partners in the hermeneutical dialogue . . . a union made possible by

a common ground in being” (p. 244). Thus, the research can be done with an

attitude of spiritual-like devotion or bhakti. Through connection with the Divine

feminine (see Jung, 1938/1958), alchemical hermeneutics might provide an

awakening of Sophianic wisdom, or the feminine element of interpretation

through the “art of receptivity” (Romanyshyn, 2007, p. 231). Such a feminine

mode of understanding allows for the intuition of the researcher to deepen in

85
engagement with the work, which allows “oneself to be addressed and penetrated

by the work, and helps one carry the work to term” (p. 231) while also facilitating

its birth. Romanyshyn (2007) maintained that alchemical hermeneutics is the “art

of learning how to carry to term the work that is asking to be born” (as cited in

Harman, 2012, p. 33). In this spirit, Potter (2015) offered that hermeneutics with

the soul in mind “is re-search, or a searching again, for something that has already

made its claim upon the researcher” (p. 139). Quoting Corbin (1977),

Vandewalle (2012) explained:

A “sacred” and “spiritual” act that is an act of remembering that perhaps

“re-search done with soul in mind is simply a recognition that all of our
acts of knowing are attempts at remembering what we once knew but have
forgotten” (p. 268). . . . Jung’s notion of individuation through the
alchemical processes works directly with the symbols and symbolic
meaning; . . . beyond the images and symbols to an embodied experience
of the divine or pure consciousness. . . . research done with soul in mind is
a “spiritual method,” meaning that the researcher “undergoes a radical
transformation,” (p. 269). The researcher is “initiated into another way of
knowing and being.” (p. 269). (p. 75)

With respect to alchemical hermeneutics, Romanyshyn (2007) noted

significant biases he perceived throughout the research literature against

metaphysics and, more significantly, the soul dimension. “Alongside a

hermeneutics that privileges intelligence and reason” (p. 231), Romanyshyn

wrote, “we also need to have a hermeneutics that gives a place to intuition and

feeling as ways of knowing a text and being addressed by it” (p. 231). With an

attitude “hospitable to paradox and ambiguity,” Romanyshyn (2012, p. 98) added,

alchemical hermeneutics makes a place for both transrational (postformal)

understanding along with intuitive ways of knowing (e.g., knowledge by identity;

see Cornelissen, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2011a, 2011b, 2012; Cornelissen,

86
Miśra, &Varma, 2014; Joshi & Cornelissen, 2004). Romanyshyn (2007)

clarified, “In alchemical hermeneutics, this obedience is in service of the soul of

the work, the angel of the work” (p. 230). And in this way, “the primary point of

alchemical hermeneutics, its processes, and methods, is to supplement all other

approaches and methods of research” (L. Barrett, 2013, p. 26) by acknowledging

and making a place for the soul within the researcher.

Theoretical Hermeneutics

The multi-disciplinary approach presented here involves research

strategies that promote interpretation; and thus in this respect, they resemble the

qualitative methods frequently employed within the field of transpersonal

psychology. As an integral approach, however, they attempt to arrive at a more

synthesized, theoretical, and metaphysical orientation that is decidedly not

dataistic scientific naturalism. At the same time, these strategies acknowledge

and respect prior knowledge and understanding and, moreover, place them in

dialogue with new understanding as it arises. To avoid a confusion of meanings,

the writer has reserved the term theoretical hermeneutics to characterize the

present study’s emergent hermeneutic and theoretical design, which is employed

provisionally to guide the present research project forward to the eventual

culmination of this exhaustive five-year endeavor.

The dissertation study approaches theorizing in a multifaceted way and

from several advanced and distinctive angles—not only in its attempt to challenge

the extant literatures with an alternative assumption ground but also in its integral

aim for a deeper and richer dialogue. More importantly, theoretical hermeneutics,

87
as so far defined, emphasizes an intuitive relationship to the work aimed at a

preservation of meaning, which is not merely based upon formal operational

understanding nor so much concerned “with amassing verified knowledge, such

as would satisfy the methodological ideal of science” (Gadamer, 1960/1975, p.

xxii). But rather, such a theoretical hermeneutic approach is concerned with “the

experience of truth that transcends the domain of scientific method wherever that

experience is to be found” (p. xxii).

In this study, the writing has drawn upon a representative sampling of

works to illuminate the research possibilities for an integral (Aurobindonian)

developmental vision. To an impressive degree, that which distinguishes these

approaches from other deductivist and inductivist research agendas is their

commitment to mutual theoretical dialogue that might transcend Piagetian

constraints grounded in nineteenth century thought. Beginning with rejection of a

positivist agenda, then, the approach to theorizing as advanced in the present

study embraces a more hermeneutical, transformative, and dialogical approach to

theory and meaning making. By adding the complementary approaches of

problematization and alchemical hermeneutics, the study emphasizes how “pre-

understanding, paradigm, and metaphor can pre-structure our basic

conceptualizations of what we want to study” (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2011, p. 5).

In as much as an emergent rather than predefined research strategy, it is distinct in

terms of offering a multi-dialectical process that is neither purely data (i.e.,

according to the naturalistic metaphysical worldview) nor methodology driven.

Altogether, these approaches allow the researcher to move beyond postmodern

88
methodologies that might insist she deny any alternative metaphysical reality.

Instead, the inquiry is allowed to positively pursue a theoretical framework with

its roots deeply planted in the fundamental study of the human soul.

Methodological Considerations

Ascertaining the truth of a thing is always a strange and slippery business.

. . . Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein would deal with such
problems by saying that something could be “true enough.” One
interpretation of this being that if everything is relative, there’s little point
in declaring something to be totally 100% true for everyone, in every
situation, all the time. . . . Subjectively speaking however, we can feasibly
say that something is true for ourselves. We can overlay a thing against
our inner knowing and feel the essential veracity of it; judge its usefulness
as a positive tool for perceiving and articulating our own reality tunnel.
To call something “true” in this way is simply a piece of functional
shorthand. (N. Kramer, 2011, para. 13)

It should be conceded from the outset, interpretation as employed here

does not seek to dwell on evidence for and-or against the soul nor attempt to

establish the ontological reality of the psychocentric dimension. For that matter,

this research does not attempt to prove anything at all. As Rachael (2012) put it,

such a theoretical hermeneutic endeavor “does not interpret texts in an attempt to

prove the existence of underlying phenomena arising out of a pregiven or

objective static ground” (p. 69). While the present writing honors the

evolutionary insights of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother and furthermore attempts

to remain as devoted as possible to their integral yogic psychological perspective,

it should be emphasized that the researcher does not pretend to offer up a

universally verifiable and predetermined path, nor a grand map (e.g., Wilber,

2000a; see Shirazi, 2001), that should be applied to all psychological theories and

all spiritual traditions at all times, for all people, now and in the future. In other

89
words, she makes no absolutist claims in terms of the ensuing integral psychology

framework she presents.

Validity

Primarily, the present study has sought a radical departure from scientific

naturalism, or the strict emphasis on robust (formal operational) data—typically

considered the “ultimate validator for knowledge claims” (Alvesson & Kärreman,

2011, p. 15). Indeed, it seems both inductivist and deductivist approaches to

qualitative research typically share a deep-seated trust in the capacity of positivist

data to ensure trustworthiness and reliability (through the typical rigors of

triangulation, peer auditing, member checking, thick description, etc.).

Unequivocally, psychology and its methodologies have long been confined to a

scientific paradigm where substantiation of validity is based upon formal

operational measurement of observable data, which establishes a cause-and-effect

relationship between variables. Whatever the appealing merits and practical

power that formal operational methods may offer, they do not seem to do a very

good job of explaining and making sense of the deeper realities. To this point,

Cornelissen (2011b) wrote:

Any science that wants to make cumulative progress must look below
surface appearances. We have done this with astounding results in the
objective domain, but as a civilization, we have neglected the inner side of
the equation. Cataloguing and correlating phenomena that are either
visible right on the surface (behavior) or directly below it (through surveys
based on naïve introspection) is not enough to develop a really meaningful
and effective psychology. (p. 98)

In Essays Divine and Human, Sri Aurobindo (1997a), nevertheless,

cautioned those who would “claim to be the pioneers of a new kind of Science,

90
[as] they must substantiate their claims” (p. 68). Hence, regardless of the present

study’s acceptance of the potential for direct knowability of multidimensional and

spiritual realities, a brief discussion on how to establish the validity of a

theoretical work still needs brief mention. Vaille, King, and Haling (1989), for

example, defined validity as referring “to the notion that an idea is well-grounded

and well-supported and thus one can have confidence in it” (p. 57; see also

Polkinghorne, 1989). Rather than evaluating the level of empirical objectivity to

establish traditional validity, Kvale and Brinkmann (2007) emphasized, instead,

that validity ought to go beyond method and, essentially, account for the

credibility of the researcher. Explaining such an alternative purpose for validity

this way, Kvale (2002) wrote:

Validation comes to depend on the quality of craftsmanship in an

investigation, which includes continually checking, questioning, and
theoretically interpreting the findings. In a craftsmanship approach to
validation, the emphasis is moved from inspection at the end of the
production line to quality control throughout the stages of knowledge
production. (p. 309)

The present study expressly aims for internal validity, which refers to (a)

the rational soundness of the researcher’s theoretical presuppositions, which

validate the “logic of the derivations from theory to research questions of the

study” (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2007, p. 248); (b) the accuracy of the researcher’s

definitions and interpretations of the concepts being studied; and (c) the logical

consistency between the study’s central thesis and the manner in which the

researcher develops her arguments in order to support trustworthiness of her

theoretical framework—in the case of the present study, for instance, the degree

to which an integral framework of postconventional development can clearly

91
respond to the limitations established through problematization of the extant

literatures.

According to Kvale and Brinkmann (2007), a highly valid study refers to

much more than the adequacy of the study’s methodology and purpose, but can be

measured according to its capacity to reveal knowledge that is beneficial “to the

human situation while minimizing harmful consequences” (p. 249). The

interpretive researcher ensures internal validity by writing with sincerity and

authenticity (Anderson, 2004; Creswell, 1998; Kvale, 2002); by ensuring the

appropriateness of texts for analysis; through reliable interpretation; as well as

“careful questioning as to the meaning of what is said and a continual checking of

the information obtained” (p. 249). Mertens (2005) further maintained that

internal validity, coherence of logic, and credibility of the researcher can be

significantly strengthened as a direct result of substantial engagement and

prolonged immersion with topic at hand.

The potential threats to internal validity involve the researcher’s

unexamined biases and assumptions, which are natural and inevitable in any

interpretation process. Indeed, every interpretive researcher brings to the inquiry

his or her own perspectives, which unavoidably present subjective biases that can

distort even one’s best attempts at dispassionate analysis. Daniels (2005) opined

that developmental theories can be demonstrated as valid as long as they do not

violate logic, ethics, or the facts, and as long as their “assumptions underlying

them are clearly delineated and made explicit” (p. 130).

92
Limitations

Such a broad sweep as this is undeniably imperfect, as any effort to

interpret such a vast body of theoretical literature requires careful examination

from a variety of perspectives, contexts, and ways of knowing. For instance, the

very process of identifying assumptions underlying a particular set of theories

calls for intuitive conjecture on the part of the researcher, as specific biases are

not typically clearly stated. That is, “authors of published reports are not always

frank about the way their theoretical [assumptions] have shaped their research

questions, designs, interpretations, and conclusions” (Paterson et al., 2001, p. 94).

The process of interpretation, might, for instance, extend from that which has

been studied to that which has not—thus permitting “speculation about why this

might be so” (p. 115). In this way, the researcher could help others understand

certain problematic areas in the theoretical literatures, which have typically been

“ignored, misconstrued, or mistreated” (Kasper, 1994, p. 268). Rachel (2012)

elucidated:

Transpersonal thinkers have a further limitation: they are dealing with a

domain that is usually less objective than the domains with which other
theorists work. The material that they are interpreting (e.g., reports of
events that occur in nonordinary states of consciousness) is notoriously
hard to verify. . . . Furthermore, the material interpreted by transpersonal
thinkers often consists of their own experiences in nonordinary states of
consciousness or it consists of the experiences of individuals whose
experiences may have been influenced by the beliefs of a spiritual
tradition (e.g., Foxwood, 2007, 2008, reporting upon the experiences of
practitioners of the Faery Tradition) or the guidance of a clinical program
(e.g., Newton, 1994, reporting upon the experiences of clinical subjects
that were hypnotically guided into a nonordinary state of consciousness).
Because these experiences themselves may be colored by personal
psychology or internalized doctrines, they may represent particularly
limited data, and so may need to have their reliability particularly
scrutinized. (pp. 42–43)

93
Ethical Epistemology

The considerations of integrity, sincerity, and authenticity of the

researcher are deemed quite imperative even in terms of an intuitive and

interpretive approach like this. That is to say, it is still important to conduct a

very careful and close reading of the texts so as to remain faithful to their

intended meaning and context. Thus, such a theoretical hermeneutic method

essentially requires “returning again and again to the narrative each time with an

increased understanding and a more complete interpretation” (Gibson-Kottler,

2009, p. 59).

Such an approach, according to Harman (2012), moreover, “demands

ethical responsibility, as in traditional forms of research. However, in this

imaginal approach that keeps soul in mind, responsibility is extended vertically,

so the researcher is ethically obligated to consider the other(s)” (p. 36). She

continued, that this kind of accountability brings “presence to the work, as well as

the strangers in the work-past researchers who carry the unfinished business in the

soul of the work” (p. 37). Having an ethical epistemology, means that the

researcher “accepts responsibility [and] acknowledges the work that has been

made, knowing fully that the work that has been made was not fully of his or her

making” (Romanyshyn, 2007, as cited in Vandewalle, 2012, p. 167).

To further contribute to the accountability of the work, the researcher has

sought the intuitive guidance and non-physical direction of Sri Aurobindo and the

Mother, exclusively, through ceaseless prayer and meditation (even during the

sleep state). Throughout the research and writing process, she has thoroughly

94
submitted herself to ongoing sādhanā and transformation of her own

consciousness, which is demanded by the practice of integral yoga. On a more

practical level, the researcher’s dissertation committee comprised of deeply

knowledgeable scholars (Bahman Shirazi, Carol Whitfield, and Matthijs

Cornelissen) along with other experienced integral thinkers have been readily

consulted to provide ongoing critical review and feedback in regards to the

researcher’s interpretations of the literature and synthesis of the texts. Bryman

(2006) explained:

Critical reflection on one’s own work, and invitation of critical comment

from others, is an established principle of academic study. Where the
research field is highly complex and the methods emergent rather than
predefined, peer review is especially important, and must be formative
(i.e., intended to feed into the research process) rather than summative
(i.e., intended to judge its outputs). (p. 24)

Sri Aurobindo (1997a) explained, however, that to understand a sacred

text, it is not enough set up another as an authority, as this places the other person

between oneself and true knowledge. Furthermore, “it is not enough to be a

scholar, one must be a soul. To know what the drashta saw one must oneself

have drishti, sight, and be a student if not a master of the knowledge” (p. 37). He

clarified, that “grammar, etymology, prosody, astronomy, metaphysics, logic, all

that is good; but afterwards there is still needed the higher knowledge by which

the Immutable is known” (p. 37).

For this reason, the Mother was careful to caution seekers of higher

knowledge that until the higher realization is fully secured in the entirety of one’s

being, there remains the intercessory need for a guru (spiritual teacher). In Words

of Long Ago, she (2004) wrote, “Until you are definitely one with the Divinity

95
within. The best way in your relations with the outside, is to act according the

unanimous advice given by those who have themselves had the experience of this

unity” (p. 107). Echoing the Mother’s guidance, Sri Aurobindo (2012) elucidated

in Letters on Yoga I:

On the other hand if you are not prepared to go through all that yourself—
as few can do except those of extraordinary spiritual stature—you have to
accept the leading of a Master, as in science you accept a teacher instead
of going through the whole field of science and its experimentation all by
yourself—at least until you have accumulated sufficient experience and
knowledge. If that is accepting things a priori, well, you have to accept a
priori. For I am unable to see by what valid tests you propose to make the
ordinary reason the judge of what is beyond it. (p. 383)

Reprisal from the Field

Before concluding this section, some words of warning might be in order,

as Cornelissen (2001) thoughtfully explained, “Well-established presumptions

about reality and about knowledge . . . are rarely made explicit and even more

rarely questioned” (para. 1). Furthermore, “It is hard to challenge these

fundamental premises because so much of the discipline is built on them. Almost

everything the discipline has achieved is contingent on their inviolability” (para.

1). In a similar vein, Paterson et al. (2001) cautioned:

Although we have encouraged skepticism, questioning assumptions, and

seeking alternative explanations as a useful strategy to focus one's gaze
beyond the obvious interpretations, we recognize that drawing conclusions
in direct contradiction with the tenants of established or accepted
theorizing is not without some professional and personal risk. (p. 107)

Consequently, Cornelissen (2001) advised researchers to become aware

not only of their studies’ contextual issues but also the serious conceptual and

practical difficulties involved with challenging any established field of inquiry.

More specifically, when engaging in critical scholarship, examiners should be

96
“aware that not all who learn of their conclusions will interpret them charitably”

(Paterson et al., 2001, p. 107). Indeed, unless their findings are disseminated with

extreme care and sensitivity of the leading theorists who “have devoted their

careers to research that supports a specific theoretical frame, it is unlikely that

they will welcome the findings . . . of researchers who argue that [their] theory is

inadequate or inappropriate to explain the phenomenon under study” (p. 106–

107).

Procedures

In a research project such as this, the study’s design does not simply

consist of a straightforward and

linear process of reading the literature, identifying a theoretical

framework, and then writing the problem statement. Rather the process is
highly interactive. There are several ways to identify what your
theoretical framework is. . . . Each of us has been socialized into a
discipline (such as education, psychology, business, and the like) with its
own vocabulary, concepts, and theories. The disciplinary orientation is
the lens through which you view the world. (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015, p.
85)

L. Barrett (2013) explained, “method, as it is usually conceived, is a series of

rules, procedures, and techniques of how one works with the work” (p. 25). For

instance, grounded theory is frequently undertaken according to a long list of

steps and sub-steps. All this is fine and good in principle, and yet, from the

present standpoint, the “most interesting (complex) ideas cannot be easily

‘checked’ against data and empirical measures are always contestable” (Alvesson

& Kärreman, 2011, p. 28). Hence, Alvesson and Sandberg (2013a) contended,

research approaches such as “problematization cannot be reduced to a mechanical

97
or even strictly analytical procedure, since it always involves some kind of

creative act” (p. 57).

Paterson et al. (2001) encouraged theoreticians to “resist definitive

procedural steps and [pursue] instead a dynamic and iterative process of thinking,

interpreting, creating, theorizing, and reflecting” (p. 112). Due to the nature of

the proposed (theoretical and hermeneutic) methods presented here coupled with

problematization as a research strategy, it has been decided that procedures would

remain fluid and tentative at best, as they might better reveal themselves through

the research process itself. In these types of projects, for instance, it is typically

not “possible to predict the degree to which a new theory can be synthesized until

the [texts] are individually and collectively interpreted” (Paterson et al., 2001, p.

120).

To accomplish these research objectives and moreover ground the inquiry

into a firm understanding of the existing psychological literatures, the investigator

undertook an in-depth review of a wide array of well-established postformal,

postconventional, and transpersonal developmental stage-theories. Because of the

interdisciplinary nature of this dissertation study, the researcher approached the

literature review to primarily establish some of the most pervasive contours of the

topic, but also to touch upon such fields of inquiry that are intimately connected

like philosophy, metaphysics, and epistemology. The researcher subsequently

identified several hundred texts and scholarly writings for closer reading. In the

context of this review, she explored the paradoxes and tensions between the

different research traditions to make sense of the conflicting findings. Due to the

98
contradictory nature of the literature, it was not clear which writings the

researcher should include and those that she should ignore, particularly in the

early stages of the review. Hence, in a non-linear fashion, the researcher

employed snowballing (i.e., pursuing references of references) and electronic

citation tracking combined with exhaustive database searching (e.g., ProQuest

and Google Scholar). Additionally, the researcher effectively employed her ever-

expanding Kindle e-library totaling hundreds of electronic textbooks.

To summarize to this point, the general strategy was to make an adequate

case for an integral psychology framework for postconventional development. In

view of so many circularities and paradoxes, the researcher resolved to first

“assess the overall state of psychology, as it exists here at the beginning of the

twenty-first century, from a perspective that deliberately but selectively [took]

into account its first hundred-plus years of organized scientific effort” (E. F.

Kelly, 2007, p. xiv). Hence, the researcher spent several years exhaustively

compiling and meticulously transcribing, sorting, codifying, and cataloging over

100 pertinent theories into a searchable Microsoft Excel database.

The researcher then performed an in-depth, systematic analysis, and

critical examination of the competing bodies of literature most central to her

theoretical area of interest. This extensive critical review revealed some of the

deeper ontological, epistemological, and metaphysical assumptions that appeared

to underpin many of the conflicting theories and methodologies in the literatures.

Sri Aurobindo and the Mother’s conceptual framework concerning the evolving

soul (psychic being, psychic transformation, and psychicization of integral yoga

99
psychology) was thus established as an alternative assumption ground. The

researcher then evaluated each theory according to Shirazi’s (1994) three basic

paradigmatic (i.e., egocentric, cosmocentric, and psychocentric) lenses, which

appeared exceptionally fitting in terms of characterizing the divergent

developmental factions.

As indicated, the above-mentioned phases of the research endeavor have

entailed several years of preparatory study, dialogue, and personal spiritual

inquiry. The research question and subquestions that follow have been

formulated based upon the forthcoming problematization of the literatures, which

has since guided the dissertation research forward. The researcher subsequently

performed a codified (line-by-line) textual analysis of the Complete Works of Sri

Aurobindo (Sri Aurobindo Birth Centenary Library, 1970–1973), Mothers'

Questions and Answers, the Mother's Agenda (1965–1973), and the Collected

Works of Mother Mirra Alfassa (1972–1987; all of the above texts are available

online in a searchable PDF format at www.sriaurobindoashram.org). This

hermeneutical process has subsequently involved textual analysis, thematic

tagging, sorting, and interpretation of thousands of pages of writings. The writer

has thus recorded key concepts, central metaphors, and important phrases that

best described the role of the psychic being and its relationship to the

transformation of individual consciousness and, moreover, its potential role in the

unfoldment of advanced stages of postconventional development.

From the thorough reading of the integral texts, the researcher has sought

to illustrate her interpretation of postconventional stages of consciousness through

100
a series of illustrated maps and charts. Next, the writer placed her emergent

postconventional framework in a dialectical interchange with the domain of

developmental literature that was targeted for assumption challenging with the

explicit goal to answer the dissertation’s research question along with its stated

subquestions. In many instances, repeated readings were required to compare the

integral texts with various theories until an integral framework could be

formulated. This process has required hyper-attention to detail, as the researcher

has had to scrutinize each and every aspect of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother’s

praxis on the soul contained within several thousand pages of effusive writings.

This painstaking and meticulous approach has hopefully allowed for a deepening

of dialogue between integral yoga psychology and the established developmental

literature base.

Finally, in terms of this kind of in-depth and demanding endeavor, it

seems to behoove the researcher to remain particularly cognizant to just how

transformed she has become through this long and demanding ordeal. For

instance, many relationships and familial bonds have been affected, for better or

for worse, by this constant focus and intense single-minded endeavor, which has

been maintained over the past five years. In this regard, the researcher had

originally hoped to document many autobiographical factors related to her own

rigorous sādhanā and psychospiritual processes. She has, nevertheless, been

constrained by serious considerations of space and time. Therefore,

documentation of her own personal hero’s journey will remain a task left to be

accomplished of its own accord in a separate writing to follow.

101
 Statement of the Research Question

Can an integral psychology framework for postconventional development

provide a more meaningful account of the evolution of individual consciousness,

its transformation, and particularly, its nature and unfoldment beyond formal

constructs of the mind and ego?

Subquestions

1. How might integral psychology’s teachings on the psychic being

(evolving soul) serve as a framework to better interpret, explain,

synthesize, and-or improve Western theories of human development?

2. What does Sri Aurobindo's writings pertaining to the psychic being and

the processes of psychic transformation tell us about the nature, purpose,

direction, and goals of postconventional development?

3. Is, and if so, to what extent is Sri Aurobindo's integral account of human

postconventional development a structural-hierarchical or a spiral-

dynamic model of human psychospiritual development?

4. How might a developmentally informed dialectic account of psychic

transformation include Sri Aurobindo’s notions of evolution and

involution?

5. What is the evolutionary consequence of non-individuation, or failure to

complete the psychicization process, for individuals in modern society?

Statement of the Main Thesis

The thesis of this study is that Sri Aurobindo and the Mother’s writings

and praxis concerning the psychic being, psychic transformation, and

102
psychicization can provide a better framework for integrating egocentric,

cosmocentric, and psychocentric spheres. More specifically, it is anticipated that

by inclusion of the psychocentric dimension, specifically the psychic being, the

research might offer a more useful, effective, comprehensive, and elegant

theoretical account of the evolution of individual consciousness, its

transformation, and particularly, its nature and unfoldment beyond formal

constructs of the mind and ego. The review of the literature and its subsequent

problematization has provided succinct evidence to defend the proposition that an

integral psychology framework might challenge and counter materialistic and

transcendental assumptions (e.g., positivism, Cartesian/neo-Kantian biases,

monism, anthropomorphism, and epiphenomenalism), which have historically

precluded any meaningful role for the evolutionary soul in a larger comprehensive

theory of human development.

Particularly, such a multidimensional account of postconventional

development proposed herein is hoped to address metaphysical problems in terms

of mapping the unfoldment of postformal characterizations of individual

consciousness beyond mere assumptions of adaptation. Indeed, the crux of the

proposed thesis maintains that since the soul is the individualized personification

of Spirit, this aspect of Divinity can become unveiled and distinct from the

mental, the vital, and the physical concentric dimensions of being through a

process of psychic transformation (i.e., the transformation of the outer mental-

vital-physical personality configurations through the influence of the psychic

103
being). Hereby, the evolutionary soul begins to interact with the outer personality

to influence and shape the course of one’s individuation process.

More specifically, it is hoped that an integral psychology framework for

postconventional development can meaningfully account for the transformation of

individual consciousness by rendering the personal soul as the definitive reference

point, facilitative agent, basis, source, origin, and-or cause for advanced

psychospiritual development. It is posited that the transformation of

consciousness is only possible because of successive dimensions of Divine

embodiment into the forms of matter, which itself becomes the being’s facilitative

agent:

Without the presence of the soul as a catalyst many adaptations can take
place that do not result in transformation of consciousness, but are
reconfigurations of surface personality. The impetus behind
transformation is the soul’s trajectory and its teleological aim to reunify
with Spirit, and also manifest this unity at the embodied level. This is the
difference between a certain perennialist interpretation that seek reunion
with God only, but is not interested in transformation of matter, vital, or
mind, and the integral view that adds an evolutionary impetus to this urge
toward unification of ego and Self, with the added intension of
transformation and divinization of mind, vital, and matter – or in short
Prakriti. (B. Shirazi, personal communication, March 27, 2013)

In many respects, it seems Sri Aurobindo and the Mother’s integral

framework offers a more explanative account of consciousness evolution. For

instance, by emphasizing the overall multidimensional parts, realms, and planes

of being, perhaps an integral developmental model would not be depicted as a

two-dimensional map. To this point, Shirazi offered,

The current models are partial because they have latched on to one
dimension or the other. The hierarchal structural maps deal with the body,
emotion, and mind aspect—albeit with the outer aspects only—and the
spiral dynamic maps are roughly attempting the other dimension, but are

104
 not clear about the role of the soul, especially the evolving soul. (B.
Shirazi, personal communication, March 27, 2014)

Consequently, by adding the concentric dimensions of being to an overall integral

charting of human development, the thesis proposed herein would maintain that

such a conceptual map must necessarily be rendered as a three-dimensional

sphere. Following Cornelissen (2002):

We are very much used to think in terms of linear or even logarithmic

progress. But perhaps [human development] is not that simple. . . . A
circle looks like a line when a small stretch of the circumference is seen in
close-up. A spiral looks like a zigzag line from the side and as a circle
when seen from the top. (para. 16)

By integrating the third psychocentric dimension with a predominately

two-dimensional (egocentric and cosmocentric) monopolar axis, such a

framework might not only redeem the epistemic status of soul but Flatland could

be ultimately overcome. Emblematically, perhaps this is why developmental

theorist Clare Graves (1914–1986) explained, “While these are chaotic and

turbulent times, they are hardly crazy ones. There is rhyme to both the reason and

the unreason. Order lurks in the disorder” (as cited in Cowan & Beck, 1996, p.

1). Graves continued, “Those who have eyes to see, ears to hear, and spirals in

their minds to understand will rest easier. . . . These do not live in Edwin Abbot's

two-dimensional Flatland” (p. 1). In Abbott’s (1884/2007) words:

I am not a plane Figure, but a Solid. You call me a Circle; but in reality I
am not a Circle, but an infinite number of Circles, of size varying from a
Point to a Circle of thirteen inches in diameter, one placed on the top of
the other. When I cut through your plane as I am now doing, I make in
your plane a section, which you, very rightly, call a Circle. For even a
Sphere—which is my proper name in my own country—if he manifest
himself at all to an inhabitant of Flatland—must needs manifest himself as
a Circle. (p. 54)

105
 CHAPTER 5: PROBLEMATIZATION OF THE LITERATURE

To summarize the discussion so far, rigorous cross-cultural research into

human epigenetic ontogeny has shown significant interdisciplinary agreement

among academic psychologists concerning the unfoldment of individual

consciousness, which can be characterized as an invariant sequence of stages

qualitatively and quantitatively distinct from each other. Arguably, although the

names and descriptions of their developmental stages differ to various degrees,

there does appear to be points of agreement common to them all. That is, at least

up to the developmental stage Piaget termed as formal operations, they seem to

describe a universal pre-conventional-to-conventional growth curve along lines

that lead ultimately to a strengthening of the ego and rational intellect.

Conventional theories of human development, then, seem to tell a similar

teleological narrative: “The names varied, and the schemes were slightly different,

but the hierarchical story was the same” (Wilber, 2000a, p. 39).

As a source of internal consistency among many theorists in recent

decades, there has been demonstrated not only an explicit attempt to revive the

Piagetian developmental framework but also the further endeavor to extend its

conventional narrative to include a more complete account of advanced human

development—one that extends beyond the traditional mode of formal operational

reasoning to include postformal, postconventional, and-or psychospiritual stages

of human development. Nevertheless, it is here at this point in the growth story of

the self’s development and individuation where “consensus among

developmentalists begins to fragment” (Wade, 1996, p. 131).

106
 While it has been generally accepted that “actualization of the highest

potential of the self [represents the] ultimate goals of mental health” (Dalal, 2001,

p. 8), delineations concerning the mechanisms of growth and change still

represent central issues facing almost every area of developmental inquiry. That

is, developmental theorists have apparently been at a relative loss in terms of

offering much fundamental insight into that which might resolve ongoing

controversies concerning shape, telos, direction, and particularly the how and why

of transformation itself. At present in the disparate literatures, for instance, there

appears to be no universally recognized facilitative agent. The central focus of

this present research endeavor comes down to identifying this most elusive

feature that drives and guides higher development.

In the third chapter, Shirazi’s (1994) three paradigmatic spheres of self-

realization were introduced to help delineate several increasingly problematic

epistemological and ontological inadequacies that, as Ferrer put it, ultimately

undermine transpersonal studies from within. As a practical matter, the

outstanding conceptual difficulties were characterized as residual allegiances to a

nineteenth century paradigm (e.g., Piagetian, Positivistic, and Cartesian-Kantian

loyalties), which all tend towards anti-metaphysical agnosticism reflected by the

“dogmatic belief system . . . [that relies] on either a conscious or an unconscious

assumption that material reality is the only reality, and that all other phenomena

such as emotional, mental, and spiritual phenomena are evolutionary byproducts

of matter and the nervous system” (Shirazi, 2015, p. 18). As a consequence, the

central point of agreement around which all these knowledge claims seem to pivot

107
is the oft-assumed self-image or Cartesian ego, which consequently precludes any

serious study into the evolutionary nature and role of the evolutionary soul in

human development.

In that which follows, the disparate developmental literatures on advanced

adult development have been evaluated in the very broadest sense according to

the categorical egocentric, cosmocentric, and psychocentric lenses informed by

Shirazi’s (1994) Self in Integral Psychology. It is here Shirazi argued, “most of

the existing Western and Eastern psychological and psychospiritual models of

self, although apparently complex and divergent” (p. 37) can all be analyzed in

terms of these three categorizations of consciousness. While still nascent,

Shirazi’s model seems particularly ideal for the present endeavor, as his

formulation puts “in perspective the contributions of the historical attempts to

discover the self, while making best use of the essential contributions of both

Eastern and Western wisdom” (p. 38).

In the next three sections, the writer will attempt to familiarize the reader

with a critical examination of some of the central egocentric, cosmocentric, and

psychocentric epistemic features that appear to ground the extant developmental

debate—particularly, the foundational biases and assumptions found to underlie

many of the most leading theories in the developmental literature. Throughout,

the writer will strive to remain aligned with the basic outlines of Shirazi’s (1994)

framework, as it has been developed so far. While attempting to challenge and

dialogue with some of these taken-for-granted assumptions symptomatic of

Western materialistic and Eastern transcendental biases, a last consideration of

108
this present chapter is to sketch out some of the provisional perimeters of an

emergent integral psychology framework for postconventional development.

The Egocentric Sphere

The field of psychology was born and grew up in a materialistic

atmosphere. Freud, the founder of modern psychology, was adamantly
atheistic, and his theories and most of those that followed him reflected
this bias. Academic psychology, attempting to mimic the natural sciences
in its early years, also excluded spirituality from research and hewed to a
purely empirical, materialistic paradigm. . . . In a materialistic philosophy
that holds biology to be ultimate, psychologies that proceed from this
assumption lead to certain conclusions about consciousness, behavior, and
possibilities for human growth. . . . and this severely limits the possibilities
that can be envisioned. (Cortright, 2007, p. 2)

Over the course of the past century “beginning with Freud's investigations

into das Ich [or The I].” (Cortright, 2007, p. 40), it seems the central and abiding

focus of inquiry within Western psychology has been the self (defined here as the

secularized mind, ego, or self-concept). Cortright gathered, “In conventional

psychology the ego is generally regarded as the center of psychological life.

Psychoanalytic theory even goes so far as to define the ego as ‘the seat of

consciousness’” (p. 39). For Washburn (2003), not only is the ego an active

subject, the “psychic center and agency” (p. 91), it is also the executor of the so-

called ego functions: “synthesis, reality testing, discursive cognition, impulse

control, and intentional action” (p. 92). He continued, but also as a larger psychic

system, the ego teleologically plots “the development of this system as it emerges

and is reconstituted at critical junctures along the spiral path” (p. 91).

On the most fundamental level, the ego is what the eighteenth-century

German philosopher Immanuel Kant called the unity of apperception.
Unpacking Kant's terminology, this means that the ego is a singular
perspective that serves (1) as the abiding reference point in relation to
which changing moments of consciousness are held together as moments

109
 of a single temporally extended consciousness (unity), and (2) as the
owner of proprietary subject of consciousness, that is, the subject that, at
some level, recognizes experience as its own experience (apperception).
(p. 92)

Assumed the center of perception, as has been shown in the preceding

survey of the literatures, the field has exhibited considerable interest in

understanding and mapping the ego’s mechanisms, structures, functions, and

evolutionary growth processes along with its unfoldment towards

postconventional stages of individual consciousness. To this point, most theorists

who have emphasized advanced growth dynamics of the self (e.g., Loevinger,

1976) have defined ego maturity in terms “that are not far from Jung's

(1923/1944, 1939/1969) original concept of life as a process of individuation”

(Broughton & Zahaykevich, 1988, p. 191).

Although Loevinger's is not a trait psychology, and the variables

mentioned possess “milestone” rather than bipolar characteristics, there
appear to be at least five major qualities that are implicit in her
characterization of the fully individuated ego: individuality, self-
awareness, complexity, wholeness, and autonomy. These are her
psychological and moral “ends,” to which ego development is the
“means.” (p. 191)

Through exploratory examination of the theoretical underpinnings of

many of the foremost developmental literatures, it has been found in this critical

review that, despite a seeming overplay of the various points of contrast, the

majority of developmental theorists turn out to have converging egocentric

concerns. Taken together, neo-Piagetianism and ego psychology (e.g., Kohlberg,

1969; Loevinger, 1976; see also Colby et al., 1983) appear to represent two

dominant paradigms underlying many of the frameworks in the field. Indeed,

many psychological theorists have tended to focus their attention on extending

110
Piaget's map into the “domains of moral and philosophical thought, social

reasoning, and reflections on the self” (Commons et al.,1990, p. xiii)—whereby

that which Jung termed individuation and Maslow (1968) termed self-

actualization “is but the upper end of a developmental spectrum” (Pfaffenberger,

2007b, p. 8).

Generally owing a common intellectual debt, in one way or another, to the

work of Freud or Piaget, there appear to be a broad range of developmental

theories proceeding from egocentric assumptions, which lend primacy to the

charting of developmental stages in terms of predominantly materialistic, logical

empiricist, positivistic, and-or pragmatic philosophies of science. Put somewhat

differently, many developmental models tend to be based upon naturalistic

philosophies that hold “biology to be ultimate, [and thus] lead to certain

conclusions about consciousness, behavior, and possibilities for human growth”

(Cortright, 2007, p. 2). Underneath the egocentric bias, there appear much more

stubborn issues in terms of explaining the very basis of human change and

development itself. Simply stated, the egocentric approach to the problem of

stage change brings to the fore a related set of problems that, in present-day

formulation, can be summarized as the issue of epiphenomenalism along with the

problem of identifying a facilitative agent.

Philosophical Underpinnings

Developmental theorist Jan Sinnott (1981) once wrote, “Most notions of

life-span development utilize an epistemology based on outdated Newtonian

approaches to the physical sciences” (as cited in Broughton, 1984, p. 400). That

111
is, egocentric developmental approaches frequently make the assumption of

universal, necessary, and “deterministic ‘laws of nature’ in accordance with the

Newtonian-mechanistic model of causation” (Malone-France, 2007, p. x). Such

views appear to be reinforced by many centuries’ worth of scientific evidence that

“unquestionably hold sway over the vast majority of contemporary scientists, and

by now have percolated widely through the public at large” (E. F. Kelly & E. W.

Kelly, 2010, p. 2). Historically speaking, then, it seems that many of the West’s

dominant methodologies, epistemologies, and metaphysics have been grounded in

the scientific tradition’s preoccupation with the “greatness of its physical

discoveries and the idea of the sole existence of Matter” (Sri Aurobindo, 1997c, p.

5). All else is considered “imagination and speculation” (Leicht, 2008, p. 10).

In order to elucidate the significant consequences of assuming such a

positivistic paradigm (found so widespread throughout the developmental

literatures), it might be helpful, at least very briefly, to trace the historical

development of the egocentric sphere back to its Cartesian roots. For example,

according to Descartes (1596–1650), human beings are essentially nothing more

than “complex organic machines, all of whose actions can be fully explained

without any reference to the operation of mind in thinking” (Abe, 2014, p. 21).

More specially, as Velmans (1998) elucidated:

For Descartes, the universe was composed of two interacting substances,

res extensa, the material stuff of the physical world, body and brain, which
has extension in space, and res cogitans, nonmaterial stuff which “thinks,”
which has no location or extension in space. The physical world affects
consciousness through sensory perception; motions in the external world
are transduced by the eye and nerves into motions in the pineal gland
which, in turn, produce conscious experiences . . . That is, events located
in space cause experiences of those events which themselves have no

112
 spatial location or extension. . . . Reductionists now claim that
consciousness is nothing more than a state or function of the brain. . . .
Events in the world still cause conscious experiences which are located in
some quite different, “inner space”—albeit “in the brain” as opposed to
some inner, nonmaterial soul. In short, both dualist and reductionists
agree that there is a clear separation of the external physical world from
the world of conscious experience. (pp. 45–46)

Epiphenomenalism

A related consideration involves the fundamental embarrassments rooted

in the mechanistic stance of epiphenomenalism itself—or, the materialistic

conviction that mental events are caused by neural impulses generated by the

brain. In this regard, Cornelissen (2001) wrote, “if the material viewpoint is

carried to its extreme, consciousness is seen as not more than a causally

ineffective epiphenomenon of material processes” (para. 5). Materialists,

according to McIntosh (2007), for instance, reject the idea that mind—much less

the soul—is distinct “from matter, and their worldview currently dominates the

institutional study of both consciousness and evolution” (p. 10). As McIntosh put

it:

There is a general consensus among academics that mental awareness can

be reduced to the physical activity occurring in brain cells, and that it is
just a matter of time before science is able to clearly explain how brain
states produce the sensations of awareness. (p. 9)

Staunch epiphenomenalists—as Tufts professor Daniel Dennett, perhaps

the leading modern-day spokesperson for the materialist point of view—go so far

as to make the bold claim that “you are your neurons” or the patterns by which

neurons are essentially connected (M. Cornelissen, personal communication,

August 8, 2015). In Dennett’s (1995) own words “The mind—everything that

makes up you, your thoughts, feelings, dreams, desires—arises entirely from the

113
brain's physical activity. There are no ethereal spirits or immortal soul, just the

wet matter between our ears” (as cited in Kroth, 2010, p. 34). Within such a

physicalist framework, Dennett and others like him tend to presume that human

consciousness is built up entirely by “dumbly mechanical or chance-driven

processes” (Cornelissen, 2011b, p. 339) even going so far as to assert that highly

complex entities like human beings can be reduced down to neural correlates of

qualia “without losing anything significant to their constituting components” (p.

339).

The dominant epiphenomenal biases informing much of the egocentric

literatures seem to assume that core neurophysiological and autopoietic structures

can generate in themselves the precise conditions needed to catalyze the

transformation of individual consciousness. Consequently, according to this

logic, physical structures (such as the brain) must then necessarily serve as the

ultimate basis for all human growth and development. Hence, within the broad-

spectrum egocentric sphere, and especially among cognitive psychologists, there

appears to be reinforcement for an already existing inclination and propensity to

equate a facilitative agent or mechanism of change with a neuronal structured

substrate.

Identifying a Facilitative Agent

Day (2011) wrote, “Endemic to the spread of stage models (e.g., cognitive

development, ego development, spiritual development, role-taking development,

identity development, intellectual development, etc.) [there appear] no clear

explication of how the models [are] related across domains” (p. 198).

114
Furthermore, as it has been repeated here several times, a significant area in

which egocentric biases remain considerably at issue concerns the aforementioned

problem of identifying a facilitative agent or an intrinsic mechanism of stage

change (Commons et al., 1984). Indeed, “one of the most vexing, and interesting,

problems in the psychology of human development concerns the relationship of

developmental trajectories across domains, their mechanisms [of change],

processes, and privileged endpoints” (Day, 2011, p. 189). In this context, Wade

(1996) conceded there appears to be no precise definition for transition specified

within the literature other than a general nod towards the Gravesian concept of

existential crises. In other words, the processes involved with transformation are

not well described beyond generalities by many developmental theorists.

Unfortunately, that which has been so far described is not particularly revealing.

According to the evidence that has been reviewed so far, mainstream

change models have tended to privilege ego mechanisms to explain the driving

force behind human growth and development. Egocentric notions of human

development have, furthermore, become generally concerned with matters that are

in some way related to surface changes such as change “in behavior, in attitude,

in capability, in process, or in function” (Jarvis, 1997, p. 13). To this point, a

majority of models tend to track changes in behavior across time while making

references to a presumed series of related epiphenomenal processes in the brain.

Primarily, it seems many egocentric theories remain exceedingly concerned with

mechanistic, conceptual language (i.e., neural networks, neurophysiological

mechanisms, cognitive schemes, dynamical systems, mental pathways, and

115
logistics). These models therefore appear to share in common a strong bias

toward the operation of functional invariants in development, as theorists tend to

look at the human psyche like an organic machine or a computer. An apparent

consequence of this line of thinking involves the question of whether a

constructed machine can ever intrinsically change or grow in any self-conscious

or spiritual way.

Again, to mention a classic example, Piaget’s explanatory model

essentially makes the claim that human growth and development is guided by

natural, mechanized, impersonal, and lawful processes. Notwithstanding his

constructivist epistemological leanings, Piaget was essentially a “‘biologist,’

because he was no longer concerned with classification in the naturalist tradition,

but with life, evolution, and their mechanisms” (Commons et al., 1984, p. 34).

Influenced primarily by a wide variety of nineteenth-century thought, Piaget

(1950/1970) assumed a definite process of reflective abstraction and a somewhat

more general process of equilibrium (Piaget, 1966/1976) to account for human

development. Piaget’s model of assimilation, accommodation, and

autoregulation, however, infers rather than identifies an underlying facilitative

agent. To this point, Commons and Pekker (2005) wrote, “based on the

performance of an individual, an underlying mental structure was inferred” (as

cited in Day, 2011, p. 197) rather than identified and explained. To wit, “there

could be endless arguments about what the mechanisms were, since they were

inferred” (p. 197).

116
 Specifically, the work of Blasi and Hoeffel (1974) has proposed that

transformation in “human thought and conduct is not reducible to logical

possibility” (Broughton, 1984, p. 407). Broughton further elucidated:

Logic precludes the self (Broughton, 1981e), and no amount of rational

reconstruction, structural upgrading, or what Hegelians call “Aufhebung”
will repair the damage. This may also explain the apparent failure of
formal operations to account empirically for the development of ego-
identity (Afrifah & Broughton, note 51; Broughton, 1983). (p. 406)

Perhaps another way of phrasing the same objection, Macmurray (1957/1993)

contended the purely logical self cannot begin to “deal with the mainstays of

interpersonal life: action, sociality, intersubjectivity, and morality” (p. 407).

Broughton (1984) likewise argued, “Formal-operational intelligence is inadequate

and, in fact, grossly inappropriate as a way of understanding and of guiding action

in situations of a psychological or social kind” (p. 407). In this way, Kohlberg

(1969) elegantly argued that transformation

cannot explain itself; that theories of moral reasoning and its development
cannot, in the end, account for why one would decide to act on behalf of
the good, of the moral principle and its translation into potential forms of
action one knows, cognitively, how to describe, justify, propose, and so
on. (as cited in Day, 2011, p. 196)

Such observations have led a number of post-Piagetian theorists to the

notion that it is the “personal ‘ego,’ ‘self,’ or ‘identity’” (Broughton, 1984, p. 399)

or higher-Self structure that, in fact, guides the self-actualization process forward.

The drift of this kind of thinking converges with that which psychologists like

Rogers (1963), Maslow (1970), and others (e.g., Assagioli, 1988/1991; Firman &

Gila, 2002; Jung, 1968; Wade, 1996) have referred to as actualizing tendencies or

universal urges, instincts, or impulses inherent to human awareness that tend

117
toward higher and more advanced stages of human motivation. The problem

here, according to Daniels (2005), is that these propensities have been defined

almost exclusively according to assumptions grounded in “biological science” (p.

157) and thus in overall accord with the contrivances of Darwinian theory.

Still at issue, many of the postformal formulations apparently still leave

the fundamental problem of a facilitative agent intact by merely escalating “the

equilibration model to a higher level” (Broughton, 1984, p. 409). Consider, for

instance, Maslow’s (1943/2011) hierarchy of needs theory as an example of

Broughton’s strong insight. From his many dialogues on ego-transcendence,

Maslow (1970) was, in fact, unable to identify a specific agentic means to account

for transition from lower order deficiency needs to higher-order motivations

characterized by Being (Pederson, 2011). Apparently, Maslow preferred instead

to merely offer general guidelines in terms of the central importance of many of

his self-concepts such as self-sufficiency, self-fulfillment, and the maximum

achievement of personal potential. Daniels (2005) critiqued that Maslow’s model

is problematic most likely due to the fact that Maslow felt “obliged to adopt

metaphors and mimic the methods that were fashionable at the time he was

working (i.e., 1940–1970)” (p. 157). Daniels explained that Maslow’s thinking

was “fundamentally inappropriate and misguided” (p. 157) That is, Maslow

confused human development “with naturalistic science” (p. 157), as his

“metaphors chosen were those of functional biology” (p. 157). Thus, Maslow’s

theory, like many other models of advanced human development reviewed so far,

appears to be incomplete due to its inability to meaningfully account for agency

118
and identify a facilitating agent to guide forward the process of advanced

transformation of human consciousness.

Summary of Egocentric Concerns

The inadequacies of the egocentric developmental models can be summed

up as reductionistic in that they tend to promote purely naturalistic, materialistic,

objective, and automatic mechanisms in response to the aforementioned question

of the how and why of consciousness transformation. At base, egocentric change

models are arguably biased recalling a mechanistic paradigm that reduce the

evolution of human consciousness to epiphenomenal dimensions of neurological

firings in the brain forming purely logical self-structures. Increasingly important,

many of the advanced theories are paradigmatic, as they tend to privilege a logical

empiricist and positivistic epistemology and methodology. To put it very simply,

such thinking tactically assumes that physical reality is all that exists.

As this researcher sees it, one of the main problems with the entire

tradition of Piagetian research and developmental theory is that it seems very

much oriented toward emphasizing the content of developmental stages rather

than seeking to understand the overall context, the foundation, and the consistent

source of human transformation itself. As Sri Aurobindo (1997c) observed, “the

deeper psychological elements so important in the [transformation] of a mental,

emotional, ideative being like man have been very much neglected” (p. 5). To

this contention, Broughton (1984) argued that the field is essentially guilty of

reducing “the profound transformation of adult consciousness to mere changes in

the content of thought” (p. 406). In turn, it seems when theorists speak of

119
postformal, postconventional, or transpersonal characterizations of consciousness

that these terms merely label a phenomenon without explaining it. Of course, this

is not to say that psychologists cannot learn from the current theoretical

compilations, but simply that quantifying stage content, by itself, cannot

illuminate such a profound change’s inherent meaning, its dynamics, its goals, nor

its significance from any larger perspective.

All this being as it may, the egocentric interpretation of growth apparently

fails to discriminate between inner evolutionary promptings (that might

intelligently guide the transformation process from within) and impersonal,

mechanistic, and egoic formulations that reduce the self-concept to a “sense that

we are epiphenomenal, an accidental and unimportant byproduct of vast,

indifferent processes” (Weiss, 2004, p. 7). These and many other problems that

underscore the egocentric literatures perhaps led Broughton (1984) to conclude

that the “number and magnitude” (p. 396) of difficulties plaguing such logic “are

sufficient to cast doubt on the viability of not only the formal-operations construct

but also Piaget's developmental [map] as a whole” (p. 396).

The egocentric sphere, of its own accord, then, does not appear adequate

to the task of accounting for the catalyst of advanced human development. For

instance, Dalal (2001) observed, “Ego or self—the two terms as used in

psychology being more or less synonymous—has been regarded until now as the

most evolved aspect of the human being” (p. 8). Taken together, however, the

absence of any unifying glue, foundation, or basis upon which a human being can

definitively give rise to such a profound process like the transformation of

120
individual consciousness strongly suggests the need to go beyond the self and ego

to establish a more adequate theory and conceptual change model. From Sri

Aurobindo’s (1997a) perspective:

It is true that modern psychology has probed the internal law of living
matter and consciousness and arrived at results, which are remarkable but
limited and fundamentally inconclusive. We know from it that the
movements of consciousness are affected and on a certain side determined
by the functioning of the physical organs. But still the nature, origin, and
laws of consciousness remain unknown; all that has been proved is that
[the brain] provides for it an engine or instrumentation for its
manifestation in living physical bodies. . . . The cessation of its
functioning in the body at death proves nothing, for that was to be
expected whatever the origin of consciousness or its fundamental nature.
Its disappearance may be a departure, a disappearance from the body, but
not a disappearance from existence. It is true also that modern inquiry
probing into psychological (as opposed to physiological) phenomena has
discovered certain truths . . . but its observations in these fields are of an
extremely groping and initial character. (p. 323)

The Cosmocentric Sphere

The egocentric sphere’s claim that the ego is the center and driving force

for the evolution of consciousness appears to significantly fall apart as personal

awareness begins to individuate beyond formal structures of the mind and egoic

personality. Irwin (2002) echoed, “But the story of the ego is not all that occupies

the landscape of consciousness and development” (p. v). By historical analysis,

Pederson (2011) observed that incrementally “the continuum of psychological

development and consciousness evolution [has] expanded in recent years to

include stages beyond the full integration of the personality to a realm of . . .

identity colloquially referred to as enlightenment” (pp. 8–9; see also Cook-

Greuter, 1990; Page, 2011; Pfaffenberger, 2003; Wade, 1996; Washburn, 1999).

Deeply persuaded by the postmodern and humanistic climates of the last five

121
decades, “Western psychology has been undergoing a quiet revolution”

(Cortright, 2007, p. 2). In differing ways, transpersonal thinkers like Stanislav

Grof (1975, 1985; S. Grof & C. Grof, 1989), Michael Washburn (1988, 1994,

2003), and Ken Wilber (1986, 2000a), “have provided provocative glimpses” (p.

22) into the realms of evolutionary being situated beyond the mind and ego

“although this territory has only been partially mapped” (p. 22).

Not to be confused here with Sri Aurobindo’s cosmic consciousness (a

term that he designated for a specific experience or state of spiritual

identification), according to Shirazi (1994), the cosmocentric sphere represents a

level of transcendent impersonal identity whereby the egocentric self is

traditionally perceived as an illusion. At first glance, it seems the cosmocentric

interface is where humanistic psychology, postmodernism, Buddhist spiritual

systems, and “object relations views of the self as an image converge, and the

conclusion that the self is an illusion can seem convincing” (Cortright, 2007, p.

43). Cortright succinctly elucidated this fundamental bias here:

Buddhist psychology has performed an even more microscopic

examination of the self than object relations and has emerged with a more
thorough deconstruction of the self. Buddhist texts report that when the
self becomes the object of meditative inquiry, in looking closely at the
images of the self it is discovered that there are spaces between these
images. There actually is nothing to hold these images together. In
meditatively penetrating the spaces between the images, it is found that
there is no self, and emptiness is seen to be fundamental. It is this deeply
experienced insight that liberates the person and leads to enlightenment.
The continuity of the self is explained as a kind of optical illusion similar
to watching movement in a movie. Although in watching a movie we see
continuous movement, in reality we are looking at a series of rapidly
flickering still photos that we interpret as continuous motion. The illusion
of the continuity of the self is based upon a similar mis-perception. (p. 42)

122
Self as Impermanent Illusion

Above all, and consistent with postmodern theory, the self and its

development are typically presented as socially constructed or illusory.

Borrowing heavily from humanistic psychology and Eastern philosophy, for

instance, the cosmocentric view of the self suggests that the formal operational

self-construct introduced by Piaget naturally annuls itself to realize “a broader

form of transcendental contemplation, informed by an awareness and a creativity

that override the dualism of subject and object” (Broughton, 1984, p. 400; see

Gowan, 1974). Thus, many theories of advanced psychospiritual development

tend to share in common the basic premise that the self is an impermanent

delusion or no-thingness—“an ever-changing configuration of physical or mental

energies or processes that is only meaningful because of” (Gaskins, 1999, p. 206)

a particular set of psychological, social, and cultural contexts.

Just as the egocentric sphere has clearly and without much controversy

traced the developmental contours operative in the construction of the frontal self,

so the cosmocentric sphere has sought to identify and transcend the cultural,

biographical, historical, linguistic, and philosophical outlines of the socially

constructed self. Paralleling this turn, as elucidated in the previous section, the

downside of egocentric materialism appears to be its disregard for consciousness

“as insubstantial chimera, or at best as epiphenomena of material processes”

(Cornelissen, 2008, p. 411). In almost a “perfect mirror image of this denial of

spirit and consciousness by the materialists, the influential [cosmocentric]

Māyāvadin schools of Indian philosophy regard matter and sense-impressions as

123
illusions imposed on the absolute silence of the spirit” (p. 411). Michael Leicht

(2008) summarized the cosmocentric orientation towards the self in the following

excerpt:

And one striking result of this movement of conviction of things here of

unreality and the assertion of the sole reality beyond, was the doctrine of
Buddhism, leading to self-extinction. As you know Buddha came to say
that there is no creator, there is no beginning. Each individual is a product
of a movement, which starts with desire. One desire leads to another.
And this continuity of desire leads to the illusion of permanence. Cut out
the root of desire, the movement comes to a stop and one day you find
things extinguished. . . . In this whole operation the individual loses his
significance. (p. 10)

Philosophical Underpinnings

To this outline, a deep review of the extant literatures has found many of

the contexts, assumptions, approaches, and outcomes associated with the

cosmocentric bias seem to be fundamentally informed by the attitudes of

Buddhism, postmodernism, perennialist universalism, pluralistic relativism, and

emergent spiritual pluralism. Moreover, these and other contextual factors,

according to Ferrer (2002), parallel the historical roots of the transpersonal

perspective in the Western psychological tradition, [which] can be traced

to Brentano’s psychology of consciousness and emphasis on lived
experience; William James’ radical empiricism and studies of mysticism;
Freud's formulation of the unconscious and concern with the oceanic
feeling and evenly suspended attention; Jung's notions of the collective
unconscious, the archetypes, and the individuation process, as well as his
studies in Asian religions and Western esoteric traditions; Fromm's
interest in Zen Buddhism and Vedanta; Assagioli’s psychosynthesis;
Maslow's studies on metamotivations; peak-experiences, and self-
actualization; and Grof's pioneering psychedelic research. . . . The
transpersonal perspective also find precedents in Western philosophies
such as Plato's metaphysics, contemplative ideals, and theory of
recollection (anamnesis); Husserl's transcendental phenomenology;
Hegel's dialectic of Spirit; nineteenth century European Romanticism;
American Transcendentalism; Heidegger's inquiries into Being; and a
plethora of spiritual traditions such as Neoplatonism, Gnosticism,

124
 Hermeticism, Christian mysticism, Kabbalah, and the various schools
usually amalgamated under the name of Western esotericism. (p. 6)

McIntire (2007) offered some important insight into the historical nature

of the cosmocentric’s sphere’s philosophical underpinnings, which appear

predominant throughout much of the postconventional developmental literature.

He wrote, “Unlike most of the other branches of psychology that had their

beginnings in the late nineteenth century, developmental psychology carried

forward the insights of moral philosophers such as Kant and Hegel” (p. 182).

Significantly, the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) in his most

influential book Critique of Pure Reason (Kant, 1787/1999) attempted to redeem

the realm of subjectivity along with the ontological value of spirituality from the

above-mentioned encroachments of Newtonian materialism and skepticism.

Kant (1787/1999), for instance, contended that ordinary consciousness

deals with two basic orders of reality. The first of these orders, now universally

accepted, entails of an internal experience of a subject perceiving an external,

immanent, or phenomenal world conveyed to the observer purely through the

senses. The second order is conceived of as a transcendent, ultimate, or noumenal

reality, which lies outside the scope of human experience and thus is not only

“ineffable, but perhaps also unknowable and unthinkable” (Daniels, 2005, p. 91).

In this context, “transcendence and immanence are opposites, rather than

complementaries” (Weiss, 2003, p. 66). Day and Youngman (2003) further

explained that:

a long line of thinkers from Plato to Kant (Kant's relationship is

particularly well explicated by Kohlberg as central to the philosophical
presuppositions inherent to constructivist developmental hermeneutics) to

125
 Descartes and with a host of structuralist thinkers in other domains
(consider Chomsky, in linguistics, for one) the assumption that we best
appreciate the manifest by unifying and grounding it in some hidden and
higher level Reality. (p. 526)

Kant, then, is perhaps best known for having “severed the metaphysical

from the immanent or, put another way, the noumenal from the phenomenal, [and

having] also removed the idea that the metaphysical could have any value or

meaning in the human experience” (Marsh, 2009, p. x). Taken together, Kant

(1787/1999) presumed that “noumenal reality transcends experience and,

therefore cannot be experienced” (Weiss, 2003, p. 66). Kant, in essence, called

for a radical halt to all metaphysical speculation on the topics of God, the soul,

and immortality. Recognizing the senses and formal intellect as the only sources

of knowledge, Kant thus waged “a relentless war against all sorts of dogmatism,

[while he himself fell] prey to another more perilous dogmatism, namely,

agnosticism by confining knowledge to the phenomena” (Miśra, 1998, p. 140).

Ferrer (2014) quoting Perovich (1990) admitted that Kant’s actual views

on reality are “far from clear” (p. 157). Nevertheless, the full effects of his

revolution can be plainly seen. As “one of history’s swiftest and most

fundamental alterations of worldview among intellectual elites” (Murphy, 1998,

p. 55), the Kantian turn has been most significantly felt in the fields of Western

psychology throughout the “last decades of postempirisicst philosophy of science,

hermeneutics, feminist scholarship, and human science research, among other

disciplines” (Ferrer, 1998, p. 64). Perhaps even more importantly, the post-

Newtonian-neo-Kantian cosmocentric paradigm appears to have deeply biased

many of the postconventional developmental theories as well, as they typically

126
share a similar metaphysical claim that no individual can ever directly apprehend,

describe, or grasp Ultimate Reality.

The agnosticism of Kant represents a fatal repetition of subjectivity and

appearance, thus making it almost impossible to recognize any inner point of

personal reference. Thereby, the self is considered “only an ideative formation by

an illusory phenomenal consciousness” (Sri Aurobindo, 1940/2005, pp. 31–32).

Further, as Ferrer (2008) offered, in fundamental ways, the Kantian mentalist

dualism contributes to the existential estrangement of “the human mind from an

embodied apprehension of reality” (p. 69), which in turn undermines any direct

knowledge of the true self. In a similar way, Sri Aurobindo (1940/2005)

articulated:

For when we come to the end of whatever [egocentric] path, the universe
appears as only a [cosmocentric] symbol or an appearance of an
unknowable Reality which translates itself here into different systems of
values, physical values, vital and sensational values, intellectual, ideal and
spiritual values. (p. 14)

In this way, the self can only be known to itself as it appears to the mind. That is,

it is known merely in the form of subjective impressions and not as it is in reality.

Kantian Anthropocentrism

The above-mentioned Kantian bias, regardless of school of thought,

appears closely related to the anthropocentric assumption that all phenomena are

ultimately a reflection of the mental structures of the human brain (see Ferrer,

2002). According to Sri Aurobindo (1940/2005), it is perhaps telling of this

prejudice that it ultimately stems from a dualistic understanding of the mind,

which assumes consciousness to be “inseparable from our physical organs and not

127
[its] utilizer but [its] result. (p. 92). So long as the self-concept is confined to

physical sense-evidence, the person “can conceive nothing and know nothing

except the material world and its phenomena” (p. 66). He continued that the mind

captivated by materialism tends to construct “its own canons or notions of the real

and unreal” (p. 489). Assuming the physical world alone is real, the material

brain is considered the starting-point and basis for all its conceptions of reality,

which in turn colors perception of everything else.

Everything appears to be in the body or by the body and either for the
body or for the I-sense in the body. The body seems to be the principal if
not the only cause or determinant of individual consciousness. What is
not of the body is of the physical field outside the body. Whatever in
consciousness seems not to be of the physical field, yet appears to be
derived from it, to be a resultant, development or deformation from
physical experience. (Sri Aurobindo, 1997a, p. 308)

The neo-Kantian two-worlds doctrine (Ferrer, 2002, 2008, 2011, 2014)

along with its accompanying agnostic and anti-metaphysical biases fully

acknowledge the worldview of the Enlightenment that essentially sees human

knowledge as being divided between the known phenomenal world and the

forever unreachable and unknowable noumenal reality. Its dualistic formulation

of an objective, external, independent, and objective phenomenal world results in

the reverse assumption of a separate, self-contained, and complete-in-itself human

subject, which accordingly must “come into being through the very act of human

cognition” (Tarnas, 1991, p. 444).

The great irony suggested here of course is that it is just when the modern
mind believes it has most fully purified itself from any anthropomorphic
projections, when it actively construes the world as unconscious,
mechanistic, and impersonal, it is just then that the world is most
completely a selective construct of the human mind. The human mind has
abstracted from the whole all conscious intelligence and purpose and

128
 meaning, and claimed these exclusively for itself, and then projected onto
the world a machine. As Rupert Sheldrake has pointed out, this is the
ultimate anthropomorphic projection: a man-made machine, something not
in fact ever found in nature. From this perspective, it is the modern mind's
own impersonal soullessness that has been projected from within onto the
world—or, to be more precise, that has been projectively elicited from the
world. (p. 432)

Further anthropocentric biases include that which Nagy (1991) has termed

“radically subjectivist neo-Kantianism,” (1991, p. 365), which according to Ferrer

(2002; see also Ferrer & Sherman, 2008), assumes that impersonal,

transcendental, or ineffable characterizations of individual consciousness (i.e., the

Self, the Absolute, or the Ground of Being) are supposed to represent the same

innate substrate as the individual human mind—a fundamental bias that has

arguably led to the perceived failure of Western psychology to satisfactory

account for the direct knowability of multidimensional reality. Sri Aurobindo,

(1940/2005) put it this way:

A premise so arbitrary pronounces on itself its own sentence of

insufficiency. It can only be maintained by ignoring or explaining away
all that vast field of evidence and experience which contradicts it, denying
or disparaging noble and useful faculties, active consciously or obscurely
or at worst latent in all human beings, and refusing to investigate
supraphysical phenomena except as manifested in relation to matter and its
movements and conceived as a subordinate activity of material forces. As
soon as we begin to investigate the operations of mind and of supermind,
in themselves and without the prejudgment that is determined from the
beginning to see in them only a subordinate term of Matter, we come into
contact with a mass of phenomena which escape entirely from the rigid
hold, the limiting dogmatism of the materialist formula. And the moment
we recognize, as our enlarging experience compels us to recognize, that
there are in the universe knowable realities beyond the range of the senses
and in man powers and faculties which determine rather than are
determined by the material organs through which they hold themselves in
touch with the world of the senses,—that outer shell of our true and
complete existence,—the premise of materialistic Agnosticism disappears.
We are ready for a large statement and an ever-developing inquiry. (p. 12)

129
Transcendence versus Transformation

Returning now to the main point, it seems a matter of critical importance

to make clear the assertion, when conceptualizing a cosmocentric map of

psychospiritual development, that the journey of self-transcendence has not

necessarily replaced the more familiar egocentric terrain. At least not

conceptually, as these corresponding spheres have been frequently rendered

throughout the literatures as intersecting by means of an unbroken and continuous

stacking (i.e., tiers) from the pre-rational (pre-personal) to the rational (personal),

and then taking the ontological leap from the rational to the trans-rational

(transpersonal). This conversion is reflected in the literatures “with a lowercase s,

[self, a term which is] . . . used to designate the ego's understanding of itself as

defined by the self-representation [adapted into] “an uppercase S, [or Self, a term],

used to designate the power of the Ground in its highest expression as transparent

Spirit” (Washburn, 2003, p. 218; see also Daniels, 2005).

To alleviate confusion‚ however, a foremost distinction needs to be

discriminated between egocentric and cosmocentric accounts concerning that

which has been presumed to catalyze stage change and development. Granted,

mainstream psychological theories have long-inferred the impetus for growth and

change to be the aforementioned secularized self, mind, or ego. By contrast,

according to the cosmocentric view the role of transition function does not belong

essentially to the self (i.e., ego or mental system) “but belongs instead to . . . the

hierarchy of basic structures [themselves]” (Washburn, 2003, p. 200). That is,

development is assumed to emerge teleologically from the “interaction of our

130
immediate present experience with the structures or levels of transcendent

consciousness” (Ferrer, 2011, p. 21; see also Ferrer, 2008).

Here, the writing will attempt to enlarge upon an implicit teleological

assumption frequently found throughout the cosmocentric literatures, which

involves an impersonal transcendent source of evolution. That is, “the dynamic

telos-Spirit that, although never reachable in the world of time and form, [is

assumed to be] . . . the ultimate origin, end, and ground of all that exists” (Ferrer,

2002, p. 86). From an analysis of its origins and dynamics, it can be summarized

that, “teleological evolutionism is the view that cosmological, phylogenetic, and

ontogenetic processes are ultimately directed towards a predetermined goal. In

the classic evolutionary perennialist view, this pre-given goal is generally equated

with Spirit itself” (p. 84).

Hence, for most cosmocentric theories of human development, an

impersonal transcendent source of consciousness replaces the rational self-

concept as both its evolutionary ultimate but also in terms of its presumed source

of change as it carries “development along into the transpersonal realms where the

socially constructed self appears to be transcended” (Combs & Krippner, 2011, p.

213). Indeed, if there is one common central assumption found throughout the

transpersonal literatures, it seems to be this: transrational consciousness evolution

is tantamount with transcendence of the personal being. In developmental

research studies, this conversion has, perhaps, been best illustrated by findings

indicative that Transcendental Meditation (TM) techniques can facilitate ego

131
transcendence into “realization of a fully differentiated postrepresentational Self”

(Heaton, 2011, p. 188).

In recent decades, Wilber has come to personify, perhaps in several

important respects, many of the characteristic metaphysical biases that represent

the cosmocentric sphere. For Wilber, evolution of the self is assumed to begin

with the ultimate Ground that manifests in the linear frame of space-time as the

Great Chain of Being expressed in terms of invariant deep (i.e., subtle, causal, and

nondual) structures that “evolve in progressively higher forms (Life and Mind),

before it eventually realizes itself as Spirit” (Daniels, 2005, p. 198; see Lovejoy,

1964). More precisely, Wilber provides a cosmocentric map based on a Buddhist-

Vedanta-perennial philosophy amalgam, which charts a transcendent course

beginning with the gross body to the subtle body toward the Vedantic causal

body, experienced respectively in terms of the waking state, dream state, and deep

dreamless sleep. While defending the Cartesian-Kantian perennialist tradition that

depicts a pre-given “one path and one goal for human spiritual evolution” (Ferrer,

2002, p. 85), it appears that Wilber’s developmental model assumes only a

monopolar theory of ascension (Heron, 2007).

That is to say, on the left-hand, interior side of his holonic map, everything
goes one way, the path of inward spiritual ascent, from the primitive and
protoplasmic to the transcendental spiritually all-embracing One. There is
no bipolar, correlative, and complementary path of inward descent to the
immanently spiritually each-dwelling Many. (para. 49)

Furthermore, while Wilber (2006) has admitted no single psychological

“practice or technique—no therapy, not breathwork, not transformative

workshops, not role-taking, not hatha yoga—has been demonstrated” (p. 198) to

132
developmentally progress a person to postformal consciousness “he has

nevertheless consistently maintained, that meditation, which is “witnessing the

mind, thus turning subject into object—[represents] exactly the core mechanism

of development” (p. 198). An essential point about Wilber’s view of meditation

(as the one and only mechanism of postconventional stage change) deserves some

attention here. Indeed, Wilber’s model has been criticized for its over-reliance on

meditation as the sole means of transcendence to higher stages.

Ferrer (2015), for instance, critiqued that Wilber’s model privileges the

ascending meditation traditions, which Ferrer explained tend to be “strongly

patriarchal and [leaning] toward disembodiment and dissociation (p. 59; see also

Ferrer, 2008). Responding in like manner, Heron (2007) opined that the

meditation approach not only disregards and downgrades human life, but also

conflates vital embodiment with “low level desire and emotion, a misbegotten

thirst driving an alienated and illusory separation from Spirit” (para. 40). Heron

wrote that as a technique, meditation essentially transforms nothing but

categorically attempts to pass on the old world-denying blight from the East. It

denigrates all human activity except meditation, which is the only real absolute

ethical imperative” (para. 16).

Categorically, beyond vague teleological inferences of facilitation factors

that suggest transcendence through the practice of meditation, cosmocentric

models appear to have hardly anything of consequence to say concerning exactly

how and why evolvement arises in the first place. That is, rather than accounting

for the processes of individual transformation, it seems as Underhill (1955/1974)

133
rightly observed, many such cosmocentric theorists’ “aim is wholly spiritual and

self-transcendent, [and is] ‘in no way concerned with adding to, exploring,

rearranging, or improving anything in the visible universe’” (as cited in Wade,

1996, p. 291).

Transformation, in an integral sense of the word, as will be discussed in

future sections of this writing, begins with the fundamental assumption that

development does not simply mean nullification of personal embodied existence

nor transcendence away from creative participation “in the miracle of this living

universe” (Cortright, 2007, p. 33). Such an alteration of the human condition, can

be viewed, rather, in terms of a gradual elimination or purification process of the

lower ego-clouded defects that “obscure the soul's inner intimations” (p. 35)—

thus not the complete destruction of one’s instrumental (physical, emotional, and

psychological) nature. According to Sri Aurobindo (1940/2005), such a profound

transformation in the world “must proceed through a renunciation by the ego of

its false standpoint, and false certainties, through its entry into a right relation, and

harmony with the totalities of which it forms a part” (pp. 59–60). In his Letters

On Yoga II (2013), in a section titled “The Meaning of Transformation,” Sri

Aurobindo added:

By transformation I do not mean some change of the nature—I do not

mean for instance sainthood or ethical perfection or Yogic siddhis (like the
Tantrik’s) or a transcendental (cinmaya) body. I use transformation in a
special sense, a change of consciousness radical and complete and of a
certain specific kind which is so conceived as to bring about a strong and
assured step forward in the spiritual evolution of the being, an advance of
a greater and higher kind and of a larger sweep and completeness than that
smaller though decisive achievement of the emerging Consciousness . . .
One may have some light of realization at the spiritual summit of the
consciousness but the parts below remain what they were. I have seen any

134
 number of instances of that. There must be a descent of the light not
merely into the mind or part of it but into all the being down to the
physical and below before a real and total transformation can take place.
(p. 398)

Missing Ontological Referent

In terms of transformation, Kant once posited that in order for any kind of

experience to unfold such as the evolution of human consciousness “there must be

an underlying subject, a transcendent ego which is a synthesizing self [that might

drive] such phenomenological and contextual connections between parts of

experience” (Crabtree, 2007, p. 340). As a concurrent development within the

Kantian vision, Derrida (1967/1978) similarly established, “A pure representation,

a machine, never functions on its own” (as cited in Miller & Armstrong, 2007, p.

137). Nevertheless, in his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant (1787/1999),

proclaimed that the transcendent ego or synthesizing self is

so completely empty of all content, that it cannot be called even a

conception, but merely a consciousness which accompanies all
conceptions. This I or he or it, this thing that thinks, is nothing but the
idea of a transcendental subject of thought = x, which is known only
through the thoughts that are its predicates, and which apart from them,
cannot be conceived at all. (as cited in Miśra, 1998, p. 42)

Combs and Krippner (2011) explained, “A more technically precise way of saying

this is that the [evolution] of consciousness is [an impersonal] self-organizing, or

autopoietic system, nested within a larger developmental autopoietic system” (p.

216). To mention a classic example, Graves (1970, 2005) theorized that rather

than an underlying facilitative agent, each “discrete stage of development is

shaped and formed by its relationship to the other stages” (as cited in McIntosh,

2007, p. 32).

135
 This impersonal and empty view is reminiscent of the doctrine of Buddhist

nihilism (or non-existence), which assumes that the self is unfathomable and

perhaps in its essence lacks any essential reality of its own but signifies “an

illusion, Asat, non-being” (Sri Aurobindo, 1940/2005, p. 53). Indeed, a central

concept underlying the cosmocentric perspective is the Buddhist concept of

anātman or no-self. According to this view, Sri Aurobindo (1997a) explained, “a

person is not a person but a continuity of change, a condition of things is not a

condition and there are no things but there is only a continuity of change” (p.

202). Individual consciousness, then, represents “only a sum of apparent

continuous movement of consciousness and energy in past, present, and future to

which we give this name” (Sri Aurobindo, 1940/2005, pp. 604–605). The

Buddhist metaphors of a flickering picture show, a river, or a flame thus replaces

any notion of an inner self, a true being, or an individual soul.

That is for them their self and it is easy for them, if they look with
detachment at its happenings, to agree with the conclusion of the Buddhist
Nihilists that this self is in fact nothing but a stream of idea and experience
and mental action, the persistent flame which is yet never the same flame,
and to conclude that there is no such thing as a real self, but only a flow of
experience and behind it Nihil: there is experience of knowledge without a
Knower, experience of being without an Existent; there are simply a
number of elements, parts of a flux without a real whole, which combine
to create the illusion of a Knower and Knowledge and the Known, the
illusion of an Existent and existence and the experience of existence. This
conclusion of an illusory existent in a real or unreal world is as inevitable
to this kind of withdrawal as is the opposite conclusion of a real Existence
but an illusory world to the thinker who, dwelling on the immobile self,
observes everything else as a mutable not-self; he comes eventually to
regard the latter as the result of a deluding trick of consciousness. (pp.
530–531)

Rather than a continuous process of individual becoming, each emergent

stage of consciousness evolution must logically then “be considered as separate

136
from its predecessor and successor, each successive action of Energy as a new

quantum or new creation” (p. 84). Accordingly, an individual “can never be

anything more than an Ignorance fleeting through Time and catching at

knowledge in a most scanty and fragmentary fashion” (p. 523). Sri Aurobindo

permitted that the cosmocentric lens is very appealing only so far as it proceeds

with its eye fixed solely upon “that which we become, [as] we see ourselves as a

continual progression of movement and change in consciousness in the eternal

succession of Time” (p. 84). But the cosmocentric appeal immediately begins to

fall apart as soon as it attempts to “abrogate continuity without which there would

be no duration of Time or coherence of consciousness” (p. 84).

Very poignantly, Sri Aurobindo (1940/2005) gave the metaphor that the

individual’s steps as he or she “walks or runs or leaps are separate, but there is

something that takes the steps and makes the movement continuous” (p. 84). He

claimed with supreme intuition that through exceeding the rational intellect,

people can begin to “go back behind our surface self and find that this becoming,

change, succession are only a mode of our being and that there is that in us” (pp.

84–85)—that is, an origin, a foundation, an essential nature, the inmost secret of

the true self. Sri Aurobindo mused that such a continuous status of personal

awareness must appear to the cosmocentrist as “a stupendous machinery without a

use, a mighty meaningless movement, an aeonic spectacle without a witness, a

cosmic edifice without an inhabitant” (p. 881). It follows that there should exist

nothing but an empty vessel with “no sign of an indwelling Spirit, no being for

whose delight it was made” (p. 881).

137
 By intentionally obviating any intrinsic sense of a continuing referent of

consciousness, especially in terms of a theory of consciousness evolution, the

cosmocentric view becomes increasingly problematic and furthermore begins to

break down altogether. In other words, without a continuous evolutionary self,

nothing can essentially bridge the gaps that separate the isolated grades of

existence, as it is assumed that no connection can exist between them. To this Sri

Aurobindo asked, “Then how the theory of evolution is to be supported at all?”

(as cited in Miśra, 1998, p. 318). By removing the status of this innermost

consistent and unbroken continuity of being that remains one’s true identity over

the course of one and many lifetimes “without this inwardness, this spiritual

origination, in a too externalized consciousness or by only external means” (Sri

Aurobindo, 1940/2005, p. 1056) no change of consciousness could be possible.

With this, Sri Aurobindo (1997a) wrote:

So it would seem that change is not something isolated which is the sole
original and eternal reality, but it is something dependent on status, and if
status were non-existent, change also could not exist. For we have to ask,
when you speak of change as alone real, change of what, from what, to
what? Without this “what” change could not be. (p. 202)

Summary of Cosmocentric Issues

Cosmocentric illusionism “unifies by elimination; it deprives all

knowledge and experience, except the one supreme merger, of reality and

significance” (Sri Aurobindo, 1940/2005, p. 485). Furthermore, Western

materialistic and analytic philosophies of Plato, Leibniz, Kant, and Bradley, and

Heidegger coupled with the Buddhist schools pervaded by the doctrine of śūnyatā

(Buddhistic emptiness inspired by Nāgārjuna and an early Mahāyāna school

138
called Mādhyamaka) thus appear incomplete, and moreover incapable of

explaining consciousness evolution since they omit a personal and evolving

continuance of self. At base, then, the doctrinal core of the cosmocentric sphere

is far from being neutral or unprejudiced. It is fundamental to stress here that the

theme shared by both cosmocentric theories of developmental psychology—still

quite steeped in the modern scientific tradition—and the philosophies of

Buddhism is their shared “anti-theistic and impersonal biases” (M. Cornelissen,

personal communication, August 10, 2015), which is a significant observation

that will be examined in more detail in the forthcoming chapters.

Reacting to perceived problems, biases, and limitations that appear to

pervade the established bodies of theoretical literature, many critical scholars

have thus criticized the theories indicative of the cosmocentric sphere for: (a)

reducing all realms and worlds into one Absolute, transcendent reality (Ferrer,

2002); (b) viewing “the self as a series of self-images that are fundamentally

empty” (Cortright, 2007, p. 42); (c) privileging a “nondual monistic metaphysic”

(Ferrer, 2002, p. 89); (d) defending the perennialist tradition, which results in part

from “Hume’s empirical realist ontology adopted by modernity (including Kant)

and postmodernity” (Marshall, 2012, p. 198); (e) assuming a single frame of

space-time (Weiss, 2004); (f) conforming to a metaphysical “marriage between

the Great Chain of Being and an empiricist-Kuhnian-Popperian account of

science” (Ferrer, 2002, p. 54); (g) depicting only one monopolar, pre-given path

of ascent as the “one goal for human spiritual evolution” (p. 85); (h) charting

meditative paths of liberation into some kind of transcendent reality or Nirvana as

139
a single privileged end point for human evolution; (i) relegating the status of

material reality to be a fundamental cosmic illusion, dreamlike, unsubstantial, or

Maya thus tending toward degeneration into solipsism; and (j) biasing one

ultimate Ground (e.g., Absolute Consciousness, Spirit, God, Spirit, Pure

Consciousness, or the Universal Mind) as both the impersonal, nondual ground of

experience and the “fundamental essence of human nature” (Ferrer, 2002, p. 75).

That is, the nonpersonal, spiritual ultimate for human development exists at the

same time as “the primary ontological, epistemological, and axiological

foundation of the cosmos” (p. 75).

To recollect to this point, “just as Piaget has clearly . . . demonstrated that

early development concerns the construction of Newtonian reality; so

transpersonal theory concerns its deconstruction” (Wade, 1996, p. 200). The crux

of the matter is that the frontal self, mind, or ego apparently remains as the central

reference point around which cosmocentric theorists are still “principally

concerned, even though it is a lesser self in relation to Spirit” (Washburn, 2003, p.

91). Cosmocentric psychologies, just like egocentric theories of human

development,—while seemingly moving to the opposite extreme rooted in the

Buddhist perspective of no-self or the postmodern concept of many constructed

selves—nevertheless, remain psychologies of the surface. Hence, the

cosmocentric sphere, by itself alone, appears to be an inadequate framework to

explain the deeper transformative processes involved with advanced

psychospiritual changes of consciousness.

140
 The Psychocentric Sphere

In light of the present review, theories of postconventional development

have “treated many dimensions associated with human awareness—moral

reasoning, motivation, ego development, object relations, socialization, etc.”

(Wade, 1996, p. 1). But the soul, or psychocentric dimension, has yet to be

formally situated into any larger model of human development. Further, neither

ascending nor descending postconventional accounts have explicitly addressed the

psychocentric dimension nor have they directly acknowledged the soul as a

possible facilitative agent (a thread to be resumed again below). Particularly

relevant to the present research’s most central and abiding concerns, both Jung

(e.g., 1916/1953) and Assagioli (e.g., 1965) have consistently insisted that it is the

higher-Self, or the soul, that serves as the true catalyst for transformation beyond

identification with the mind or ego. Indeed, Jung, Assagioli, and other

transpersonal psychologists have arguably envisaged a soul, often quite implicitly,

in their respective theories of personality, but not from a strictly developmental

perspective (B. Shirazi, personal communication, October 25, 2011).

It could be argued that ever since the last scientific revolution, Western

psychology has lacked a sufficient developmental framework for the personal

evolution of the soul, basically, because it has maintained there is not one. In a

concerted effort “to understand how the rejection and loss of the soul came about

aside from modernity's more recent secular movements in philosophy-skepticism,

atheistic existentialism, metaphysical materialism (physicalism), science, and the

secular mental health movements” (Riccardi, 2011, p. 189), problematization of

141
the developmental literatures exposed significant anti-theistic and related anti-soul

assumptions that can be summarized in terms of aforementioned egocentric and

cosmocentric biases.

Advocating a form of mystical atheism, it appears that anti-soul biases, for

example, precluded Maslow from fully acknowledging any kind of personalized

actualizing agent like the soul. In fact, it has been theorized by Hoffman and

Ortiz (2008) that Maslow, a self-proclaimed atheist, stopped short of elucidating

upon a psychocentric dimension as the definitive basis for human development

due, in at least part, to his own personal atheistic biases along with deeply

entrenched materialistic assumptions that prevailed in the field of psychology

during his time. Instructor of religion and philosophy George Adams (2002) saw

a similar flawed anti-soul and nontheistic bias underlying Wilber’s theory, which

he said privileges the metaphysical framework of “pure non-dualism over any

notion of a personal soul” (para. 1).

Wilber also displays a rather condescending attitude toward theism and the
mythic [pre-personal, pre-Kantian] mode of consciousness, which might
be appropriate in assessing early theisms which tended to adopt a literal
interpretation of the “personal” aspect of the divine, e.g., deities with
human-like bodies behaving in very imperfect, human-like ways. Yet,
Wilber pays little attention to more mature forms of theism which interpret
the “personal” [soul] with reference to the possession of the perfect form
of the highest human qualities, such as wisdom, love, justice, etc. (para.
23)

Wilber Excludes the Soul Altogether

In terms of the broader domain of the mechanics and pragmatics of

postconventional theory, Wilber’s ideas are inescapable to any debate or

discussion on the psychospiritual evolution of individual consciousness. While

142
Wilber comes apparently close, in the final analysis, he makes an ultimate de-

valuation of the soul dimension—apparent not only in the psychocentric sphere’s

absence from his stacking and four quadrants but also in “his defensive remarks

about the nature and role of the individual self” (Adams, 2002, para. 30). Despite

his supposedly inclusivist stance, it could be argued that his stacked egocentric-

cosmocentric version of integral development simply reconceives of an

intellectual justification for a soul-denying post-metaphysical metaphysics (see

Wilber, 2004). Like other transpersonal theorists reviewed so far, it seems Wilber

has categorically denied the notion of an eternal soul, at least in the integral (i.e.,

Aurobindonian) or esoteric sense of the term—that is, as the central being who

makes the movements of consciousness evolution continuous and even possible

(Sri Aurobindo, 1940/2005). Wilber’s anti-soul bias seems to be a predictable

consequence of adopting a post-personal and fundamentally empty monopolar

(ladder-shaped) framework.

For instance, while Wilber has readily employed the terms soul,

transmigration, and subtle body throughout much of his more recent work,

nevertheless, it appears that he has relegated such notions to an inferior mythic

status, which inhabits a structure of consciousness several stages below his

evolutionary ultimate, or a nondual “self of the causal realm, [the] formless self,

[which] is the True Self, or the Ultimate Self, or the Real Self” (Wilber & Cohen,

2012). Rather than drawing on Sri Aurobindo’s integral yoga psychology, it

seems Wilber’s definition of the True Self mainly reiterates the philosophies of his

teacher Adi Da Samraj (1995):

143
 That relationship is simply the expressed Intensity of the Heart, of the
True Self, of Real God. . . . There is a process at the level of the causal
being, the unmoved realm of deep sleep, that also corresponds to the vast
complications of the subtle and gross worlds. . . . There is no ultimate
difference . . . It is a traditional name for the Perfect, Formless, Most Prior
Divine Being. (p. 152)

As a matter of fact, “Wilber's dominant view is that there is no personhood

or self of any kind in the mystical end-state of nondual awareness” (Heron, 2007,

para. 19). In his scheme, transient subtle awareness (rather than a personal soul)

is assumed to serve as a “kind of stepping stone to the nondual Absolute”

(Daniels, 2005, p. 223). Hence, according to Wilber, gradations of Spirit are seen

as succession of autopoietic and dissipative-structures that eventually transcend

the personal existence and dissolve into the nondual ground. Again, Heron (2007)

brings clarity to the problem with the following excerpt:

If there is no distinct center of reference within the mystic who is in the

nondual state of the absolute identity of emptiness and form, then the
mystic's state is indistinguishable from the Divine as such, from God as
God is for God. This is the great problem of inflation for the no-
personhood-of-any-kind-at-all-in-final-realization tradition of the nondual.
And the nondual traditions have a repetitive problem with it. The
inflation, I believe, is illusory. It rests on a denial of any individuation
within the nondual state. This denial suffers, first, from a naïve bias in
favor of objective seamlessness. (para. 19)

Leaving aside the shared nomenclature of psychic and integral, Wilber’s

spectrum of consciousness model appears to miss almost entirely Sri Aurobindo’s

meaning of the integral yogic term psychic being—the evolving soul personality

said to be located in a transcendent dimension behind the heart chakra, which is

one with, but different in identity, from the Jīvātman who stands above the

evolution (clarification of these terms will be addressed in much greater detail in

the following chapters). Suffice it for now to say, Wilber’s psychic level is

144
portrayed vaguely and imprecisely as an inferior, mid-range, and transitory state

of consciousness. Indeed, his psychic level does not reflect Sri Aurobindo’s true

soul, which remains always as a constant (regardless of state) and represents the

true guide for the individual evolution of consciousness over the course of one

and many lifetimes. In fact, Wilber’s terminology of the term psychic diverges

almost entirely away from Sri Aurobindo’s intended integral usage in ways that

are far more numerous and profound than their similarities.

As a further example, “taking the idea of the creation of a soul by the

physical birth as our starting-point” (Sri Aurobindo, 1940/2005, p. 699), Wilber

(2012) in an audio discussion with American spiritual teacher and writer Andrew

Cohen titled The Resurrection of the Soul (IntegralLife.com), acknowledged that

his notion of a soul is “empty” at birth—that is until it gets its “states sequence”

from the gross, subtle, and causal self-structures. Arguably, Wilber lumps

together Sri Aurobindo’s psychic center with a transitional state of consciousness,

or the lower subtle self-sense. Wilber explained:

If we start and use, let us just say, the traditional three major states or
realms of consciousness and being namely: gross/waking,
subtle/dreaming, and deep formless sleep. Or the [Buddhist] nirmāṇakāya,
sambhogakāya, and dharmakāya,. Each of those realms has a self-sense.
And the self of the gross realm is the ego. And the self of the subtle realm
is the soul. And the self of the causal realm, formless self, is the true self,
or the ultimate self, or the real self (different terms given for that). The
soul is the self in the subtle realm. And it is made up of a substance. It is
made of subtle energy. Just as the ego is made of gross energy, and gross
components, and gross elements. The soul is composed of subtle elements
and subtle components. And as a self, as a self-sense, it is the highest
pointer to complete enlightenment. And [the soul] is the final barrier;
because, it is a personal self-sense. It is the highest [rung] of the personal
selfhood. But it is not the radical ultimate, transcendental, ground of all
being, one-with-Spirit, that is the true self, the causal self—just using
these three domains. (Wilber & Cohen, 2012)

145
 Wilber’s psychic structure, by his own admission, has been reduced to the

sambhogakāya (subtle, bardo, or dream state) of the Tibetan Buddhist tradition.

He has essentially made the claim that the psychic level comprises of subtle

components. It seems that he is saying that as a self-sense, the soul is but a

limiting condition that exists between the dreaming and waking states of

subjective consciousness. For Wilber, then, the psychic is presented as just

another basic rung on the gross-subtle-causal (i.e., astral-archetypal-psychic-

nondual) ladder of consciousness transcendence. In Rachael’s (2012) words, “For

Wilber, the soul is but one link among many in the Great Chain of Being that

connects the human to a nondual Spirit” (p. 32). Rachel explained:

In Wilber’s model, each of the stages of consciousness has a

corresponding energetic, exterior dimension. In the spectrum (or ladder)
of consciousness and energies ranging from more gross to more subtle,
consciousness is an interior phenomena, while energy (in the form of
grosser or subtler forms of matter) is “the exterior form of every rung”
(pp. 219–220). In a 7-stage scheme, ranging from more gross to more
subtle, Wilber suggests the following energetic stages: physical, etheric,
astral, psychic, subtle (or “psychic-2” or “soul”), causal, and nondual.
Referring to the evolutionary correlation of form, nonphysical energies,
and consciousness, Wilber asserts that gross matter or gross form are not
divorced from the more subtle levels of consciousness and energy, but
rather serve through their increasing complexification as “the vehicle of
manifestation for both subtler energies and greater consciousness” (p.
228). (Rachel, 2012, pp. 32–33)

Returning to the central point, Wilber does not seem to grant a distinct and

state-consistent psychological referent that evolves the person from within. What

is interesting, as Ferrer (2002) noted, “in spite of his great reliance on Piaget,

Wilber's structuralist account of spiritual diversity is much closer to Chomsky's

universal grammar and Levi-Strauss's structural anthropology than to Piaget's

146
genetic constructivism” (p. 201). Instead of envisioning his (Wilber, 1995, 2000)

all-quadrant, all-level (AQAL) model as dependent on the evolving status of an

ontic substrate of individual consciousness, Wilber’s scheme, rather, appears to

focus exclusively on the purview of four basic pronouns to define his model’s

four linguistically-segregated boxes: (a) I (interior-individual, Upper Left

quadrant); (b) it (exterior-individual Upper Right quadrant); (c) we (interior-

social, Lower Left quadrant); and (d) Its (exterior-social, Lower Right quadrant).

In this assemblage, the underlying Ground of Being is arguably language itself

(Heron, 2007).

The main problem with this kind of structuralist account is “that these

invariant structures are more important, more essential, and more explanatory

than the variable forms [of being themselves], which are regarded as contingent

cultural artifacts” (Ferrer, 2002, p. 96). Recalling the anthropocentric biases of

neo-Kantianism, Ferrer elucidated, “And this is so, structuralists maintain,

because all human phenomena are ultimately a reflection of the structure of the

human mind” (p. 96). Thus, it could be said that rather than recognizing a

personal and individuating soul, as in a personal ground for the evolution of

consciousness, it seems Wilber was echoing Cook-Greuter (2004) by saying that

each rung on his ladder of transcendence is more of an overall “center of gravity

or . . . ‘central tendency’ in meaning-making” (p. 277). In Heron’s (2007) view,

there appear no fundamental conceptual or experiential differentiations that can be

discriminated by Wilber between the monopolar ground (reflected in pronouns)

and any deeper soul dimension:

147
 So on the right-hand, exterior side of his holonic map, the path of outward
descent is only about relating to physical and social processes in this
world. There is no correlative and complementary path of expressive
outward ascent of the soul in other worlds, in the suprasensory cosmos.
His general tendency here is to reduce outward ascent to inward ascent,
the transphysical to the transpersonal: subtle worlds to subtle interior
states (the psychic and the subtle in his scheme are exclusively on the left
and interior side of his holonic map). He has quadrants, in his holonic
scheme, for sensory observables, individual and collective, but not for
transphysical, extrasensory observables. (para. 49)

Wilber’s model has been further charged with making the fundamental

mistake of demoting all spiritual realities (i.e., like the soul as described by

premodern, occult, and esoteric traditions) to the Upper-Left quadrant and thus

reducing all mystical meaning and spiritual realization to the interior realm of the

individual (Ferrer, 2002, 2011, 2015). This dichotomy is problematic because

Wilber evades the heart of the question: What exactly connects the interiors with

the exteriors? Kazlev (2006) asserted, “Nowhere in all his voluminous writings

does Wilber suggest a way out of this dilemma, other than to refer to a

transcendent Absolute” (para. 48). With his depersonalization of the physical

body as an it (Upper Right quadrant), Kazlev contended that Wilber’s theory is no

different from Cartesian Flatland, as it is still based on a fallacious “exoteric

dualism of mind and body, or as he prefers to put it, interiors and exteriors” (para.

45).

To sum up, Heron (2007) perceptively noted that Wilber’s meta-

theoretical map: (a) lacks reference to its necessary basis or, as this writer would

put it, its ontological reference point, “and therefore (b) ignores a basic priority in

the ordering of its components, an order which (c) has certain important

epistemological consequences” (para. 57). In a similar way, although

148
commending Wilber for redeeming the epistemic value of postconventional

consciousness, Ferrer has also notably faulted Wilber for reductionistic biases.

Once again, the problem here has to do with significantly mistaking physical

evolution as if it were the sole reality. Followed to its logical conclusion, it can

be inferred from Wilber’s rendering of interiors inside of bodies (i.e., the gross it

of the Upper Left quadrant) that his map “cannot be but another product of

modern anthropocentrism” (Ferrer, 2002, p. 28). In classic neo-Kantian fashion,

then, Wilber has accounted for selfhood in terms that seem purely reducible to

interiors of materialist monistic forms (i.e., atoms, molecules, cells, etc.).

Due to Wilber’s apparent anthropocentric predisposition, Ferrer (2015),

noted “among other possibilities, it seems [Wilber] overlooks the possible

existence of subtle worlds or dimensions of reality coexisting with the physical

realm that potentially house indwelling nonphysical entities” (p. 54). In the

following excerpt from his online audio discussion with Cohen, Wilber (2012)

seems to confirm Ferrer’s concerns, as he unmistakably relegates such subtle

realms to the lucid (or the bardo) state of dreaming consciousness and entities to

the deep (interior) structures dependent on the physical plane of (exterior)

existence.

And whatever these beings are, they are essentially coming from a subtle
realm of existence. But that subtle realm, like everything else, exists in
four quadrants. So a perceived non-physical angel or a 10,000 armed
deity is going to come not only from an individual’s interior, it is not only
going to come from brain structures, but is going to come from your
culture, in Lower Left quadrant, and it is going to come from the systems
and the institutions that are available. And all of these moment-to-
moment impact to create what shows up in your consciousness. (Wilber &
Cohen, 2012)

149
 To reiterate to this point, Wilber’s concept of human change and

development involves impersonal teleological forces (e.g., entelechies, inner

evolutionary potentials, chaotic attractors, deep structures, or built-in seeded

coding) that appear mainly consistent with Sheldrake’s (2009) theory of nonlocal

morphogenetic memory. Rather than granting a personal, evolutionary soul as the

substrate of evolutionary existence, it seems the crux of Wilber’s work has

attributed the fundamental source, or cause, of human growth and development

almost exclusively to an above-mentioned stacked formulation expressed in terms

of vague linguistic and teleological notions.

Furthermore, Wilber (1995) has apparently attributed the very impetus, the

evolutionary urge, or the universal purpose and goal of human development to be

expressed in in terms of (a) telos-Spirit, Eros, Agape, or indwelling Spirit-in

action (see Ferrer, 1998; Heron, 2007); (b) to Kosmic grooves (Wilber, 2003,

2007); or (c) impersonal habits established in collective fields of human

consciousness (e.g., Sheldrake, 1981, 1988). In Wilber’s (2006) own words, he

indicated that “all that would be required to account for the creation of ever-

higher levels of being and knowing is an autopoietic, dissipative-structure

tendency in the universe” (p. 240). Heron (2007) critiqued, however, that Wilber

never factors into his account a facilitative agent proper (an intentional,

individuating, and intrinsically personal aspect of Divine consciousness) to guide

an “intentional developmental path” (para. 48). Wilber’s telos-Spirit “just moves

the development along from behind the scenes: it is not engaged with as part of

the development itself” (para. 48).

150
Jung’s Kantian Biases against the Soul

As mentioned earlier, theorists such as Jung and Assagioli have both

envisioned an advanced soul function or a higher immutable aspect of

consciousness that relates to the basic governance of the psyche as well as a

facilitator for advanced psychospiritual development. Jung, like Assagioli,

distinguished “between the ego and self by defining the ego as the center of the

conscious psyche, and the self as the center of the total psyche comprising both of

the conscious and the unconscious fields” (Dalal, 2007, p. 184). As is well

known, Jung spoke “of individuation as a mystical process, for the self,” (p. 186),

which reveals a person's own uniqueness. Nevertheless, their respective Self-

concepts appear to be conceived entirely devoid of personal selfhood and,

consequently, evolutionary purpose. Particularly, for Jung, the soul was assumed

to represent a transcendent archetype existing within the collective unconscious

“something exceedingly impersonal, exceedingly objective” (Jung & Shamdasani,

1996, p. 40). Indeed, according to Seeman (2001), Jung was greatly

influenced by the psychological relativism of Immanuel Kant and thus

holds that we cannot directly perceive reality, but that such perception is
mediated by mental preconceptions and the senses. Late in life, and after
his own encounter death, he softens his position and acknowledges the
psychic reality of unitary experience. (p. 119)

In a close reading of Jung’s Psychology of Kundalini Yoga (Jung &

Shamdasani, 1996), it can be noted, for instance, that his interpretation of the

puruṣa (Ātman or soul in Indian yogic psychology) seems to be expressed in

impersonal, unknowable, and neo-Kantian terms. For example, Jung wrote, “In

anāhata you behold the purusa, a small figure that is the divine self, namely, that

151
which is not identical with mere causality, mere nature, a mere release of energy

that runs down blindly with no purpose” (p. 39). While he granted its higher

status, it seems Jung reduced the puruṣa to an object entirely devoid of personal

selfhood, meaning, or purpose, as he warned his audience not to identify with it.

That is, highly reminiscent of nondual traditions (i.e., Shankara's illusionism and

Nagrjuna's nihilism), it appears that in Jung’s analytical psychology, the puruṣa or

soul, is thus devoid of any individuality. For example, a little later in the same

passage, Jung proclaimed that if a person is to think that he is “the puruṣa himself,

he is crazy . . . We are allowed to behold the puruṣa . . . But we are not the purusa;

that is a symbol that expresses the impersonal process” (p. 40). Jung continued:

The self is something exceedingly impersonal, exceedingly objective. If

you function in your self you are not yourself—that is what you feel. You
have to do it as if you were a stranger: you will buy as if you did not buy;
you will sell as if you did not sell. Or as St. Paul expresses it, “But it is
not I that lives, it is Christ that liveth in me,” meaning that his life had
become an objective life, not his own life but the life of a greater one, the
purusa. (p. 40)

In fact, it is important here to note, Jung (Jung & Shamdasani, 1996)

characterized the entire Indian (yogic) approach to knowledge as pre-Kantian (or

in Wilberian parlance as pre-rational) and adjudicated that the Indian approach

fails to define reality in a rigorous and critical manner. Jung essentially

stereotyped Indian psychology as “primitive” (Seeman, 2001, p. 77). To him, for

instance, the Indian yogic claim of omniscience could not possibly be true, as he

asserted that one could only perceive reality within the constraints of the self-

sense. Jung (as cited in Coward, 1985) concluded, “the Eastern intellect is

underdeveloped when compared with the Western intellect” (p. 74).

152
 The Western mind can do nothing with it. To the Indian way of thinking
such hypostasized abstractions are much more concrete and substantial.
For example, to the Indian, the Brahman or the puruṣa is the one
unquestioned reality; to us it is the final result of extremely bold
speculation. (Jung & Shamdasani, 1996, p. 69)

Jung’s conceptions of divinity and the soul were described in decidedly

anthropocentric and atheistic terms. That is, he proposed that they were

essentially “the archetypal product of humankind's millions of years of

psychological evolution and, as such, [God] is fundamentally dependent on

humankind for His very existence” (Daniels, 2005, p. 222). Daniels offered the

following quote by Jung to further substantiate this point: “It would be a

regrettable mistake if anybody should understand my observations to be a kind of

proof of the existence of God. They prove only the existence of an archetypal

image of the deity, which to my mind is the most we can assert psychologically

about God” (p. 221).

Thus, even psychocentric theories of the higher-Self potentially fall prey

to aforementioned neo-Kantian and antitheist biases. In this spirit, it seems Jung

was not willing to make any such metaphysical postulate regarding the ultimate

nature of the soul or of God, rather, “maintaining that, as an empiricist, the only

reality that he could speak about was the [archetypal] reality, that is, the reality of

things as experienced directly within one's psyche” (Daniels, 2005, p. 185).

According to Seeman (2001), numerous other Kantian biases appear to underpin

Jung's critique of Eastern thought:

[Jung] attempts to reconcile the European split between reason and soul by
honoring his personal, numinous experience of individuation. That
experience is verified by many centuries of pre-scientific alchemical
thinking. He reasons that personal experiences of the numinous bring

153
 forth symbolic images that empirically exist as psychological reality. He
found such symbolic images in his experiences, those of his patients, and
the myths and fairytales of many cultures . . . He sees yoga practice
offering a panacea to many who would seek to acquire transcendence as
an object, yet fail to explore their own psyches. He also has scruples
based on his allegiance to the Kantian path that led to his personal insights
and may have helped him ward off being possessed by his emerging
unconscious material. With these scruples, he rejects any theoretical
possibility of the non-dual consciousness claimed by yogic adepts and
other mystics through the ages, although he later softens his position. (p.
120, p. 140)

Further Anti-Soul Biases

As a further example of this trend, William James (1902/1985) mentioned

a concept like the transcendental ego or spiritual self in his writings; however,

according to Dalal (2007), James attempted to steer clear of all definitions of

terms that could be interpreted as metaphysical or theological. Particularly, when

speaking about the soul that Kant had “abstracted and depersonalized as an

abstract consciousness” (p. 184), James wrote that psychology ought to be treated

as a natural science: “The states of consciousness are all that psychology needs to

do her work with. Metaphysics or theology may prove the soul to exist; but for

psychology the hypothesis of such a substantial principle or unity is superfluous”

(as cited in Dalal, 2007, p. 182).

While Washburn has readily employed the concepts of the dark night of

the soul and the Ground of Being as well as assigning the transpersonal, nonegoic,

or higher-Self to exist at the center of the psyche; nevertheless, according to

Daniels (2005), “the term soul cannot be found in his compilation of writings” (p.

208).

As we have seen, there are just two main components to the self in
Washburn's theory—the nonegoic core and the ego. Transegoic

154
 experience does not represent a third component, but is rather the
consequence of the change in the ego's attitude towards the nonegoic core,
which has always contained both preegoic and transegoic potentials. (p.
207)

Daniels pointed out, that “it is unclear from Washburn's account exactly how he

conceives the [soul]—whether as an experience, as a metaphor, symbol, or

archetypal personification of human perfection, as a psychological structure, as a

potentiality, or as an actual metaphysical entity” (p. 208).

Upon closer reading of Washburn’s (2003) conceptions of the dynamic

ground, for him, the deep psyche is not one with the soul. In keeping with the

above-mentioned neo-Kantian assumptions that reinforce agnosticism toward the

ontological status of the soul dimension, Washburn indicated, that while “the ego

is the center of consciousness” (p. 92), the deep psyche, on the other hand, stands

behind the ego, and, moreover, this non-egoic ground is inherited and universal

and thus cannot be interpreted as being personal in any regard like a soul:

The perspective of this book is depth-psychological because it follows the

psychoanalytic tradition in acknowledging the reality of hidden psychic
depths underlying the ego system, depths including not only a personal
unconscious laid down over the course of a person's life but also a deep
psychic core (or deep psyche), which is inherited and, therefore, universal
to the species. (Washburn, 2003, p. 1)

Wade Comes Closest to Intimating the Soul

Admittedly, it seems transpersonal theorist and developmental

psychologist Jenny Wade’s (1996) holonomic theory of human development has

perhaps come the closest in terms of incorporating a postformal theory of a fully

actualized authentic self as “a bridge of sorts to more advanced stages of

consciousness” (Pederson, 2011, p. 221). Indeed, in sharp contrast to mainstream

155
psychological models that suppose a purely materialistic basis for human

development—a bias that “assumes that the body and the biological and

physiological factors of our nature are only the starting-point” (Dalal, 2001, pp.

4–5), Wade (1996) uniquely granted the possibility of reincarnation. She

described reincarnation as a “belief common to many spiritual traditions but

lacking in published transpersonal psychology” (p. 278).

It is difficult to explain the existence of such physically transcendent

experiences in terms of materialism. In their present state, the past-life
data are not conclusive proof of reincarnation. If taken at face value,
however, both the intermittent appearance of past-life and perinatal
memories cannot be attributed to the central nervous system. (p. 114)

Wade (1996) has impressively cited extensive research data from

“regression therapies that might be argued to access material from previous

existences” (p. 278). In her final analysis, however, Wade unequivocally

retreated from any possible causal, or personal role for the evolutionary soul in

psychospiritual development (J. Wade, personal communication, October 19,

2011). Here, in her own precise terms, she explained: “The Western concept of

the soul . . . as a cognate probably most closely resembles [this intrinsic

facilitative agent but] is too culturally laden to be a feasible usage” (Wade, 1996,

p. 278). Wade simultaneously argued that all uniqueness and individuality that

could be attributed to the personal soul is, in reality, a mere holographic

expression of the impersonal Absolute Self (p. 14). Hence, in classic

cosmocentric, neo-Kantian form, Wade reduced the theoretical possibility of an

evolutionary soul down to basically the state of illusion:

Just as the enfolded adjacent ink drops give the illusion of a single drop
moving along a path, the potential or partially realized self may appear to

156
 evolve. But that self and its “development” derive from a greater order
representing the fully actualized, unhanging, eternal Self in the Absolute
reality. Furthermore, this eternal Self should not be confused with
consciousness. Any non-material form of personhood [like a soul] . . .
may seem more like mind or consciousness, which we are accustomed to
conceptualizing without three-dimensional representation, but that is not
accurate, any more than the totality of cylinders, glycerin, and rotational
force resemble the pattern of a “moving drop” they make manifest. (p. 13)

Death of the Soul

Such discussion raises significant issues. Academically speaking, there

has been perceived a penchant for dismissing the psychocentric dimension, which

has been, more or less, chronicled by various “bright, well informed,

scientifically, [and] epistemologically oriented philosophers,” (Chapman, 2005, p.

26) social critics, psychologists, and theologians. Chapman put it somewhat

dramatically, “Soul has fallen on evil days. The engendered malaise, now

culture-wide, has been called ‘loss of soul’ or even more starkly the death of the

soul” (p. 26). French psychoanalyst Julia Kristeva (1995) in New Maladies of the

Soul asked the question: “These days, who still has a soul? Neither Prozac, soap

operas, nor religious enthusiasms provide an inner zone, a secured garden, an

intense quarter . . . a psychic life" (p. 7). Especially in contemporary society,

Fenn and Capps (1995) have attempted to trace the apparent loss of soul

“focusing on varieties of soul-loss in antiquity, religious history, and

contemporary American culture” (as cited in Chapman, 2005, p. 27).

According to Kroth (2010), in the West, “the notion that thoughts, spirits,

and soul-like phenomena [are] mere sense impressions or ‘secretions’ of the brain

delivers us to the doorsteps of nineteenth century thinkers, John Stuart Mill, Julian

Huxley, and even further back to Thomas Hobbes” (p. 34). In the wake of ever-

157
increasing interest from innumerable scholars, W. Barrett (1986) wrote in Death

of the Soul: “Despite all the brilliant scientific and technological advances, our

understanding of human consciousness has become more fragmentary and bizarre,

until at present we seem in danger of losing any grasp of the human mind

altogether” (p. xvi).

The loss of soul, however, is not limited to philosophy, as the anti-soul

bias has a long and storied history in both Western and Eastern spiritual traditions

as well. Surprisingly even, according to Boyd (1994), many modern Christian

translators attempt to use “whenever possible a word other than soul to translate

the Hebrew word nephesh or the Greek word psyche into English” (Riccardi,

2011, p. 190). This aversion can be explained, perhaps, by a contemporary

intolerance of the soul expressed throughout many Christian churches, as they

now tend to assume that such an esoteric term cannot represent a Christian idea

(Riccardi, 2011). Cortright (2007) rightly observed: “Even when the soul is used

in its spiritual context of the immortal soul in Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and

Judaism, it implies an unchanging, eternal substance rather than a growing being”

(p. 25). Thus, for theories of human development that mention the word higher-

Self, they too “have failed to understand the evolutionary dimension of the soul”

(p. 25).

Much of the Eastern influenced psychospirituality does not recognize the

existence of a true evolutionary soul either (Miovic, 2007). Thus, the field places

emphasis instead on realization of the impersonal aspect of Ātman (Absolute

Self). Even the Buddhist reincarnation doctrine does not obviate the existence of

158
any deeper soul dimension. For instance, the Buddhist view of consciousness still

persistently maintains that there exists no reincarnating entity but only a fluid and

non-personal awareness that “continues on into the next life [as] an enduring

pattern, not the self, which is an illusion” (Hoffman, Stewart, Warren, & Meek,

2009, p. 15). In a similar way, Kroth (2010) reiterated:

For the Buddhist there is no individual enduring personality that is

reincarnated nor even an individual soul in anything like the Western
sense. . . . Rather there is a constant reformulation of “personality in new
bodies.” This personality is a Force at work streaming through time and
never for a moment the same. (p. 68)

Soul has Become Self

It should not be surprising that the phenomenology of the soul—“banished

by respectable society from public, outer space” (Weiss, 2003, p. 7)—has

meanwhile “retreated into a shadowy domain that psychology re-discovered” (p.

7) as the unconscious or as the Self. Hoffman et al. (2009) once observed: “It is

hard to imagine Western psychology without a conception of the self. The self is

intertwined with diagnosis, personality, assessment, and treatment” (Hoffman &

Ortiz, 2008, p. 2). To this point, Irwin (2002) observed, “From Freud to Piaget,

conceptions of development have proposed as their apex a conscious and self-

possessed personhood” (p. 18). In fact, the formation of a separate and

autonomous “self is the starting point for virtually all developmental theories,

regardless of their nominal beginning” (Wade, 1996, p. 97). Veritably,

throughout the developmental literatures, issues of the self versus Self,

individuality, personality, consciousness, mind, spirit, and psyche and other

159
“modern substitute[s] for the soul” (Duvall, 1998, p. 8) have proven increasingly

problematic. Quoting Duvall, Beck (2002) wrote:

Into the vacuum left 100 years ago by the departure of the soul has stepped
the self. “We have come to use self to bear some of the meaning that soul
used to carry” (Duvall, 1998, p. 8). Synonyms abound for self (person,
individuality, identity), and the word has served the discipline well. The
word is widely understood in both secular and religious circles, and it has
proven to be heuristic in contrast to the dead end status of soul studies in
the 19th and 20th centuries even though some predict the end of the self to
be replaced with a postmodern psychological construction of many selves
that are socially embedded. (para. 42)

While many of the contemporary ideas of the soul “have been influential, .

. . they have yet to reach mainstream academic discourse” (Weiss, 2003, p. 43).

As professor of psychology Jerry Kroth (2010) pointed out, there remains a

fundamental flaw undermining much of the field of academic psychology. That

is, Kroth spotted a 300 yearlong gap with “hardly any compelling professional

body of psychological literature on the soul to review” (p. 32). To underscore the

extent of “the institutional bias” (p. 35), Kroth pointed out, “The hallowed,

pristine—and sanitized—databases of academic psychology [contain] . . .

beggarly numbers of articles published [on the soul]” (p. 32). Kroth further

offered that if one were to investigate academic psychology’s storied database,

Psych Lit, and impute soul and existence versus soul and nonexistence, the

researcher would likely find that “there are fourteen times more articles on the

latter topic than the former” (p. 35). The soul has “dropped out of respectable

academic discourse for many centuries” (Weiss, 2003, pp. 6–7). Duvall (1998)

wrote:

In the current psychological literature, usage of soul is virtually non-

existent, with the exception that more recently, in the last few years, there

160
 has been a burgeoning use of the term soul in the title of articles, books,
and presentations, but virtually no definition nor discussion of the term’s
meaning. Reference to soul care has been particularly popular since the
publication of Thomas Moore’s (1992) book, Care of the Soul. In the
recent history of psychological literature pertaining to the self, one is
struck with the synonymous usage of self and soul. John Broughton’s
(1980) chapter on “Psychology and the History of the Self: From
Substance to Function” illustrates this point. Several examples of
sentences in context [has shown] this equivalency. (p 8)

To this day, in the Western philosophical world, one of the most inspiring,

ennobling, and yet controversial concepts in the Western endeavor of

psychological inquiry is approaching this idea of the human soul. Considering the

intellectual climate, the soul is, of course, a difficult word. It seems important to

note, scientists have fundamentally avoided the subject because of the way it

tends to undermine their “quasi-religious commitment to the metaphysical

principle of scientific materialism” (McIntosh, 2007, p. 9). That is, the soul has

“been systematically ignored or rejected by mainstream [psychologists who find

it] too discordant with prevailing views to take it seriously” (E. F. Kelly, 2007, p.

xxiii). Alluding to these and other anti-metaphysical biases against the soul

exposed throughout the psychological discourse, Giegerich (1998/2008)

indicated, “The psychology of the Self, the soul, the daimon [can be] a huge

defense mechanism against the soul, against the self, against the daimon” (p. 20).

Such incredulity against the soul appears symptomatic of the fact that the field of

psychology remains beleaguered by a certain “hubris of absolutist metaphysics

[further] constrained by the assumptions of the Cartesian-Kantian legacy” (Ferrer,

2002, p. 188).

161
 On a scholarly level, it would seem that a metaphysic that could

intelligently account for the transformative role of the evolutionary soul in the

development of individual consciousness might serve as a better and more

adequate paradigm for developmental psychology. Nevertheless, the idea that an

incarnated soul essentially guides the course of human development looks quite

radical from the point of view of Western science. But, more or less in esoteric

terms, this attitude has been widely accepted and even taken for granted.

Historically, the occult idea of an indestructible seed or spark of Divine

consciousness appears prominent in many pre-modern civilizations.

As will be apparent from the discussion that will follow, Sri Aurobindo

has drawn from an ancient tradition (i.e., the cosmic philosophy), which he

claimed to be an “ancient pre-Indo-European religion, from which both the Indo-

Iranian (which includes the Vedic) and Western occult traditions descended”

(Julich, 2013, p. 72). Such so-called occult cosmologies like Egyptian

Hermeticism, Jewish Kabbalism, and later European occultism—Blavatsky’s

Theosophy representing just one such movement in a long line—have prevailed in

advancing these types of esoteric claims despite constant onslaught and tensions

ensuing from the orthodox Christian tradition on one side and modern science on

the other. On this reoccurring esoteric theme of the soul, the Mother (1979)

explained:

All these zones, these planes of reality, received different names and were
classified in different ways according to the occult schools, according to
the different traditions, but there is an essential similarity, and if we go
back far enough into the various traditions, hardly anything but words
differ, depending upon the country and the language. (as cited in Julich,
2013, p. 73)

162
 An examination of both contemporary psychological theories and the

history of scientific theorizing have revealed that the concept of a soul has

become taboo in intellectual and even transpersonal circles (Daniels, 2005). To

this point, Talbot (1992) elucidated, “It is currently not fashionable in science to

consider seriously any phenomenon that seems to support the idea of a spiritual

reality” (p. 244). Many examples of this bias could easily be cited. Perhaps due

to its unpopular status, study of the non-physical, transmigrating soul “has lagged

behind the study of non-dual teachings as an academic discipline, and there is an

apparent prejudice in both academic and popular circles . . . in favor of the more

secular, non-dual schools of thought, such as Buddhism” (Julich, 2013, p. 26).

Julich summed up the distinction as follows:

Buddhism and other contemporary non-dual teachings lend themselves

easily to the secular and academic discourse, while the more occult
practices of such systems as Tantra are fraught with accusations of
charlatanism and deemed inferior . . . It is perhaps telling of this prejudice
that there is a dearth of departments of occult studies in universities, and
by the almost complete absence of Western occultism in popular non-
duality-based models such as Wilber’s. (pp. 26–27)

In the contemporary scholarly debate on psychospiritual development, just

why the academic community refuses to consider the occult realms or subtle

dimensions of being is itself an interesting question, although not one that can be

explored in any amount of depth here. Kroth (2010) simply put it, “Academic

psychology, the most popular undergraduate major in the United States, has for

over three generations, proselytized that the immortal soul of the ages does not

exist” (p. 462). Kroth added that it is assumed that the soul “cannot be studied,

and whatever its putative qualities, it is reducible to drizzles and driblets of

163
serotonin and norepinephrine” (p. 462). He pointed to a few exceptions to this

observation such as some discussion on the soul has appeared in pastoral and

psychotherapeutic journals along with a few references in psychoanalysis and a

handful of scholars “call for the return of the soul to psychology” (p. 469). But,

when all is said and done, “stiff necked . . . psychology has not dithered nor

wavered in a century” (p. 469). Indeed, for the most part, the academic

establishment in the field of psychology has entirely ignored the conclusions of

researchers concerning such topics of near death experience, reincarnation, out-

of-body experience along with the vast empirical body of evidence that compels

such research.

The politically correct and rigidly-policed bias of academic psychology—

that any subjective reports of individuals actually leaving their bodies at
these moments should either be ignored, dismissed, explained away, or
remain censored/unpublished in peer-reviewed journals—is a point of
view that an open-minded, rational person should look at with extreme
skepticism. (p. 798)

Implications of a Transmigrating Soul

These seemingly dogmatic biases against the soul, nevertheless, become

increasingly problematic and furthermore seem to fall apart when faced with a

substantial body of evidence amassed over the past half century suggestive of

reincarnation, which includes scholarly scientific empiricism and meticulous

fieldwork along with experimental and clinical research findings. Indeed, “the

irrational incredulity that remains characteristic of mainstream scientific opinion

in this area seems to us a remarkable anomaly that will provide abundant and

challenging grist for the mills of future historians and sociologists of science” (E.

F. Kelly, 2007, p. xxvi). Exceedingly “sufficient, high-quality evidence has long

164
since been available . . . at least for those willing to study the evidence with an

open mind” (p. xxvi). Such examples can be classified according to at least four

categories: (a) hypnotic regressions to previous lives (see Baker, 1982; Kampman,

1976; Kampman & Hirvenoja, 1978; Matlock, 1990; Perry, Laurence, D'Eon, &

Tallant, 1988; Tarazi, 1990; Venn, 1986); (b) systematic cross-cultural studies of

spontaneous past life recall in children (see Edelmann & Bernet, 2007;

Haraldsson, 2003; Stevenson, 1974a, 1974b, 1976, 1977a, 1977b, 1982, 1983a,

1983b, 1984, 1987, 1990, 1994, 1997a, 1997b; Stevenson, & Pasricha, 1980); (c)

altered states of consciousness in adults (see Grof, 1975, 1985, 1988a, 1988b;

Grof & Bennet, 1993; S. Grof & C. Grof, 1980); and (d) the demonstrated

effectiveness of past life therapy in terms of resolving psychiatric disturbances in

the clinical setting (see Lucas, 1993; Marriott, 1984; Meyersburg, Bogdan, Gallo,

& McNally, 2009; Spanos, Menary, Gabora, DuBreuil, & Dewhirst, 1991).

Clearly, developmental psychology might stand to gain by attempting to

address concerns such as the question of how individual consciousness can

“conceivably survive the destruction of the biological organism” (E. W. Kelly,

2009, p. 72). To wit, it should be emphasized that any adequate theory of

consciousness evolution ought to be able to intelligibly accommodate for soul

survival. However, such an integrated psychocentric doctrine has yet to be

satisfactorily accommodated within any explanatory framework of human

development. E. W. Kelly has argued that the enormous question of the soul

cannot be adequately answered until

that problem, and any empirical phenomena relevant to it, can be situated
in a framework that makes them theoretically continuous and congruent

165
 with other psychological and biological phenomena. This does not mean
reducing the unknown to the already known, the approach taken in so
much of the scientific psychology, but instead linking the unknown to the
already known in a continuous series. (p. 72)

From its inception around the turn of the twentieth century, developmental

psychology as a specified field of inquiry has clung to its apparent insistence that

“birth heralds the familiar world of developmental theory” (Wade, 1996, p. 59)

and, as far as research is concerned, ends “at death, which physical embodiment is

presumed to represent the boundaries of the individual” (p. 23). Particularly

relevant to lifespan developmental inquiry is the guiding assumption—perhaps

most intrinsic to the epiphenomenal machine paradigm itself—that human

development must accordingly begin at square one, or physical birth (conception

at the earliest) and end, ultimately, at death. Wilber (2006) expressed this bias

explicitly in his following writing: “Everybody is born at square one and has to

develop through these now ‘fixed’ levels, fixed only because they have settled

into Kosmic habits of a Peircian nature” (p. 240).

Summary of the Argument

The present writing submits that materialistic, positivistic, and

cosmocentric prejudices have tended toward negation, devaluing, or preclusion of

any meaningful role for the personal, evolutionary soul, or psychocentric

dimension, from a larger comprehensive developmental theory or model. Indeed,

widespread agreement appears throughout the literatures that contemporary

psychology has lost its soul (W. Barrett, 1986). While the word psychology

originally arose from the Greek prefix meaning soul (Lapointe, 1970, 1972), the

term psyche has virtually disappeared from modern parlance. Thus, it could be

166
argued it “remains only an empty prefix, an ever present reminder of a bygone era

in thinking about human nature” (Johnson, 1998, p. 22). Turning to Duvall’s

(1998) more substantive point, Chapman (2005) explained:

Whatever the semantic alternatives to “soul”—“spirit,” “self,” “ego,” “the

I,” “mind,” “reason,” “consciousness,” “psyche,” “subject,” and “person”
have all been tried—the concrete density of the self has been progressively
lost to view; and the flourishing of soul and its sensitivities and sufferings,
longings for meaning, for beauty, and the divine has not been encouraged.
(p. 26)

Salman (1974) made “a philosophical appeal to incorporate epigenetic

schemes of human development as an explanation for the merging of two vastly

different categories, body and soul” (as cited in Beck, 2002, para. 47). Salman (as

cited in Beck, 2002) further lamented, “that knowledge of epigenetic development

has yet to reach ‘the more remote backwaters of philosophical speculation’” (para.

47). Ward (1992) claimed that modern scientific psychology “invaded the secret

citadel of the human soul and found it empty” (para. 47). Ward further argued

that psychologists “need to recapture the concept of the soul in order to support

notions of conscience, morals, purpose, and moral obligation” (para. 47). Doherty

(1995) linked “the survival of morality, caring, courage, community, truthfulness,

justice, and commitment to the survival of some form of soul concept in our

psychotherapy endeavors” (as cited in Beck, 2002, para. 47).

Jeffery Boyd (1996), a psychiatrist and writer, has also expressed

increasing concern over this perceived loss of soul. Boyd noted that the highest

purposes for human life like the soul, the body, and the Spirit have been replaced

in the dominant mental health field and everywhere else with a secular agenda,

obsessed with the self and with its own cultural gratification expressed in terms of

167
“self-fulfillment, autonomy, and maximization of one's individual potential” (p.

40). Drawing from Kuhn's understanding of paradigm shifts that many historians

of science believe to guide scientific inquiry, “Boyd anticipates a time when

paradigm shifts will occur in science, sociobiology, and the antisoul movements”

(Riccardi, 2011, p. 190). Looking beyond postmodernism, for instance, Boyd’s

psychocentric vision has expressed his strong conviction that psychological

theory and practice “are in the midst of a paradigm shift that is leading us from

the age of science, one that ignores [spiritual] sensibilities—into the age of the

Spirit, where it will be essential to emphasize the soul” (p. 190).

Discussion and Conclusions

Overall and very generally, the critical review and problematization of the

literature has established at least two broad categories of widespread assumptions

and beliefs that appear to still overwhelmingly permeate the contemporary fields

of postconventional theory—many of which have been touched upon briefly. In

the previous sections, it has been roughly shown that egocentric and cosmocentric

biases presume sequences that involve either epiphenomenal stage-like

mechanisms on the one hand, or intimations of vague teleological notions of ego

transcendence on the other, which tend to relate everything to some impersonal

“goal or purpose which the evolutionary process seeks to realize” (Lal,

1973/2010, p. 175). Specifically, theories of postconventional development—

whether ascending, descending, or otherwise (e.g., Daniels, 2005; Wilber,

2007)—focus: one, almost exclusively on egocentric, or surface dimensions of

168
personality evolution, or two, on only the impersonal, transcendent reality of the

cosmocentric Self (B. Shirazi, personal communication, February 27, 2012).

Operationally, if the secularized soul, or self, is mentioned at all, it seems

to be entirely devoid of any evolutionary purpose or personal selfhood but rather

is presumed to be either a fixed, mechanistic, and-or unchanging natural function

of the brain or an impersonal illusion, a mere stepping-stone to Absolute Reality.

Although ample references have been made in terms of transcendent self-

structures, discussions about an evolutionary soul and its role in the

transformation of consciousness beyond the ego and mind appear nonexistent.

Upon closer examination, while professing to reconcile both spheres, it can be

argued that many postconventional theories have merely stacked cosmocentric

states on top of egocentric stages—building up a theorized never-ending

latticework (Wilber, 2006) grafting evermore complex structure stages onto the

existing formal operational scaffolding.

Regardless of its extent, then, the overall trend seen throughout the

theoretical literatures on postconventional development appears to build the

cosmocentric (transcendent or noumenal) order right on top of the well-

established egocentric map. Attempting to compensate for the psychocentric

sphere in this way, is to reaffirm the classic dichotomies of immanence and

transcendence instead of “seeking some deeper conceptualization of

consciousness that would obviate the need for such oppositions and the need to

compensate each with the other” (Broughton, 1984, p. 410). Paradoxically, in

many ways, ignoring or bypassing the psychocentric dimension has only tended to

169
strengthen the epiphenomenal “conviction of scientific materialists that all human

experience will eventually be explained in purely physical terms” (McIntosh,

2007, p. 9).

To better understand this dichotomy, an apt guiding metaphor might be an

image of a pole extending up from Earth to Heaven. One end represents the

materialist egocentric denial (i.e., nothing but matter) and the other represents the

ascetic cosmocentric denial (i.e., nothing but spirit). The bottom end of the pole,

or the egocentric starting point for the first negation, is perilous in its belittling

and degrading effects on both the individual and the collective. The top end of

the pole, or the cessation of the individual by the attainment of transcendence is

the logical and supreme conclusion of the second negation. This cosmocentric

sense is felt as the ultimate unreality of the world combined with the perception of

the pure Self or of the non-Being—two different expressions of the same denial—

which are some “of the most powerful and convincing experiences of which the

human mind is capable” (Sri Aurobindo, 1940/2005, p. 26). To this

misconception, Sri Aurobindo (1998) wrote:

But Vedanta is popularly supposed to be a denial of life, and this is no

doubt a dominant trend it has taken. Though starting from the original
truth that all is the Brahman, the Self, it has insisted in the end that the
world is simply not-Brahman, not-Self; it has ended in a paradox. (p. 107)

If the egocentric is on one end of the polarity, the cosmocentric pole

represents the other extreme. The pole itself can be said to epitomize monism

(from the Greek monas “one”), which assumes that mind and matter are

essentially reducible down to the same ultimate substrate or principle of being.

Perspectival monism “is the view according to which the variety of experiences

170
and visions of ultimate reality should be understood as different perspectives,

dimensions, or levels of the very same Ground of Being” (Ferrer, 2002, p. 81). At

the descriptive level‚ “there is only one metaphysic but many traditional

languages through which it is expressed” (p. 92).

The term monism . . . like “materialism” and “dualism,” is rather

ambiguous. In modern philosophy it is used to designate any
metaphysical theory, which states that there is only one reality, from
which everything else came. . . . Others use the term monism to designate
a materialistic position—there is only one reality, and that is physical
matter and energy. . . . But Monism can also be defined as the thesis that
there is only one spiritual or Divine reality, and that physical and psychic
reality are not separate from that. This could be termed “Spiritual
Monism,” to distinguish it from “Neutral Monism” and “Materialistic
Monism.” Monism (in the sense of Spiritual Monism) sees the Divine as
an all-embracing impersonal or transpersonal Absolute Reality, which is
identified with the innermost Self (the "God within"). So there is no
separation between God and the Soul, or God and the world. (Kazlev,
1999, para. 1–2)

On one side of the continuum, the egocentric pole seems to favor the

exploration of purely surface phenomena like logic, cognition, complexity, ego

formulations, structures, and other mechanistic concerns at the expense of

exploring deeper and more integrative realms and dimensions of being. Indeed,

most fields of Western psychology, neuroscience, and philosophies of the self

have decidedly taken along the lines formulated by the naturalistic philosophies of

materialism and positivism in the West. Caraka in Indian philosophy can also be

roughly described as representative of this egocentric ontological approach (Lal,

1973/2010).

Here, however, there is no room for the experiencer. The egocentric

scheme entirely overlooks the fact that human material existence is extremely

poor and inadequate in terms of explaining existence, and moreover, misses “the

171
fact that every individual is capable of certain nobility of being—of going beyond

the terrestrial” (Lal, 1973/2010, p. 178). It can be argued that the inherent flaw of

the egocentric sphere, is not that it is so much wrong but that it tends to assume

bottom up causality, as elucidated here:

Everything we are and do is in principle causally explainable from the

bottom up in terms of our biology, chemistry, and physics—ultimately,
that is, in terms of local contact interactions among bits of matter moving
in strict accordance with mechanical laws under the influence of fields of
force. Some of what we know, and the substrate of our general capacities
to learn additional things, are built-in genetically as complex resultants of
biological evolution. Everything else comes to us directly or indirectly by
way of our sensory systems, through energetic exchanges with the
environment of types already largely understood. Mind and consciousness
are entirely generated by—or perhaps in some mysterious way identical
with—neurophysiological events and processes in the brain. Mental
causation, volition, and the “self” do not really exist; they are mere
illusions, by-products of the grinding of our neural machinery. And of
course because one’s mind and personality are entirely products of the
bodily machinery, they will necessarily be extinguished, totally and
finally, by the demise and dissolution of that body. (E. F. Kelly, 2007, pp.
xx–xxi)

At first glance, the egocentric extreme (i.e., the Newtonian/Cartesian)

paradigm of classical empiricism that considers material existence alone as real)

appears to reflect the exact opposite reality as the cosmocentric pole, which

accepts only an Absolute, transcendent, and-or impersonal reality. That is, the

cosmocentric pole tends to assume the complete contradictory position that the

Absolute alone is real. Lal (1973/2010) explained: “We can also include the

metaphysical theories of Bradley and even of Spinoza as falling under this group,

because according to them also the . . . Absolute or the [transcendent] substance is

the only reality” (pp. 177–178).

172
 This fundamental understanding of reality basically asserts, if there is an

experiencer (i.e., a subject), it will eventually be transcended into some kind of

object, hence the experiencer is just a transitional object, an illusory wave. To

this, Cortright (2007) offered the metaphor of a “river flowing into the sea or the

drop of water dissolving into the ocean [to] illustrate the loss of the lower

individuality of the ego in order to gain a higher identity with Brahman” (p. 24).

By situating the individual self “inexorably out of touch with the real world, the

alienating Cartesian gap between subject and object is epistemologically affirmed

and secured” (Ferrer, 2002, p. 142).

Ironically, while appearing fundamentally opposed to the egocentric order,

it should be emphasized that development towards the cosmocentric pole still

follows a bottom up orientation. More generally, both egocentric and

cosmocentric theories of existence could arguably be defined in terms of their

fixed and polarized natures. The cosmocentric sphere’s “monistic character is so

emphatic that in such a theory the reality of everything else, even of man tends to

suffer” (Lal, 1973/2010, pp. 177–178). In many important respects, according to

this polarized viewpoint, embodied existence is considered to be the essential

source of suffering, which has apparently led to recurrent devaluing of the

physical body faced by certain meditation practices, as they have frequently been

“limited to the higher emotional realm and hardly touch the central emotional or

lower instinctual emotional levels of everyday life. The self, with its unconscious

needs, grasps the heart's aspiration and twists it to its own narcissistic ends”

(Cortright, 2007, p. 67). In developmental psychology, it is apparent that theorists

173
across both egocentric and cosmocentric domains have fallen prey to such

tragedies.

Secularized Self Cannot Account for Individuation

Against an overall background of secular and anti-metaphysical

assumptions that seem to pervade the dominant literatures on selfhood and its

individuation, Cortright (2007) offered up the following questions:

But from where does our feeling of identity come? Why do we sense
ourselves as a being, as a person? This description of the self as self-
image explains neither the intrinsic sense of selfhood nor the continuity of
the self. The metaphor of the movie projector to clarify the continuity of
the self rests on static images of the self with gaps between these static
images. . . . So from where does the sense of continuity come? (p. 43)

From his integral vantage point, Cortright elucidated, “The ego's sense of identity

and feeling of selfhood cannot be understood at the level of self-image. The self-

image is a surface reflection of a deeper reality, and attempting to analyze this is

like attempting to dissect a mirage or holographic image” (p. 43). The ego, of

course, is “empty and without inherent substance, just as Buddhist texts insist”

(pp. 42–43). In the final analysis, he countered that the self-image does not

explain why we experience ourselves as a self, a person, for in this view,

the self is a kind of empty shell or holographic image with nothing
within it. The self becomes a new version of the “ghost in the machine.”
It explains the self-image but not the self. It does not explain why the
self is experienced as a stable continuity. It does not explain the higher
motivations of the self or its spiritual aspirations. (p. 42)

This raises a most significant question for the above-cited developmental

models: Without a personal evolutionary dimension to human consciousness,

what exactly is individuation? The problem for psychospiritual theories, even

when reincarnation is accounted for in a developmental context, is that they,

174
nevertheless, relegate “the individualization of consciousness (along with all of

the other specific and changing characteristics of differing personalities and of the

worlds that they experience), to the status of an illusion” (Weiss, 2004, p. 9).

Cortright (2007) posited that a model that specifies no way to intelligibly account

for individuation would be unlikely to offer a conducive framework for discussing

the true transformative dimensions of human consciousness. Without a reference

point, Cortright insightfully maintained, the secularized self is inadequate to the

task of explaining the evolutionary nature of selfhood and particularly its

individuation.

Bauer (2011) highlighted, “A growing body of research suggests that the

postconventional self represents an important but partial portrait of optimal

human development” (p. 101). It has been argued since the beginning of the

present chapter that egocentric and-or cosmocentric spheres of self-realization

have served as the “prevalent interpretive lenses for the study of transpersonal and

spiritual phenomena since the very birth of the field” (Ferrer, 2002, p. 5). If

developmental theory intends to meaningfully situate the psychocentric dimension

in rapport with egocentric and cosmocentric notions of human change and

transformation, it behooves psychologists to consider an alternative explanatory

ground concerning the fundamental nature of individual consciousness and its

evolution.

As the next chapters unfold, the researcher will lay her argument out in

detail. For now, Cortright (2007) summed up the possibilities quite effectually:

“All of these are powerful speculations that seem to point to something similar,

175
namely, a source beyond the ego of identity and potential, some greater ground of

wisdom from which the self emerges” (pp. 44–45). This greater something

beyond formal representations of the vital ego and logical mind exceedingly touch

upon the “Vedantic conception of Swabhava, defined . . . as intrinsic nature,

essential self, or natural constitution” (p. 45). When it comes to the famous

injunction to know thyself (i.e., gnothi seauton) as articulated in ancient Greek

philosophy, it appears that merely studying the development of the frontal self is

severely inadequate, as “even this outer line of development cannot be fully

understood without reference to the development of the psychic center and its

progressive influence and refinement of the frontal being” (p. 50).

As viewed from the vantage point of integral yoga psychology, Cortright

(2007) explained, “neither the ego nor the authentic self can be adequately

comprehended without reference to the psychic [evolutionary soul] center” (p.

46). He further evinced, “The deep psychic center is the evolutionary principle

within us. Its upward evolutionary journey is reflected in the self it puts forth” (p.

49). That is to say, “both the sense of self and the sense of continuity emanate

from our psychic center, our true soul. Without reference to this eternal soul the

experience of selfhood cannot be understood” (p. 43). For reasons to be discussed

in the upcoming chapters, the psychic center, or the evolutionary soul element in a

human, may perhaps lend meaningful and explanatory insight into this “deepest

psychological core and most authentic self” (p. 25).

With this critical review and problematization, much work is needed to

arrive at a more psychocentric and integrated model of postconventional

176
development. As Ferrer (2002) skillfully put it, “after the deconstruction [has

been] carried out . . . the more challenging task of reconstruction is called for” (p.

115). The writing now turns to the work of establishing the groundwork for a

more meaningful connection between the soul and matters of advanced

psychospiritual growth and development and works toward an integral

psychology framework that can perhaps generate new research questions about

postconventional transformations of consciousness while integrating egocentric,

cosmocentric, and psychocentric dimensions into a whole person, psychospiritual

account of individual consciousness development.

177
 CHAPTER 6: ALTERNATIVE ASSUMPTION GROUND

The soul, the psychic being is in direct touch with the Divine Truth, but it
is hidden in man by the mind, the vital being, and the physical nature.
One may practice yoga and get illuminations in the mind and the reason;
one may conquer power and luxuriate in all kinds of experiences in the
vital; one may establish even surprising physical Siddhis; but if the true
soul-power behind does not manifest, if the psychic nature does not come
into the front, nothing genuine has been done [from the viewpoint of
transformation, conceived as a goal versus liberation] . . . Mind can open
by itself to its own higher reaches; it can still itself in some kind of static
liberation or Nirvana; but the Supramental cannot find a sufficient base in
spiritualized mind alone. (Sri Aurobindo, 2014a, pp. 337–338)

In this letter, written by Indian mystic-philosopher Sri Aurobindo Ghose

(1872–1950) nearly a century ago, is a prevue of his remarkable teachings on the

psychic being, or evolving soul. Particularly, the prose intimates Sri Aurobindo

and his French-born collaborator the Mother Mirra Alfassa’s (1878–1973)

uncommon vision of psychicization. That is evocation-invocation (bringing

forward) of the true soul, or inmost portion of the Divine within, to take up the

lead in the evolution of human consciousness, especially, as the person

individuates beyond the limits imposed by the outer mind and vital (i.e., mental

and libidinal) sheaths. In sum, they taught that there is indeed an evolutionary

soul—a personal and eternal aspect of Divine consciousness that is underlying

and hidden to one’s mental, vital, and physical instruments.

Perhaps more eloquently than any other writer in the English language, Sri

Aurobindo has synthesized modern elements of Western thought with coherent

outlines of an ancient but venerable branch of Vedantic psychology—one that

also echoes several European esoteric traditions. By historical analysis, their

Purna (Sanskrit for whole or full) yoga, or integral yoga psychology, calls into

178
dispute two divergent paradigms (i.e., epistemologies, cosmologies, metaphysics)

prevalent throughout the evolutionary literature—that is, materialism in the West

(i.e., mainstream science's faith in the sole reality of matter) and ancient teachings

such as illusionism and nihilism in the East (i.e., Shankara’s sense of the universal

cosmic illusion along with Buddhist philosophy’s goal of personal annihilation as

the sole means to escape from universal suffering).

By deeply integrating an evolutionary soul dimension, Sri Aurobindo and

the Mother sought for conscious reconciliation of the two poles of matter and

spirit; whereby, each dimension, on its own, represents an arguably one-sided and

barren account. More expressly, rather than advocating pure transcendence, or

complete and final liberation away from physical existence, the telling distinction

of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother’s evolutionary account is their emphasis on a

fully-embodied “liberation of the soul by overcoming the ignorant identification

with its instruments. The process of disidentification is thus at once yogic and

psychological” (Dalal, 2001, p. 51). Speaking of the object of integral yoga, Sri

Aurobindo (2013) wrote:

The aim of [integral yoga] is, first, to enter into the Divine consciousness
by merging into it the separative ego (incidentally, in doing so one finds
one’s true individual self [the psychic being], which is not limited, vain,
and selfish human ego but a portion of the Divine) and, secondly, to bring
down the Supramental consciousness on Earth to transform mind, life, and
body . . . —first, the acceptance of the world as a manifestation of the
Divine Power, not its rejection as a mistake or an illusion, and, secondly,
the character of this manifestation as a spiritual evolution with yoga as a
means for the transformation of mind, life, and body into instruments of a
spiritual and Supramental perfection . . . The means of realization is to be
found in an integral yoga, a union in all parts of our being with the Divine
and a consequent transmutation of all their now jarring elements into the
harmony of a higher Divine consciousness existence. (p. 21)

179
 Against an evolutionary background, then, Sri Aurobindo and the Mother

maintained the primacy of the psychic being as absolutely crucial for the

transformation and ultimate divinization of human consciousness. In the words of

psychiatrist and integral student Michael Miovic (2004): “the soul alone can lead

towards a radical transformation of the outer ego” (p. 122). As such, Sri

Aurobindo and the Mother contended that the human mind (i.e., formal

operational thinking) is much too imperfect an instrument to accomplish such a

difficult transmuting endeavor. Commenting on the necessity of the psychic

transformation, Pandit (2008) related, “But a psychic experience is not that easy.

It is not enough that the psychic is awake. It has to be active, it has to surge

forward; there are many stages” (p. 10).

As earlier alluded, the view that a transpersonal self can support and

facilitate the transformation and individuation of advanced human consciousness

is an assertion that is shared in the work of thinkers like Jung and Assagioli.

Nevertheless, Sri Aurobindo and the Mother’s conception of an evolving psychic

being, which is distinguished from all other theories of an unevolving Self, is that

which makes their integral framework truly unique and particularly salient to the

inquiry at hand. By articulating their vision to demonstrate a greater integral

psychology, substantiation will be offered in the following chapters to show how

their integral cosmological framework might provide developmental theorists

with a compelling and intellectually satisfying alternative assumption ground for

mapping out this uncharted psychospiritual terrain.

180
 Integral Cosmological Framework

There is a meaning in the universe, an intention in cosmic existence; there

is a significance of the individual, his life is a sign and has a purpose. The
true truth of things is not apparent on the surface, it is something hidden.
Truth is not obvious, it comes always as a discovery, Life is the working
out of a secret, the process and progress of a mystery; we too are not what
we seem to be, we have to find and become ourself. What we seem to be
is a thinking human animal . . . The secret purpose of our existence here is
to find the occult Reality of ourselves and the world, to become Divine.
(Sri Aurobindo, 1997a, pp. 286–287)

The Vedantic ontology from which Sri Aurobindo derived his cosmology,

begins with the most fundamental premise that the universe has a purpose and that

there is a point to conscious existence. Readers acquainted with the sacred Hindu

literatures, for instance, will likely recognize Sri Aurobindo’s conception of

ultimate reality expressed as Sachchidananda, meaning in Sanskrit: (a) Infinite

Existence (Sat); (b) Consciousness (Chit); and (c) Bliss or Delight (Ānanda). For

Sri Aurobindo, consciousness is a progressive and spiritual manifestation of a true

creative Force, one that stands behind the evolution of the universe and, at the

same time, suffuses “all that is in it—not only the macrocosm, but the microcosm,

is nothing but consciousness arranging itself” (2012, p. 22).

More precisely, Sri Aurobindo (1940/2005) stated, “the Infinite does not

create, it manifests what is in itself, in its own essence of reality; it is itself that

essence of all reality and all realities are powers of that one Reality” (p. 348). It

ought to be noted, however, that Sri Aurobindo’s integral cosmology differs in

principle ways, for instance, from (a) “illusionist Adwaita” (1955/1999, p. 376)

that assumes phenomenal reality is just an illusion or a bad dream; (b)

“Buddhistic Nihilism” (p. 376) that assumes the ground of existence to be an

181
impartial or negative void; and, for that matter, (c) any other form of “pure

noumenalism” (1940/2005, p. 127) that assumes either a spiritual or materialistic

agnosticism whereby consciousness is presumed to be an “unaccountable freak or

a chance growth or a temporary accident in [an] . . . inconscient universe” (Sri

Aurobindo, 1997a, p. 320).

If permitting a view of consciousness at all, academic psychological

theory tends to conceive of it in wholly mechanical terms or as the principle of

ordinary human awareness. At best, consciousness might be considered as the

final result of life or that which manifests itself only in the animal and the plant,

but not in the metal, the stone, the gas; and thus operating in the animal cell but

not in the pure physical atom. But, according to Sri Aurobindo, this view of

consciousness is incurably anthropocentric and, moreover, the result of a long

Western scientific tradition of mechanistic metaphysics inherited from the

eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Emphasizing the essential primacy of

consciousness as the fundamental substance underlying the entire universe, in

Letters on Savitri, Sri Aurobindo (1954) wrote: “To me, for instance,

consciousness is the very stuff of existence and I can feel it everywhere

enveloping and penetrating the stone as much as [the human] or the animal” (p.

14). Being conceived in this way, consciousness indicates the essential nature of

Infinite Being itself—a power of dynamic awareness that permeates all of

manifestation and hence is not just confined to Western notions of ordinary

waking consciousness or purely indicative of living organisms. Sri Aurobindo

182
(1940/2005) had the following to say about consciousness as one Being even

when expressed in infinite multiplicity:

When we see with the inner vision and sense and not with the physical eye
a tree or other object, what we become aware of is an infinite one Reality
constituting the tree or object, pervading its every atom and molecule,
forming them out of itself, building the whole nature, process of
becoming, operation of indwelling energy; all of these are itself, are this
infinite, this Reality: we see it extending indivisibly and uniting all objects
so that none is really separate from it or quite separate from other objects.
“It stands” says the Gita “undivided in beings and yet as if divided. (p.
353)

Involution and Evolution

According to the conventional worldview dominant in the West today, it

seems inexplicable how life and mind should have evolved out of the material

elements (e.g., lifeless aggregates of infinitesimals: electrons, atoms, molecules,

random particles, etc.). For, to assume their emergence out of dead substance

does not easily satisfy logical reason—that is, perhaps “unless we accept the

Vedantic solution that life is already involved in matter and mind in life because

in essence matter is a form of veiled life, life a form of veiled consciousness” (Sri

Aurobindo, 1940/2005, p. 5). In terms of integral yoga, then, involved means that

a self-concealed Divine consciousness is already there, but masked, latent, and

asleep in inconscient matter even when there appears to be a complete absence of

mind (as in the vegetable) and an absolute vacuity of life (as in the metal, the

stone, or the atom). Evolution, inasmuch, means the above-mentioned involution

process reverses course, which allows the Divine spark to awaken from its

ignorant mental, vital, and physical torpor. Manifestly, for Sri Aurobindo and the

Mother, evolution would not be possible without involution.

183
 Implicit to these fundamental propositions, as mentioned above, the

evolution of consciousness takes its rise from an involutionary plunge of the

highest superconscient Spirit into inert, inconscient matter resulting in a gradation

of several intermediate steps, or planes, of consciousness—the Supermind,

Overmind, Intuition, Illumined Mind, and Higher Mind—all the way down

through the ordinary mental, sensational, emotional, and vital levels to finally

arrive at the nethermost subconscient plane, which, in turn, is said to sink into

inconscience (i.e., trance of absolute unconsciousness). As these evolutionary

grades of consciousness become manifest in the terrestrial plane, the fundamental

outcome is a vast and polar matrix with Supermind (i.e., Supreme Truth-

Consciousness) on top and its inverse, the inconscient plane, at the bottom. Sri

Aurobindo (1940/2005) described these planes of consciousness according to a

metaphor of a series of steps on a staircase from the highest gradations of

existence to the lowest, from infinite Reality to finite matter, from

Sachchidananda to the inconscient, and back again. Shirazi (2010), following Sri

Aurobindo’s depiction, explained, “This polar structure then becomes the basis

for a multidimensional dialectical energetic exchange known as the processes of

involution and evolution” (p. 8). In the words of Sri Aurobindo (1997a):

The call to manifestation is composed of a double current of Force moving

between two poles. There is a will or at least an urge in the Inconscient
itself, slow, dumb, obscure but imperative and inevitable towards the
revelation of its involved contents. But there is also a pressure from above
from the already established Powers for their manifestation in Space-Time
here and for their evolutionary possibilities in the world of Matter. A
world of subtle Matter presses on the shapeless Inconscient for the
manifestation of forms; a world of essential Life presses on form of Matter
for the manifestation of an embodied life; a world of essential Mind
presses on animate life for the manifestation of mind in the living body.

184
 This compulsion is so great as to contradict and counteract finally the
refusing and retarding Inertia. (p. 238)

Philosophically speaking, Sri Aurobindo’s cosmological framework is in

accordance with Leibniz’ (1898) principle Ex nihilo nihil fit, or the idea that “out

of nothing comes nothing” (as cited in Skrbina, 2005, p. 278). Put yet another

way, Sri Aurobindo insisted that something must first be involved in order for it

to reasonably exist at all. Otherwise, one might assume that an ordered

evolutionary culmination is nothing but an unforeseeable creation, an inevitable

outcome not contained in any antecedent derivation but “magically and

unaccountably introduced into Nature” (1940/2005, p. 197). Regarding the

common assumption that reduces evolutionary phenomena down to pure chance,

Sri Aurobindo (1997) observed:

The long process of terrestrial formation and creation, the ambiguous

miracle of life, the struggle of mind to appear and grow in an apparent vast
Ignorance and to reign there as interpreter and creator and master, the
intimations of a greater something that passes beyond the finite marvel of
mind to the infinite marvels of the Spirit, are not a meaningless and
fortuitous passing result of some cosmic Chance with its huge
combination of coincidences; they are not the lucky play of some blind
material Force. These things are and can be only because of something
eternal and Divine that concealed itself in energy and form of Matter. (p.
226)

Parts and Planes of Being

While granting the essential nature of Sachchidananda as the ultimate

Truth of all existence, Sri Aurobindo described how consciousness manifests

differently and according to variable statuses, functions, and laws depending on

its particular graded emanation. In fact, an important feature of Sri Aurobindo’s

formulation is the presumption that there exist inner dimensions as well as lower

185
and higher planes of consciousness that exert a constant and pervasive influence

on a person’s psychological wellbeing and, moreover, represent the secret and

original determinants of evolution here on the physical plane. In Letters on Yoga

I, Sri Aurobindo (2012) elucidated:

There are in fact two systems simultaneously active in the organization of

the being and its parts;—one is concentric, a series of rings or sheaths with
the psychic at the center; another is vertical, an ascension and descent, like
a flight of steps, a series of superimposed planes with the Supermind-
Overmind as the crucial nodus of the transition beyond the human into the
Divine. (p. 84)

Not confining his integral scale to a monopolar hierarchy informed purely

by the natural ranges of human sense perception, Sri Aurobindo uniquely charted

both vertical and horizontal (concentric) axes of multidimensional existence he

termed the parts and planes of being. These two systems have been delineated

and charted with careful study by Dalal (2012). In the following, Sri Aurobindo

(2012) characterized succinctly the powerful but hidden influence of the parts and

planes of being on the evolution of human consciousness.

We are composed of many parts each of which contributes something to

the total movement of our consciousness, our thought, will, sensation,
feeling, action, but we do not see the origination or the course of these
impulsions; we are aware only of their confused pell-mell results on the
surface upon which we can at best impose nothing better than a precarious
shifting order . . . What you see and know at present is not the whole of
what exists. You do not see your mind and you know only a little part of
it—yet your mind exists and is part of your being. There are other parts of
your being which you don’t know at all—the subconscient for instance.
Your sexual impulse or feeling comes out of this subconscient and yet you
don’t know how or from where it comes in spite of your own will—yet
that too is part of your being. (p. 79).

186
Vertical Planes of Being

In an effort to provide a brief overview of a large territory, the writer will

now attempt to spell out some of the contours of Sri Aurobindo’s

multidimensional model beginning with the vertical planes of being. Sri

Aurobindo (1997a) postulated that the human being is made up of a “many

layered plane of Life, a many layered plane of Mind” (p. 249). In terms of the

vertical planes of being, he held that there is a far more vast complexity, which

constitutes a human being but yet, for the most part, these remain imperceptible to

normal awareness. Sri Aurobindo found, for example, that above the human

mind, there arises still greater reaches of superconscient intelligence that descend

as secret influences, hidden powers, and influential touches on the ordinary mind.

The following list (see Cornelissen, 2016), closely adheres to the ascending

hierarchical system proposed by Sri Aurobindo (1940/2005) and will be explored

again in later chapters.

Sevenfold Chord of Being

1. Sat (Existence)
2. Chit-Tapas (Consciousness-Energy)
3. Ananda (Bliss)
4. Supermind (Vijnanat)
5. Mental Plane
6. Vital Plane
7. Physical Plane

Five Sub-Planes of the Fifth Cord or Mental Plane

1. Overmind
2. Intuition
3. Illumined Mind
4. Higher Mind
5. Ordinary Mind

187
Three Layers of the Ordinary Mind

1. Thinking Mind
2. Dynamic Mind
3. Externalizing Mind

Sri Aurobindo further described lower ranges of consciousness as well that

exist below normal waking consciousness. These subconscient, or inconscient,

sources of existence are insensible to ordinary awareness but nevertheless throw

up their influences onto the surface mind and its experience. While the

subconscient seems unconscious to most, in reality, this fundamental layer of

being forms the foundation for the evolution of the human life and the body.

What is more, in order to evolve in individual consciousness—that is, from

identification with the darkest and most ignorant planes of consciousness to the

most luminous realms of Light-filled Spirit—the higher planes of consciousness

must descend and constantly flood the being with their unfolding and unseen

energies. These descending planes of consciousness

are the original determinants of things here and, if they were called down
in their fullness, could altogether alter the whole make and economy of
life in the material universe. It is all this latent experience and knowledge
that the Divine Force working upon us by our opening to it in the integral
Yoga, progressively reveals to us, uses and works out the consequences as
means and steps towards a transformation of our whole being and nature.
Our life is thenceforth no longer a little rolling wave on the surface, but
interpenetrant if not coincident with the cosmic life. Our spirit, our self
rises not only into an inner identity with some wide cosmic Self but into
some contact with that which is beyond, though aware of and dominant
over the action of the universe. (Sri Aurobindo, 1999, p. 182)

One important aspect to note about Sri Aurobindo’s (1997a) integral

formulation is that human existence is said to depend on these planes of

supraphysical substance for its very “origination and its continuance” (p. 249).

188
He furthermore emphasized that it is the involution that brings consciousness into

being, and not the reverse. The Mother (2004e) wrote, “if we did not carry in

ourselves something corresponding to all that exists in the universe, this universe

wouldn’t exist for us” (p. 317). Without going too deeply into matters that are

exceedingly metaphysical for the present inquiry, the essential points concerning

Sri Aurobindo’s cosmological formulation of the occult worlds and subtle planes

of being are as follows:

• The physical universe is part of a much larger and vast system of

interlinking occult planes or worlds “not in their original creation

subsequent in order to the physical universe but prior to it, —prior, if not

in time, in their consequential sequence” (Sri Aurobindo, 1940/2005, p.

820). Together, these planes of consciousness constitute a spectrum of

ascending and descending orders of reality from the highest fully-

conscious, but unmanifested, planes of consciousness known as

Sachchidananda, downward to the subtler vital worlds to the lowest and

most densely unconscious physical planes of matter.

• Furthermore, these planes of experience represent “a domain of

happenings as real as any outward physical happenings” (Sri Aurobindo,

1940/2005, p. 675). That is, each plane is a universe unto itself, existing

in its own right, and thus independent of the known physical universe.

Realistically, then, each world would continue to exist regardless of the

fate of that which human beings regard as physical reality.

189
• Their location, however, can only be apprehended as nonlocal. Hence, it

is accurate to say that the planes of being exist within a person and, at the

same time, extend beyond the person as well, but in a different dimension.

“And one can say that there are as many dimensions as there are different

worlds” (The Mother, 2004e p. 318). The Mother further explained:

“Certainly all these invisible worlds—so-called invisible worlds—are

contained, so to say, in the material universe” (p. 318). However, the

subtle planes, she wrote, “do not occupy the place of other things” (p.

318). For instance, one “can hold countless ideas in your brain and you

certainly don’t have the feeling that you have to drive one out so that

another one can come in . . . They don’t occupy any space in that sense”

(p. 318).

• The planes of being are not only preexistent of the physical manifestation,

but they also exist as a series of independent and separate worlds “of

manifestation in which each in turn is, as matter is here, the foundation,

the medium of instrumentation, the primary condition of existence” (Sri

Aurobindo, 1997a, p. 241). Therefore, they cannot logically be conceived

as anthropocentric or epiphenomenal, as the involution of consciousness is

just as capable of basing its manifestation on the mental and vital planes as

it is in the realm of Matter. In Sri Aurobindo’s (1940/2005) words, “Spirit

must be capable of basing its manifestation on the Mind principle or on

the Life principle and not only on the principle of Matter” (p. 801). Hence,

he explained, “There can then be and logically there should be worlds of

190
 Mind and worlds of Life; there may even be worlds founded on a subtler

and more plastic, more conscious principle of Matter” (p. 801).

• These occult planes are, furthermore, believed to be inhabited by

intelligent but often non-physical beings characterized by varying levels of

consciousness development. The characteristic self-expression of such

beings is that they can both perambulate their own native domain but also

exceed beyond the recognized formula of their universe proper. It is

important to realize that some worlds are evolutionary like this material

plane while others are typal and do not change or evolve. There are other

orders of intersubjectively created (i.e., temporary) worlds as well that are

completely participatory and therefore co-created purely by the mental

formations and imaginings of the beings who populate them.

• Whether perceptible to human awareness or not, these occult worlds “are

part of one complex system and act constantly upon the physical, which is

their own final and lowest term, receive its reactions, admit a secret

communication, and commerce” (Sri Aurobindo, 1940/2005, p. 824).

• Additionally, each respective plane is repeated in the human energy

system as that which has been classically characterized as the chakras, or

involved planes of being. The point to be emphasized here is, while the

Vedic seers spoke of seven chakras, Sri Aurobindo and the Mother

acknowledged twelve ascending grades and subdivisions of Matter, Vital,

Mind, Supermind all the way up to Sachchidananda.

191
Concentric Realms of Being

Following ancient Vedantic tradition, integral psychology accepts that the

gross physical body is not the entirety of a person; but rather, it is just one of

many interconnecting dimensions of being, or that which Sri Aurobindo termed

the parts of being. More specifically, the horizontal concentric realms of being

represent a corresponding body, or vehicle, that intersects with the

aforementioned vertical planes. These concentric powers within a person’s being

are each in natural relation “with its own proper plane of existence and all have

their roots there” (Sri Aurobindo, 1940/2005, p. 835). However, rather than

depicting these parts in terms that are indicative of traditional Indian psychology’s

koshas, or vehicles of consciousness,—i.e., rings of an onion whereby each body

is consecutively superimposed onto the next—according to Shirazi, Sri

Aurobindo’s system is much more complex, as the horizontal concentric parts

interact with the vertical planes in ways that are much “more like holographic

interplay than what a three dimensional imagination can reveal” (B. Shirazi,

personal communication, February 17, 2016). Psychologically speaking, it is of

critical importance to emphasize here that Sri Aurobindo considered these

vehicles as the foundation for the self he termed: (a) the outer being; (b) the inner

being; (c) the inmost being; and (d) the innermost being (Figure 1). To bring

clarity to Sri Aurobindo’s integral delineations and, more importantly, to offer

some very general coordinates for the present inquiry, the following outline

briefly looks at each of these concentric realms of being one by one:

192
• The outer being is comprised of the body, vital impulses, desires, and

emotions along with the outer cognitive faculties of the mind. This

surface consciousness is the waking consciousness of the ordinary mind

and is commonly known within the psychological discourse as the

personality, the self, or the ego, which even contemporary depth

psychology has only partly charted (Cortright, 2007). While typically

regarded as such by modern psychology, Sri Aurobindo (1997c) wrote that

“the ordinary mind in man is not truly the thinking mind proper, it is a life-

mind, a vital mind as we may call it, which has learned to think and even

to reason but for its own ends and on its own lines, not on those of a true

mind of knowledge” (p. 107). That which has been characteristically

termed personal growth (e.g., psychotherapeutic approaches and various

human-potential techniques) mostly relates to the development of the

outer being (Cortright, 2007).

• The inner, or subliminal, being (i.e., the subtle inner physical sheaths

together with the inner vital and the inner mental parts of being) exist

behind the mind and represent a more subtle and fluid range of human

experience between the egoic outer personality and the psychic center.

Cornelissen (2016) emphasized: “Our inner nature is, according to the

Indian tradition, vaster and more luminous than our outer nature; it has

access to broader and higher ranges of experience and knowledge” (para.

18). According to Sri Aurobindo (1940/2005), nothing escapes the

perception of the inner being, as it registers all that enters into a person’s

193
 physical and intuitive environment. However, its constant action is barely

felt by the surface consciousness. Furthermore, the inner being is a

distinct dimension of consciousness that is in direct touch with the

intermediate zone (also known as the astral, etheric, or subtle planes of

existence). As Cortright (2007) perceptively noted: “Only recently has

psychology opened the door to the inner being through the transpersonal

school” (p. 22).

• The innermost being contains the true mental, the true vital, and the true

physical natures (i.e., manomaya purusha, pranamaya purusha, and

annamaya purusha) with the psychic entity, or the psychic being (i.e., the

spark of the Divine, the chaitya purusha) at the very center and behind the

deepest layers of one’s being. More specifically, the evolutionary soul-

element within the terrestrial evolution (i.e., a projection of the

nonevolving Jīvātman) begins as the psychic entity, or the soul, and

slowly grows through many lifetimes collecting the essence of its

experiences to eventually become the developed psychic being.

According to integral yoga psychology, the psychic stands behind the

heart chakra and supports the inner sheaths. While some schools of

Tibetan Buddhism come close, in this researcher’s personal view, no

school of psychospirituality other than the integral school of yoga

psychology has yet to include a framework that grants this innermost

evolutionary being.

194
Figure 1: The Concentric System. Author’s creation.
Outer Being Inner Being Innermost Being Inmost Center
True Mental
Outer Mental Inner Mental
(Manomaya
(Cognitive) (Mind)
Purusha)
True Vital
Outer Vital Inner Vital Psychic Being
(Pranamaya
(Affective) (Chaitya Purusha)
(Heart) Purusha)
True Physical
Outer Physical Inner Physical
(Annamaya
(Behavioral)
(Subtle Body) Purusha)

To clarify, the parts of being are not directly a creation of the higher

worlds, as each concentric aspect represents the revelation that happens as the

plane intersects with “the soul on the material plane as it develops out of the

Nescience” (Sri Aurobindo, 1940/2005, p. 809). The parts of being are made up

of impersonal stuff, for lack of a better term, respective of each corresponding

plane of being, which has been gathered together by the soul as an involved

vehicle for its particular incarnation: “For when we say that the soul on earth

evolves successively the physical, the vital, the mental, the spiritual being, we do

not mean that it creates them and that they had no previous existence” (p. 834).

After the time of death, until the psychic being becomes more fully developed,

each of the immortal soul’s once-assembled sheaths tend to eventually decompose

and return to its plane proper while the psychic being reformulates the essence of

its experiences here to eventually proceed on its terrestrial evolution.

The Psychic Being

What is meant in the terminology of the Yoga by the psychic is the soul
element in the nature, the pure psyche or divine nucleus which stands
behind mind, life and body (it is not the ego) but of which we are only

195
 dimly aware. It is a portion of the Divine and permanent from life to life,
taking the experience of life through its outer instruments. As this
experience grows it manifests a developing psychic personality which
insisting always on the good, true and beautiful, finally becomes ready and
strong enough to turn the nature towards the Divine. It can then come
entirely forward, breaking through the mental, vital and physical screen,
govern the instincts and transform the nature. Nature no longer imposes
itself on the soul, but the soul, the Purusha, imposes its dictates on the
nature. (Sri Aurobindo, 2014a, p. 337)

According to integral yoga psychology, the psychic being is the English

equivalent to the Sanskrit word caitya purusa. Simply put, the caitya purusa

represents the permanent innermost center of individual consciousness that does

not stand in a linear line or a horizontal scale like the other chakras or the mental,

vital, and physical sheaths. For, the psychic being stands at their center and

behind them from a different dimension of being and supports them in their

growth and development towards full realization of the Life Divine. In his words,

Sri Aurobindo (2012) pointed out that the nature of the psychic being is

something quite different from the other parts and planes of being:

[The psychic being] is our inmost being and [it] supports all the others,
mental, vital, physical, but it is also much veiled by them and has to act
upon them as an influence rather than by its sovereign right of direct
action; its direct action becomes normal and preponderant only at a high
stage of development or by Yoga. (p. 59)

Following the Upanishads, Sri Aurobindo (2012) wrote that the seat of the

true soul is hidden behind the heart in a secret and luminous cave called the

Hrday Guhayam. “Its power is not knowledge but an essential or spiritual feeling

— it has the clearest sense of the truth and a sort of inherent perception of it,

which is of the nature of soul-feeling” (p. 59). Describing this region as two

lotuses, or two powers, that encompass a dual heart center, Sri Aurobindo (1999)

196
reiterated that the psychic being is not the ordinary emotional or outer vital being

at the level of the heart (i.e., the “desire soul”).

For there is in front in man a heart of vital emotion similar to the animal’s,
if more variously developed; its emotions are governed by egoistic
passion, blind instinctive affections, and all the play of the life-impulses
with their imperfections, perversions, often sordid degradations, — a heart
besieged and given over to the lusts, desires, wraths, intense or fierce
demands or little greeds and mean pettinesses of an obscure and fallen life
force and debased by its slavery to any and every impulse. (p. 150)

As a part of the Divine, the psychic being is poised at the center of

individual existence. As Sri Aurobindo (2014a) defined it, “What is meant in the

terminology of the yoga by the psychic is the soul element in the nature” (p. 337).

Again, for him, “the pure psychic or Divine nucleus which stands behind mind,

life, and body (it is not the ego) . . . [is the] very center of this radiating light, at

the fount of this force of transformation” (p. 337). Consequently, expressions

such as “love, compassion, kindness, bhakti, Ananda are the nature of the psychic

being, because the psychic being is formed from the Divine Consciousness, it is

the Divine part within you” (Sri Aurobindo, 2012, p. 122). When it is said that an

individual is one with the Divinity within, according to the Mother, this is the

same thing as saying that a person is one with all beings at their core—from the

lowest to the highest expression of consciousness throughout all existence.

The psychic being does not emerge full-grown and luminous all at once.

At first, the soul is something essential behind the veil, not developed in front. As

the psychic being grows in its development, then, it emerges from a spark,

something indistinct, and “may remain for a long time weak and undeveloped, not

impure but imperfect [as it evolves] against the resistance of the Ignorance and

197
Inconscience, put forth in the evolution upon the surface” (Sri Aurobindo,

1940/2005, p. 928). In the slow course of human birth, death, and rebirth, the

soul gradually develops itself, or rather its manifestation, from life to life, with the

mind, vital, and body as its instruments. Sri Aurobindo explained:

Birth, growth, and death of life are in their outward aspect the same
process of aggregation, formation and disaggregation, though more than
that in their inner process and significance. Even the ensoulment of the
body by the psychic being follows, if the occult view of these things is
correct, a similar outward process, for the soul as nucleus draws to itself
for birth and aggregates the elements of its mental, vita and physical
sheaths and their contents, increases these formations in life, and in its
departing drops and disaggregates again these aggregates, drawing back
into itself it inner powers, till in rebirth it repeats the original process. (p.
198)

Nevertheless, once fully developed and established out in front of personal

awareness, the soul begins to entirely govern the mind, life, and body. In fact, Sri

Aurobindo (2012) noted that the evident variance that can be discriminated

between developmental levels of people’s consciousness is a difference of soul

evolution, which represents the true defining feature between one person and

another. That is to say, while the Divine spark-element is the same throughout all

of existence, the psychic being, nevertheless, “is more developed in some” (p.

119). While “the superficial ignorance erects a necessary limiting outline and

supplies the factors by which the outward [life is colored]” (Sri Aurobindo,

1940/2005, p. 607), it is, in fact, one’s stage of soul development that indicates or

“really determines the formed course of [a person’s] existence” (p. 607).

While in reality, the soul cannot be limited to any particular size, shape, or

form, Sri Aurobindo’s vision has echoed many ancient seers who have

symbolically depicted the caitya purusa as an ever-pure flame “no bigger in the

198
mass of the body than the thumb of a man” (Sri Aurobindo, 1999, p. 154). The

evolutionary soul is the always pure portion of the Divine in an individual, “but

the knowledge and force in it are involved and come out only as the psychic being

evolves and grows stronger” (Sri Aurobindo, 2012, p. 118). Sri Aurobindo

(1940/2005) contended, for example, that regardless of the extent of conflict and

adversity a person might experience in his or her life, nothing—not the

“imperfections and impurities, the defects and depravations of the surface being”

(p. 924)—can extinguish or corrupt this forever-perfect flame or tarnish its

faultless integrity. To wit, the true psychic guide within impartially takes secret

delight in all human experiences, as it guides the person “to persevere through all

labors, sufferings, and ordeals in the agitated movement of the Becoming” (p.

112).

By its yogic definition, the psychic being is, furthermore, not somewhere

above the mind, but found in a dimension behind the heart as a simple and sincere

presence that always offers “an immediate sense of what is right and helps

towards the Truth and the Divine, [while cultivating] an instinctive withdrawal

from all that is the opposite are its most visible characteristics” (Sri Aurobindo,

2012, p. 120). The innermost self, or soul, of a person is “always there standing

behind the action of mind, life and body and is most directly represented by the

psychic which is itself a spark of the Divine” (p. 63).

In The Synthesis of Yoga, Sri Aurobindo (1999) noted that few individuals

have ever become aware of this silent, innermost being or have felt the soul’s

“direct impulse” (p. 150). Withal, for those who have felt its first touch, many

199
have emphasized a sense of sweetness known to bring about a deep state of

equanimity and peace. This being said, it is here in the depths of the Hrday

Guhayam, behind the heart, the seeker of Truth can find the unmistakable voice of

the Divine—“the voice or the breath of the inner oracle” (p. 150). This hidden

psychic being points the person towards ever-greater spiritual perfection, love and

bliss, goodness, supreme truth, and beauty. The evolutionary soul thus represents

the true giver of guidance with “an inner discrimination, a psychic sense and tact,

a superior intervention of guidance from above or an innate and luminous inner

guidance” (Sri Aurobindo, 1940/2005, p. 913). Sri Aurobindo further elucidated:

[Typically] our soul is not the overt guide and master of our thought and
acts; it has to rely on the mental, vital, physical instruments for self-
expression and is constantly overpowered by our mind and life-force: but
if once it can succeed in remaining in constant communion with its own
larger occult reality,—and this can only happen when we go deep into our
subliminal parts,—it is no longer dependent, it can become powerful and
sovereign, armed with an intrinsic spiritual perception of the truth of
things and a spontaneous discernment which separates that truth from the
falsehood of the Ignorance and Inconscience, distinguishes the Divine and
the undivine in the manifestation and so can be the luminous leader of our
other parts of nature. (p. 559)

Psychic Entity, Jīvātman, and Ātman

To arrive at a better metaphysical understanding of the hidden

determinates of the psychic being and its instruments, and, more specifically, to

chart the soul’s role in the evolution of individual consciousness, it seems

important to clearly articulate between the psychic being and the psychic entity,

the Jīvātman and the pure Ātman. Sri Aurobindo (2012) affirmed that these

distinctions of being ought not to be confused with one another. Nevertheless, he

admitted that “even in India the old knowledge of the Upanishads in which they

200
are distinguished has been lost. The Jīvātman, psychic being, [the psychic entity,

and Ātman] are all confused together” (p. 110). For instance, the term Ātman,

like Self and Spirit, is commonly employed in both spiritual and philosophical

contexts; however, that which “has not been clearly understood by the different

Eastern traditions is the twofold nature of our spiritual identity, spirit, and soul”

(Cortright, 2007, p. 23). Sri Aurobindo (2012) therefore contended that it is very

important to recover the precise meanings and evolutionary implications of these

sacred terms.

As in the individual being, so in Brahman; as in the microcosm, so in the

macrocosm. “If Sachchidananda is Brahman in that ultimate state, then its soul

(its individuality) is Ātman” (B. Shirazi, personal communication, October 10,

2015). The psychic being first emerges from the mass of inertia, under which it

has been hidden, into the evolutionary manifestation as the psychic entity, or the

individualized, yet unevolved involution of Divinity. More precisely, the psychic

entity comes from the Divine, as it represents the “nucleus pregnant with Divine

possibilities” (Sri Aurobindo, 2012, p. 103) present in all the terrestrial creation

“from the earth’s highest to its lowest creatures” (p. 64). Sometimes described as

the Divine fire, the psychic entity touches and animates every form of matter, life,

and mind to ultimately guide them in their growth out of the Ignorance and into

the Divine consciousness.

The psychic entity, as it gathers experience, “goes on with this progression

from life to life through an evolution, which leads it up to the human state and

evolves through it all a being of itself which we call the psychic being” (Sri

201
Aurobindo, 2012, p. 537). In this long evolutionary passage from the inconscient

darkness to the superconscient Light of Divinity, the psychic entity eventually

individuates into a truly mature psychic being, which, so far, has only been seen

in the evolutionary emergence of the human being. As the Mother wrote: “It is

this spark that is permanent and gathers round itself all sorts of elements for the

formation of that individuality” (as cited in Dalal, 2002, p. xi).

A person’s true being, or Ātman, relates in connection with both Jīvātman

and the psychic entity, which are said by Sri Aurobindo (1940/2005) to coexist

relative to each other like two dynamic poles in one simultaneous action of

Existence. In this context, Jīvātman and the psychic being are practically the

same in terms of their essence and ultimate reality; however, they are distinct in

regards to their evolutionary function. Jīvātman, for instance, represents the

individual’s highest and vastest Self as it is known to preside, from the spiritual

end of the pole above, over the psychic being, which represents the opposite side

of the pole as it exists in material evolution. In this sense, Jīvātman, or the Self, is

fundamentally always the same, self-existent, and essential in its unity with the

Divine and forever superior to human birth and death. Once fully built up, the

complete transformation of the psychic being signifies the realized culmination

that unites the two aforementioned poles of being. As a projection of Jīvātman,

the psychic being absorbs the essence of all its embodied experiences while it

evolves inside of the physical existence. In summary, Sri Aurobindo (2012)

elucidated the important distinction between Jīvātman and the psychic being is as

follows: “As for the psychic being it enters into the evolution, enters into the body

202
at birth and goes out of it at death; but Jīvātman, as I know it, is unborn and

eternal although upholding the manifested personality from above” (p. 67).

Further Clarification

A few more important points should be further clarified. For one, while

the psychic represents the “the spark of the Divine involved here in the individual

existence” (Sri Aurobindo, 2012, p. 104), it needs to be emphasized that the soul,

in its terrestrial identity, is neither the transcendent nonevolving self, the Ātman,

nor the ego. As quite an imperfect manifestation still, the soul is but an

evolutionary agent within the extant dimension of physical space-time; “so

obviously it cannot have already the powers of the Divine” (p. 104). As Sri

Aurobindo further elucidated, while it is “something that comes direct from the

Divine and is in touch with the Divine” (p. 103); however, in truth, the psychic

being is not the Divine. Aurobindo (1940/2005) explained:

[The true soul is] not the unborn Self or Atman, for the Self even in
presiding over the existence of the individual is aware always of its
universality and transcendence, it is yet its deputy in the forms of Nature,
the individual soul, caitya purusa, supporting mind, life and body, standing
behind the mental, the vital, the subtle-physical being in us and watching
and profiting by their development and experience. (pp. 238–239)

A second matter to briefly clarify is the apparent confusion between the

other parts of being and the psychic being. For instance, in Letters on Yoga, Sri

Aurobindo (2012) lamented that the terms soul, consciousness, ordinary waking

awareness, conscience, mind, life-force, subtle being, and psychic entity are

frequently employed in the literatures without much precision. For instance,

though the psychic being’s intuitions are expressed through the mind, the soul is

not seen in integral yoga as being of the mind, as according to Sri Aurobindo and

203
the Mother, there are differentiated manifestations of mind involved in every

(mental, vital, and physical) sheath, which is something quite different in identity

from the psychic being that “stands behind them where they meet in the heart”

(Sri Aurobindo, 2012, p. 103). Sri Aurobindo wrote that, especially in terms of the

vital being with all its passions and desires (i.e., the false soul or desire-soul),

there is “even more serious confusion” (p. 103). This tendency for misperception,

he affirmed may very well stem from the fact that the soul is mostly hidden while

the other concentric realms of being are much more perceptible to ordinary human

awareness, as the soul’s instruments, they animate the movements of the body and

the mind.

Thirdly, Sri Aurobindo (1999) wrote that the voice historically known as

the conscience is not the soul either—“for that is only a mental and often

conventional erring substitute” (p. 154). Rather, he clarified that the “soul is a

deeper and more seldom heard call” (p. 154). Explaining that following an

inferior light such as one’s conscience could, in fact, be harmful for the spiritual

aspirant, Sri Aurobindo cautioned, “It is better to wander at the call of one’s soul

than to go apparently straight with the reason and the outward moral mentor” (p.

154). In the following, Sri Aurobindo (1940/2005) spelled out some of these

implications:

But the error so created comes very much in the way of a true
understanding, and it must therefore be emphasized that spirituality is not
a high intellectuality, not idealism, not an ethical turn of mind or moral
purity and austerity, not religiosity or an ardent and exalted emotional
fervour, not even a compound of all these excellent things; a mental belief,
creed or faith, an emotional aspiration, a regulation of conduct according
to a religious or ethical formula are not spiritual achievement and
experience. (p. 889)

204
 Sri Aurobindo affirmed that it is this greater timeless spirit that exists

before birth and it is this eternal soul that goes out from the body at the time of

death. While representing the person’s immortal spiritual identity, the psychic

being survives even the dissolution of its vital and mental instruments only to

return to the physical plane, with its concentric sheaths gathered anew, in order to

continue on its evolutionary journey—thus fostering an indissoluble link between

a long series of births, deaths, and rebirths. The psychic individuality, thus,

represents ‘the flowering of our long path of individualization, pursued through

many incarnations, many cultures, and many historical epochs” (Cortright, 2007,

p. 211).

On Integral Transformation

An ascent of individual consciousness into heaven, or some post mortem

salvation is not the goal of the three transformations of consciousness in integral

psychology. While various spiritual “traditions maintain that transformation of

this earthly nature is impossible, so that only when the body drops at death can

there be total freedom” (Cortright, 2007, pp. 73–74), this journey of the soul is not

concerned with changes to the external personality or its superficial motives

either. Development therefore does not come about by surface manipulation by

the mind and reason. But rather, the goal of integral yoga is the development of

mind, life, and body through a series of conversions (i.e. both ascent and descent),

which result in the transformation and divinization of entire human being. The

one thing essential, in terms of the aim of integral yoga psychology, is a total

spiritually embodied transmutation of the human being—the largest, highest, and

205
deepest possible conversion of every detail of one’s being—down to the very cells

of the body “that can alone make Life other than it now is and rescue it out of its

present distressed and ambiguous figure” (Sri Aurobindo, 1999, p. 176).

Transformation in nature often wears the appearance of a miracle—a

“random fate that imitates chance” (Sri Aurobindo, 1950/1997b, p. 52). Integral

yoga, however, accepts that Nature’s largest strides, her swiftest leaps, and even

her most seemingly random steps in her evolutionary unfoldment are forever

guided by a secret purpose and wisdom founded upon the Laws of the Infinite,

which are grounded in an assured base of involved Divinity. As it can be seen in

nature and, similarly, in the course of a human life, at each step along the journey,

the Spirit hidden within “heightens its stature, perfects its instruments, organizes

better its self-expression; [and] a new consciousness comes in, takes up the old

and gives it an extended movement and another significance, adds greater, richer,

more complex movements” (Sri Aurobindo, 1997a, pp. 251–252).

Experience, Realization, and Transformation

Yet, when it comes to identifying that which constitutes a change of

consciousness, Sri Aurobindo and the mother were careful to provide three

important characterizations. That is, they made careful distinctions between (a)

experience, (b) realization, and (c) transformation, which according to them, are

frequently confused with one another. The following definitions should help

serve to illustrate the fundamental nature of these three progressions of

consciousness. According to integral yoga, for instance, one can have a fleeting

spiritual experience; however, such a peak experience (e.g., Maslow, 1964) is

206
something quite different from a permanent and stabilized shift into a new

condition of being.

For Sri Aurobindo and the Mother, realization essentially indicates a

change in the substance of the being from one condition to another. The new

status emerges as something no longer the same “but something else, greater,

better, more luminous in knowledge, more molded in the image of the eternal

inner beauty, more and more progressive towards the divinity of the secret Spirit”

(Sri Aurobindo, 1940/2005, p. 853). Realization of a higher type of

consciousness, they taught, does not come about through mere ideas and mental

formations, but by a radical change of status, an inner and spiritual conversion.

Cortright (2007) envisioned the difference this way: “Experiences come and go.

Spiritual experience is a temporary entry into a spiritual state. It prepares the

consciousness for a new level of realization, but it is not itself that new level” (p.

74). Cortright explained that realization signifies an inner shift, which “leaves the

outer nature relatively untouched. Much religious teaching is aimed at

realization, an inner freedom but with the outer nature (prakriti) left to the

momentum of its past karma” (p. 74). Within this general understanding,

Aurobindo, (1940/2005) explained:

A certain mastery can indeed be achieved, but mastery is not

transformation; the change made by it cannot be sufficient to be integral:
for that it is essential to get back, beyond mind-being, life-being, body-
being, still more deeply inward to the psychic entity inmost and
profoundest within us—or else to open to the superconscient highest
domains. (p. 940)

In their conception, transformation goes beyond the total of both

experience and realization “when every activity, every part of that instrumental

207
being is completely converted to the principle of what is realized” (Pandit, 2008,

p. 3). Indeed, there can be no transformation without a prior realization or

experience; while, there can certainly be a realization and, much less, an

experience without a full transmutation of the entire inner and outer nature. Thus,

transformation is something definitely more and therefore represents a succeeding

step that must be established upon a sound foundation of experience and

realization.

Three Transformations

The evolutionary growth and transformation of human consciousness,

according to Sri Aurobindo and the Mother, is a triple process of conversion that

involves ever-widening, heightening, and deepening circles of evolution,

involution, and integration which they called respectively the: (a) the psychic

transformation; (b) the spiritual transformation; and (c) the supramental

transformation. It must be noted, however, that since Jīvātman and the psychic

being are two aspects of the same reality, each represents a particular path of

transformation. For this reason, individual consciousness can begin with either

the path of the psychic being or the path of Jīvātman, though in the end both are

needed, before the third supramental transformation can become possible.

According to Shirazi, the former path is

better known and travelled by traditional non-dual Vedantic yogis and

philosophers. It is a more masculine approach to Spirit, and as Sri
Aurobindo says, it is one of three transformations in integral yoga (i.e., the
spiritual transformation). The path of psychic transformation is more of a
feminine/embodied approach and was more emphasized after Sri
Aurobindo worked with the Mother and it seems to be the way for most
people. These poles have to ultimately become united. The question is in
what order: the psychic or spiritual transformation first? The latter

208
 attempt is suitable for only some exceptional individuals. Psychic
transformation is recommended for the majority of individuals. (B.
Shirazi, personal communication, October 2, 2015).

The Psychic Transformation

The psychic transformation represents a going within process beyond the

concentric parts of being (e.g., the inner physical, the inner vital, and the inner

mental natures) aimed at discovery and bringing forward of one’s true self, or

evolutionary soul, from behind the veil, the secret dimension hidden behind the

heart. This is the first of a progressive series of transformations aimed towards a

Divine effectuation. Cortright (2007) clarified, “Beyond the psychological

transformation that brings coherence to the self, the psychic transformation works

to refine, purify, and psychicize the self so it becomes transparent, flexible, and

responsive to the soul's light” (p. 84). The first conversion involves a widening

and centralizing action of the consciousness by bringing forward the long hidden

psychic being out in front of the veil of ordinary consciousness to transform the

egocentric consciousness. During this primary transformation, the individual

recognizes the psychic being as one’s true self and identity and thus imposes its

inner rule on the person’s outer instrumental nature. The psychic transformation

represents “the intensest way of purification for the human heart, more powerful

than any ethical or aesthetic catharsis could ever be by its half-power and

superficial pressure” (Sri Aurobindo, 1999, p. 165). Though crucial, the psychic

transformation is but the one of three necessary steps. This psychic

transformation, in most cases, is foundationally first, “because it makes safe and

easy the descent of the higher consciousness [and] the spiritual transformation

209
without which the Supramental must always remain far distant” (Dalal, 2007, p.

367). Unaided by the psychic being and lacking its deeper guidance, the inner

conversion “may be erratic and undisciplined, turbid and mixed with unspiritual

elements or one-sided or incomplete in its catholicity” (Sri Aurobindo,

1940/2005, p. 913).

The Spiritual Transformation

Prior to psychicization, the person is said to live in ignorance full of

sufferings, disharmony, discords, disease, and death. With psychicization, the

psychic being acts like a searchlight in order to highlight that which must be

changed within the nature. It is here at this typically seen second conversion, or

the spiritual transformation, that the, more or less, psychicized soul turns all its

imperfect aspects toward the Divine to call down the Divine Truth, the higher

Light, and its Power from the superconscient planes (e.g., consciousness-force,

knowledge, delight of existence, peace, spiritual purity, and Ānanda) to

spiritualize the being. Assuming the psychic transformation has already been

fulfilled, or in some cases concurrent with it, the awakened psychic being can

consequently open up a means of conscious relation with its mental, vital, and

physical members as well as the Divine ranges of consciousness superior to the

mind.

This spiritual transformation comes about by a series of ascents and

descents, by a raising of our consciousness into the higher planes of the mind, and

by a bringing down of the powers of these higher planes into our nature. This

spiritual descent is a highly complex process that “results not only in a profound

210
realization of the Universal Divine, but also in a complete transmutation of each

and every aspect of our lower, instrumental nature under the influence of the

higher planes of the mind” (M. Cornelissen, personal communication, February

16, 2016). However, the spiritual transformation is not the final fulfillment, as

there still remains the need for the Divine manifestation to bring a complete and

final end to the Inconscient’s reign of ignorance.

The Supramental Transformation

For the Supramental Being to descend and transmute the persisting

shadows, there must be established a “relation with the psychic center, [or else]

there can be no Supramental descent” (Sri Aurobindo, 2012, p. 109). The third

and final conversion, or the supramental transformation, involves integration,

transmutation, and transformation of the being in its entirety “to its utmost

capacity of wisdom, power, love, and universality and through this flowering [of a

human being’s] utmost realization” (Sri Aurobindo, 1997c, p. 46). Pandit (2008)

explained that the Supramental transformation “is not only of the heart, of the

spiritual mind, not only of the vital energies but of the physics, the material body

down to the least cell” (p. 4). More specifically, the final supramental conversion

results in a radical transformation of the whole substance (every aspect, element,

and function) of the being and an ultimate divinization of the outer character,

power, and consciousness of its lower instruments. Such a culmination, according

to Sri Aurobindo and the Mother, would not only bring about such a perfect

manifestation and movement in the terrestrial existence characterized by: (a) right

action in the physical plane; (b) right impulse and feeling in the vital plane; and

211
(c) right vision and truth-perspective in the mind, but would represent an advance

so radically beyond the current state of the humanity that it would be equivalent to

the evolution once passing from animal to man. This greater supramentalized

being would, thus, have a fundamental “understanding of self and world that

literally and fully equals the way God knows Himself and the world—something

entirely beyond what the mind can now imagine or understand” (M. Cornelissen,

personal communication, February 16, 2014).

212
 CHAPTER 7: FRAMEWORK FOR POSTFORMAL DEVELOPMENT

Realizing acutely the problematic nature of ontological reductionism, Sri

Aurobindo (1997c) declared: “All the uneasiness, dissatisfaction, disillusionment,

weariness, melancholy, pessimism of the human mind comes from man’s

practical failure to solve the riddle and the difficulty of his double nature” (p.

236). Simply stated, such problems come down to an issue of dimensionality.

The problem with the scientific approach to psychological inquiry, the Mother

(2002) added, is that it lacks a general overall sense of the supraphysical. For, to

be conscious, even, of the psychic being, she contended, one must “be capable of

feeling the fourth dimension” (p. 429). With a closer examination of the

philosophical underpinnings that inform much of developmental theory in the

West today, it becomes increasingly clear that an enduring metaphysical

commitment to physicalist scientific naturalism seems to fundamentally preclude

any possibility for the ontological status of multidimensional reality. This notion

of the supraphysical, Sri Aurobindo (1940/2005) elucidated, “has been associated

with mysticism and occultism, and occultism has been banned as a superstition

and a fantastic error” (p. 678). Mistrusted, rejected, and abandoned, then, the

occult has been long forbidden from serving as any semblance of a deeper

psychological lens with which to explore and understand the nature of human

consciousness and its evolution. In a particularly relevant letter, Sri Aurobindo

(2014b) clarified:

The self-chosen field of these psychologists [speaking here towards the

field of psychoanalysis] is besides poor and dark and limited; you must
know the whole before you can know the part and the highest before you
can truly understand the lowest. That is the province of a greater

213
 psychology awaiting its hour before which these poor gropings will
disappear and come to nothing. (p. 616)

A Matter of Dimensionality

In the Life Divine, Sri Aurobindo (1940/2005) detailed, “Our physical

mind is not the whole of us nor, even though it dominates almost the whole of our

surface consciousness, the best or greatest part of us” (p. 803). He further added,

“reality cannot be restricted to a sole field of this narrowness or to the dimensions

known within its rigid circle” (p. 803). The term metaphysics, according to

integral yoga psychology, means the “ultimate cause of things and all that is

behind the world of phenomena” (Sri Aurobindo, 2014b, pp. 73–74).

Accordingly, from this perspective, Sri Aurobindo contended that the occult is, in

fact, a necessary aspect of human existence. He (1940/2005) reasoned: “True

occultism means no more than a research into supraphysical realities and an

unveiling of the hidden laws of being and Nature, of all that is not obvious on the

surface” (p. 678). For essentially, Sri Aurobindo (1999) rejected any form of

exclusive dualism between manifest reality, “a lesser consciousness veiled in its

own exceeding light” (p. 298) and its Ultimate Source—the “Mystery translucent

in highest consciousness to its own spirit” (p. 298). While

these things are to the dimensional mind irreconcilable opposites, but to

the constant vision and experience of the supramental Truth-
consciousness, they are so simply and inevitably the intrinsic nature of
each other that even to think of them as contraries is an unimaginable
violence. (p. 298)

Sri Aurobindo and the Mother’s basic position was that their system of

metaphysical psychology is not at all incompatible with a meaningful relationship

with modern psychology, as both approaches to the mind and consciousness ask

214
the ultimate questions about “what they are and how they come into existence [in

terms of] their relation to Matter, Life, etc.” (Sri Aurobindo, 2014b, p. 73). For

them, integral yoga is but a “deeper practical psychology” (Sri Aurobindo, 1998,

p. 146). Not obviating, then, the existence of other antecedent or coexisting

subtle worlds, realms, or dimensions, Sri Aurobindo (1970) affirmed, “We must

not apply to the soul a logic, which is based on the peculiarities of matter” (p. 59).

In Letters on Yoga I, he (2012) again reiterated this sentiment writing that

physical notions about the various material planes based on three-dimensional

ideas of space and time unequivocally distort discernment of any greater reality.

In fact, all the objections to an ontologically rich multidimensional account, the

Mother (1993) opined, seem to be founded upon the limited human senses and

rational predispositions. As a consequence of taking the fourth dimension

seriously into account, the Mother declared, “there, everything holds together, in a

very concrete, palpable way, the ‘outside’ and the ‘inside’” (p. 31).

Outlines of a Multidimensional Integral Framework

Spiritual individuality means that each individual self or spirit is a center

of self-vision and all-vision; the circumference—the boundless
circumference, as we may say,—of this vision may be the same for all, but
the center may be different,—not located as in a spatial point in a spatial
circle, but a psychological center related with others through a coexistence
of the diversely conscious Many in the universal being. Each being in a
world will see the same world, but see it from its own self-being according
to its own way of self-nature: for each will manifest its own truth of the
Infinite, its own way of self-determination and of meeting the cosmic
determinations; its vision by the law of unity in variety will no doubt be
fundamentally the same as that of others, but it will still develop its own
differentiation, —as we see all human beings conscious in the one human
way of the same cosmic things, yet always with an individual difference.
(Sri Aurobindo, 1940/2005, p. 357)

215
 The above excerpt from the Life Divine reveals the essence and

significance of the psychic—“the psychological center of our being, the seat

within us of the highest truth of our existence” (The Mother, 2002, p. 4). With

this, it could be said that to the extent that the psychic identifies with the Divine’s

conscious becoming, the being literally reflects a living symbol—an evolving

map of the cosmos. To discern the intelligible outlines of an integral framework

of psychospiritual development, then, it seems important to begin with defining

the unique and varied psychological terrain of the lower, inner, and higher regions

of individual consciousness. Indeed, throughout their many writings, Sri

Aurobindo and the Mother developed a far-reaching but practical psychological

model that focused on the evolutionary unfolding of individual consciousness,

and particularly, the “double movement of evolution intersecting and

complementing itself, which gives the utmost possibilities of realization to the

Divine light within each being” (The Mother, 2004c, p. 217).

Cornelissen (2016) explained that Sri Aurobindo’s integral psychology

“aims not only at a liberation of the Self but also at a complete transformation of

human nature under the influence of the higher levels of consciousness. For this

transformation, a very detailed understanding of human nature is essential” (para.

1). Sri Aurobindo and the Mother outlined the vicissitudes of individual

consciousness evolution, and particularly, its transformation, which demand

altogether “a total and integral consecration” (The Mother, 2004e, p. 88). Given

their basic psychological formula, it seems important here to first clarify the terms

total and integral. The Mother, for instance, provided that in this context “total”

216
means vertical, as in all the planes “of being from the most material to the most

subtle” (p. 88). Alternatively, she explained that “integral” means horizontal,

which includes “all the different and often contradictory parts which constitute the

outer being, physical, vital, and mental.” (p. 88). Quoting the Rig Veda, Sri

Aurobindo (1940/2005) highlighted the essential nature and interplay between

these interconnecting dimensions:

The seers of Truth discovered the building of being in nonbeing by will in

the heart and by the thought; their ray was extended horizontally; but what
was there below, what was there above? There were Casters of the seed,
there were Greatnesses; there was self-law below, there was Will above.
(p. 254)

Horizontally, the concentric dimensionality of individual consciousness is,

once again, made up of: (a) the outer nature; (b) the inner nature; (c) the

innermost nature; and the (d) evolving psychic entity, or psychic being, situated

deep within the being’s inmost center. The essential instrumentation and means

of awareness for the inner parts of being represent a projection from the earlier-

mentioned higher planes “to meet the subconscience and it inherits the character

of consciousness of its planes of origin with which it is intimately associated and

in touch by kinship” (Sri Aurobindo, 1940/2005, p. 569). Here, more simply put,

the outer being reflects its basis in the lower inconscience, the inner being reflects

its original source from the “higher heights of mind and life and spirit” (p. 569).

However, this horizontal opening and emergence of the true being is limited by a

wall of ignorance, which requires “a long and difficult effort and as the result of

many lives of progressive self-development; for very firmly is our normal

consciousness bound to the law of its lower hemisphere of being” (Sri Aurobindo,

217
1999, p. 466). With this, Sri Aurobindo (1997a) coherently articulated that the

real objective of integral yoga is for the horizontal and the vertical, the total and

the integral, to come together to attain a true integrality of consciousness:

Our aim must be to embrace in this new knowledge all the planes of
consciousness and all its summits. Then in the light of the knowledge
brought to us and its widening and heightening of our consciousness, it is
in the light of the top of things that we have to see and know all. It is then
only that our ignorance or a very partial and surface awareness of
ourselves can be flooded by a light of self-revelation and turn into self
knowledge. (pp. 329–330)

Describing individual consciousness as a living symbol, Sri Aurobindo

and Mother reiterated that the concentric and vertical systems of being might be

preferably described as harmonics or octaves opening to dimensions to receive

light from above and below and horizontally also. Sri Aurobindo (1999) further

described how such a representative model “divides the total being of man, the

microcosm, as it divides also the world-being, the macrocosm, [as both beings]

have a higher and a lower hemisphere, the parardha and aparardha of the ancient

wisdom” (p. 465). In other words, Sri Aurobindo maintained that to understand

individual transformation of consciousness, “we must restate in a practical

formula the relations of the worlds, which constitute the two hemispheres” (p.

466).

According to Sri Aurobindo (1940/2005), the lower hemisphere is made

up of: (a) the inconscient; (b) the subconscient; (c) the physical energies that

provide the unseen powers of being with their instrumental fulfillment within the

manifest material universe; (d) the emotional movements of the vital planes (e.g.,

the larger desires, passions, and ambitions of the central vital along with all the

218
smaller egoistic movements of desire, lust, vanity, greed, jealousy, and envy

indicative of the lower vital); (e) the subplanes of ordinary mind (along with their

various intersections with the vital and the physical planes); (f) Higher Mind; (g)

Illumined Mind; (h) Intuition; and (i) Overmind. The first three planes together

(i.e., the mental, vital, and physical planes of being, or the world of mind-life-

body) are that which Sri Aurobindo (2012) called “the triple universe of the lower

hemisphere” (p. 166).

Sri Aurobindo explained the human being is not made up of the lower

nature alone. There is also an upper hemisphere of the manifestation constituted

of the quadruple power of Sachchidananda: (a) Truth (Sat); (b) Consciousness

(Cit-Tapas); and (c) Bliss (Ānanda). The upper hemisphere is based on the pure

presence of Spirit’s eternal self-knowledge—“the perfect and eternal reign of the

Spirit; for there it manifests without cessation or diminution its infinities, deploys

the unconcealed glories of its illimitable existence, its illimitable consciousness

and knowledge, its illimitable force and power, its illimitable beatitude” (Sri

Aurobindo, 1999, p. 465). This higher nature is said to be situated above and

behind the individual being’s earthly nature. Both hemispheres are linked

together by the Supermind (mahas or vijñāna) into a simultaneous Existence of

perfect oneness and, at the same time, manifold multiplicity. Furthermore, the

lower hemisphere could be thought of as a lower ontic (mirror expression) of this

higher hemisphere whereby “we perceive that our existence is a sort of refraction

of the divine existence, in inverted order of ascent and descent, thus ranged,—

Existence Matter
Consciousness-Force Life

219
 Bliss Psyche
Supermind Mind” (Sri Aurobindo, 1940/2005, p. 278)

The Rational Sphere

Sri Aurobindo referred to the lower nature of the mind-life-body in which

the human consciousness is typically now contained, or identified, as the Adhara.

For him, the Adhara “means the mind, life, and body as instruments of the

expression off the being . . . But sometimes the word being is used to signify the

whole—soul and Nature together” (Sri Aurobindo, 2012, p. 167). The point to be

emphasized here is that, the division of these forces of being, particularly the

mind and vital, are frequently mixed up together on the ordinary surface level of

individual consciousness. For instance, the term mind, in its ordinary use, is a

term that is frequently used indiscriminately to cover “the whole consciousness,

for man is a mental being and mentalizes everything” (p. 168). However, in the

language of integral yoga psychology, mind, life, and body all represent entirely

distinct forces in themselves, which becomes rapidly apparent as soon as

individual consciousness begins to interiorize behind this ordinary surface

mixture. To facilitate distinction and alleviate confusion‚ according to Sri

Aurobindo, the word mind is used rather to denote

specially the part of the nature which has to do with cognition and
intelligence, with ideas, with mental or thought perceptions, the reactions
of thought to things, with the truly mental movements and formations,
mental vision and will etc. that are part of his intelligence. (p. 168)

With an irresistible passion for discovery, for instance, these rational

layers of mind, tend to epitomize the ideals and standards of physical science, as it

seeks to establish a solid invariable order to “distinguish, to enlighten, to correct,

220
to point out the deficiencies and the crudities, to lay down laws of aesthetics and

to purify our appreciation and our creation by improved taste and right

knowledge” (Sri Aurobindo, 1997c, p. 137). Indeed, it seems the way of science

provides the laws and truths, which promise to radically justify “a standard, a

norm of knowledge, a rational basis for life, a clear outline and sovereign means

for the progress and perfection of the individual and the [humanity as a whole]”

(p. 20).

The formal intellect is, accordingly, a vigilant judge, a true law-giver, an

“accurate and careful scholar, the sober critic, the rationalist and cautious

politician, the conservative scientist, that great mass of human intelligence, which

makes for slow and careful progress” (Sri Aurobindo, 2003, p. 366). By whatever

law of truth it establishes, reason attempts to make that which was once obscure

and unpredictable into something self-conscious and rationally understandable. In

the words of Sri Aurobindo (1949/2005), the utmost mission of the rational mind

is to enlighten the obscure mental consciousness’ “blind instincts, random

intuitions, vague perceptions till it shall become capable of this greater light and

this higher ascension” (p. 136).

Rational identification with the mind of the lower nature, even in its loftier

expression—such as in an outer mastery, a strong intellect, a vibrant vital life-

force, a healthy physical well-being, and the utmost satisfaction of one’s mental,

emotional, and physical needs and aspirations—could not represent the soul’s

highest ascent and last summit of which individual consciousness is capable. Sri

Aurobindo (1940/2005) maintained that the surface mind is not the true mentality,

221
as the surface is much too “involved, bound, hampered, conditioned . . . by the

body and bodily life and the limitations of the nerve-system and the physical

organs” (p. 580). To put it somewhat differently, the evolution of mind in the

living form is not the fullest realization of individual consciousness, “neither will

it be the end of the narrative” (Sri Aurobindo, 1970, p. 13).

Sri Aurobindo (2012) explained that the triple powers of the mind-life-

body “have been established in the earth-consciousness by evolution” (p. 167).

Beyond identification with the mental sphere, according to integral yoga

psychology, the planes of consciousness are not as well manifested, or organized,

in the earth-nature. From an analysis of its origins and dynamics, it can be

summarized from an integral perspective that higher evolution of consciousness is

radically different from the lower, as it is subsequently guided by the spiritual

truth of one’s own unique existence, which replaces the “fixed unconscious or

half-conscious law of automatism . . . an intelligent standardization and a

framework determined by rational purpose, utility, and convenience” (Sri

Aurobindo, 1940/2005, pp. 1037–1038).

Many Paths Beyond the Mind

In this light, an integral yoga psychology framework would contribute that

individual consciousness evolution begins as an unconscious process of

preindividualistic, pre-rational, and sensational classifications of an automatic,

instinctive, and “subconscient obedience in each to the vital truth of its own

being” (Sri Aurobindo, 1997c, p. 243). As the evolution of individual

consciousness progresses, development becomes increasingly half-conscious,

222
rational, and, eventually conscious as a consequence of individuation.

Accordingly, then, with conventional development, before the mind has become

self-conscious, it would appear that the same law—that is, the involution of the

mental, vital, and physical domains already established in Nature—would

consequently predominate in all who would identify with them and thus with the

conventional unfoldment of individual consciousness. Variation in individual

development, then, would manifest in limited terms. This general Law of Nature

might help explain the above-delineated findings in the previous chapters in

regards to such a vast sampling of academic psychologists whom have

consistently found evidence for cross-cultural, invariant, and universal pre-

rational to rational stages.

To ascend the rational sphere, Sri Aurobindo (1940/2005) elucidated in

The Life Divine, evolution in this established nature is characterized by “a natural

[and] predictable development . . . with its well-marked steps arranged in an easy

sequence” (p. 737). However, when identification begins to cross over beyond

the rational line and progressively exceeds formal operational thinking, the

evolution of individual consciousness becomes highly fluid, participatory,

conscious, adaptable, and creative opening to the Mystery of one’s personal and

unique existence, and thus is no longer a priori. To put it very simply, there is a

real and essential difference between conventional development of the lower

nature and transpersonal development toward the higher, “so much so that the

passage from one to another seems a new creation, a miracle of metamorphosis”

(p. 737).

223
 Developmentally speaking, it could be said that postformal development is

not at all firmly arranged into successive developmental stages. Accordingly, the

evolutionary path beyond the formal operational stage demarcation would most

likely be determined by the “stage of evolution which the soul has reached in its

manifestation in Nature” (Sri Aurobindo, 1940/2005, p. 826). Hence, each

subsequent stage beyond the mind would be implicitly preexistent non-manifest

latency waiting to develop according to one’s own particular process of

becoming, which is determined by his or her swabhava (Sanskrit for “essential

nature or uniqueness”).

The discussion now turns to the aforementioned developmental debate

found throughout the academic literatures, as well as reflected within the

psychospiritual theoretical discourse, regarding the many theorized paths beyond

the rational mind. To this, Sri Aurobindo (1940/2005) acknowledged, “there are

several directions in which human mind reaches beyond itself” (p. 288).

Discussion here postulates that postformal development can happen in a number

of different ways and according to many different courses depending on the

individual (B. Shirazi, personal communication, February 8, 2016). For instance,

individual consciousness can (a) go straight to Nirvana; it can (b) spiral back

down to the lower Nature; or, even, (c) indefinitely build up mental

superstructures on the surface of one’s outer surface consciousness. Lastly, if one

consciously chooses, the person can take the (d) integral path.

224
Nirvana

If one would want to choose it, according to Sri Aurobindo (1940/2005),

Nirvana is an option beyond identification with the mind and vital ego. Here, he

said, there could be an extinction, a dissolution, or the discovery of a vast,

indefinable, and inexpressible Self—the underlying truth that “we feel to be our

real or our basic existence, the foundation of all else that we are” (p. 291). With

ultimate spiritual liberation (i.e., mokṣa or moksha) it is even possible, Sri

Aurobindo (2012) held, to pass into a certain experience of

absolute silence of mind and cessation of its activities, constructions,

representations, which can be so complete that not only to the silent mind
but also to the passive senses the whole world is emptied of its solidity and
reality and things appear only as unsubstantial forms without any real
habitations or else floating in something that is a nameless Infinite: this
Infinite or else something still beyond is That which alone is real; an
absolute calm, peace, liberation would be the resulting state. Action
would continue, but no initiation or participation in it by the silent
liberated consciousness; a nameless Power would do all until there began
the descent from above which would transform the consciousness, making
its silence and freedom a basis for a luminous knowledge, action, Ananda.
But such a passage would be rare; ordinarily a silence of the mind, a
liberation of the consciousness, a renunciation of its belief in the final
value or truth of the mind’s imperfect representations or constructions
would be enough for the higher working to be possible. (p. 140)

Spiral Around the Lower Nature

Beyond the limits of the rational mind, there is said in integral yoga to be a

downward gravitational pull toward the lower nature’s already established

evolutionary formula as it is manifested in the original human formulation. Again

and again, in an unsatisfying circle, Sri Aurobindo (2013) observed, individual

consciousness tends to violently return back in a constant “whirling round one’s

own ego instead of a running towards the Divine” (p. 212). Summarizing Sri

225
Aurobindo, Kazlev (2005, 2006) astutely pointed out that the mental left to its

own devices turns around and around forever. In this way, formal operational

thinking cannot by itself leave the human cycle of the lower nature. In terms of

postconventional development, the mind can only move in the revolution of finite

circles returning “always to the point from which it started; mind cannot go

outside its own cycle” (Sri Aurobindo, 1940/2005, p. 860). With each

unsuccessful turn, the person must essentially start afresh on a new upward curve

toward a larger revolving cycle of progress and self-fulfillment. To this

seemingly endless rotation, Sri Aurobindo (1997c) explained:

The normal human does not desire to be called out from its constant
mechanical round to scale what may seem to it impossible heights and it
loves still less the prospect of being exceeded, left behind and dominated,
—although the object of a true supermanhood is not exceeding and
domination for its own sake but precisely the opening of our normal
humanity to something now beyond itself that is yet its own destined
perfection. (pp. 233–234)

Mental Superstructures

To a large extent, Sri Aurobindo maintained that the mind, in its own

attempts to surpass itself, “can only build a sort of superstructure ideal and

imaginative and ideative upon the ground of his normal narrow existence” (Sri

Aurobindo, 1940/2005, p. 822). Endowed by its creative nature, the mind, “if it

chooses, can dwell with satisfaction” (p. 975) in its own structures off the rational

surface (e.g., reality tunnels, lattices, scaffoldings, and even spirals) for all

perpetuity. These arbitrary constructions, however, are characteristically one-

sided, mechanical, and rigid schemes, and “for the most part, ill-evolved, ignorant

226
and arbitrary, mental constructions rather than transcriptions of the eternal truths

of the spirit” (Sri Aurobindo, 1999, p. 199).

Integral Path Beyond Mind

The integral path, then, if one were to choose it, “is something beyond

mental man and his limits, a greater consciousness than the highest consciousness

proper to human nature” (Sri Aurobindo, 1997a, p. 158). Thus, in order to break

through the intermediate rational lid and finally overcome the intervening

supremacy of the mental formula of the lower Nature, Sri Aurobindo (1999)

claimed that the integral paths of the psychic being, which eventually unites with

the path of the Jīvātman, are two ways to establish integrality in one’s pilgrimage

into the Supramental territory. “This higher mentality and this deeper soul, the

psychic element in man, are the two grappling hooks by which the Divine can lay

hold upon his nature” (p. 79). Unaided by such a Divine intervention, Sri

Aurobindo however maintained that it would be a sheer impossibility for any

effort of the mind to achieve this ultimate arrival point. Sri Aurobindo

(1940/2005) proclaimed that the “unaided personal aspiration and endeavor

cannot reach it: our effort belongs to the inferior power of Nature” (p. 955). That

is to say, “a power of the Ignorance cannot achieve by its own strength or

characteristic or available methods what is beyond its own domain of Nature” (p.

955).

Uniqueness Factor: A Bright and Shining Thread

It is not enough to describe Sri Aurobindo's discovery, we must also

understand how it is accessible to us. It is very difficult to draw a
diagram, however, and say, “Here is the way,” because spiritual
development is always adapted to the nature of each individual. And for

227
 good reason: this is not about learning a foreign language but about
oneself, and no two natures are alike: “The ideal I put before our yoga
does not bind all spiritual life and endeavor. The spiritual life is not a
thing that can be formulated in a rigid definition or bound by a fixed
mental rule; it is a vast field of evolution, an immense kingdom potentially
larger than the other kingdoms below it, with 100 provinces, a thousand
types, stages, forms, paths, variations of the spiritual ideal, degrees of
spiritual advancement” ([Aurobindo, 1949,] p. 171). Therefore we can
give only a few pointers, with the hope that each person will find the
particular clue that will open his or her own path. One should always keep
in mind that the true system of yoga is to capture the thread of one's own
consciousness, the “shining thread” of the Rishis, to seize hold of it, and
follow it right to the end. (Satprem, 1970, para. 161)

As indicated above, in order to follow the integral path, the individual soul

must establish its own unique course in accordance with its own special nature.

As the individual consciousness develops beyond the upper limits of the mind, it

is accepted in integral yoga psychology, that one becomes increasingly in touch

with the full truth and power of one’s true intrinsic self. Again, Sri Aurobindo

referred to this emergence as the Hindu concept of swabhava. Sri Aurobindo

further described swabhava as one’s true spiritual individuality, or soul

personality, which springs from the Jīvā. Here, also lies the person’s swadharma,

or one’s true way of being. Sri Aurobindo insisted that the inner swadharma is

not bound to a form of action, occupation, or any other outward, social, or other

type of function. Swabhava and swadharma, furthermore, represent qualities of

being much deeper and more profound than any psychological category of the

mind. In terms of this uniqueness factor, the Mother (1912) made the following

substantive point:

We all have a role to fulfill, a work to accomplish, a place, which we alone

can occupy. But since this work is the expression, the outer manifestation
of the inmost depth of our being, we can become conscious of its
definitive form only when we become conscious of this depth within

228
 ourselves. This is what sometimes happens in cases of true conversion.
The moment we perceive the transfiguring light and give ourselves to it
without reserve, we can suddenly and precisely become aware of what we
are made for, of the purpose of our existence on earth. (as cited in
Bloomquist, 1990, p. 32)

Answer to Research Question

In an earlier chapter, the researcher asked: Can an integral psychology

framework for postconventional development provide a more meaningful account

of the evolution of individual consciousness, its transformation, and particularly,

its nature and unfoldment beyond formal constructs of the mind and ego? Yes, it

is does indeed seem entirely possible for a developmental framework—informed

especially by Sri Aurobindo and the Mother’s rich integral acumen concerning the

psychic being as the continuing ontological referent—to shed some important

light on the nature of individual consciousness evolution, expressly, as

development exceeds the outer reaches of the mind and vital ego. The psychic

being, by its very nature centralizes and locates meaning in a given identification

with a level of consciousness. Specifically, the psychic being, is the true

individual, the facilitative agent, and continuous personhood that remains stable

and consistent regardless of state because it reflects one’s deeper, timeless

existence of the eternal multidimensional soul. This deeper truth of one’s nature,

which remains hidden for a long while within and behind the surface, once

liberated, according to such an integral framework, could awaken the mind out of

its vital trance to make it into a more perfect medium and instrument of integral

transformation.

229
Subquestion Number One

The present endeavor has sought to contribute toward a restoration of the

soul to the very basis of psychological theory and inquiry. To answer the first

subquestion—How might integral psychology’s teachings on the psychic being

(evolving soul) serve as a framework to better interpret, explain, synthesize, and-

or improve Western theories of human development?—it seems an integral

framework based on Sri Aurobindo’s teaching on the psychic being could

supplement the monopolar vision of a purely egocentric and-or teleological

ascent. By integrating a third psychocentric dimension together with the

egocentric and cosmocentric spheres, that is, an integral theoretical lens, could

possibly bring into view some surprising answers to many centuries-old

questions, persistent assumptions, problems, and limitations that continue to

pervade much of the existing debate on advanced human development. The

evolutionary soul, in particular, might be able to recontextualize a more eloquent

story of psychospiritual development—one that can meaningfully reconcile long-

opposing trajectories (e.g., structural-hierarchical versus spiral-dynamic models)

each vying for paradigmatic authority. Such a comprehensive approach could

possibly lead to a greatly expanded view of the nature of all three cosmocentric,

egocentric, and psychocentric dimensions.

But perhaps, even more important than all this, an integral psychology

framework could one day change the overall ontological picture of who and what

individual consciousness really is. Paralleling this turn, the true self at the center

of one’s being might eventually be seen and known as both one’s unique personal

230
point of reference and, at the same time, as an innermost seed of superconscience

existing in oneness with the Infinite—with the heart of God. The point being is

this, the psychic being, or the evolutionary soul, dimension of individual

consciousness seems to this researcher critically essential for understanding the

nature and process of individuation and, moreover, mapping the transformation of

individual consciousness as a goal of development rather than its transcendence.

Subquestion Number Two

In terms of the overall shape of human development, Sri Aurobindo noted

that any evolutionary notion “of a straight line of movement or of progress

reaching infinitely upward or sidewise into the Infinite is a delusion” (Sri

Aurobindo, 1940/2005, p. 860). Given these assumptions, Sri Aurobindo and the

Mother would likely critique any structural-hierarchical insistence on linear

causation, making the point that it is the mind that always assumes that the causal

direction of human development is a linear one because things present themselves

to it one after another in a line. Following a straight line, the human mind’s

vision is limited and narrow, “narrow with regard to what is behind, narrow with

regard to what is ahead . . . anything that is not on the straight line escapes [the

person’s notice]” (Sri Aurobindo, 1959, p. 13). The Mother (2004b) attributed

this assumption to the nature of human language with words that must be spoken

one after another and never really at the same time. “Well, most people think like

that, they think one thought after another, and so their whole consciousness has a

linear movement” (p. 56).

231
 Sri Aurobindo (1997a) offered that it is “a superstition of modern thought

that the march of knowledge has in all its parts progressed always in a line of

forward progress deviating from it” (p. 380). Essentially, there is no advancement

anywhere in life that did not include that which is constituted as a retrogression.

“Progress in a straight line only appears to occur and so appears only because we

concentrate our scrutiny on limited sections of the curve that Nature is following”

(p. 383). For the principle of a straight line, he further pointed out, is not even

found in nature. “But if we stand away from this too near and detailed scrutiny

and look at the world in its large masses, we perceive that its journeying forward

has no straightness in it of any kind but is rather effected in a series of cycles of

which the net result is progress” (p. 383).

In answer to the second subquestion, it is believed that Sri Aurobindo and

the Mother’s integral framework could speak articulately toward the nature,

purpose, direction, and goals of the psychic being as its transformation relates to

an integrated culmination of postconventional development. Here it should

suffice to say that Sri Aurobindo and the Mother made a point of challenging the

assumptions of consciousness evolution espoused by many nondual schools of

thought. As the researcher has tried to show, such an integral psychology

framework for postconventional development may prove especially useful, both

in clarifying what it means to speak of postformal, postconventional, or

transpersonal development, and in terms of a map that may help illustrate the

relationship of the soul to other dimensions (i.e., concentric realms and planes) of

human development, which include solving the puzzle of individuation.

232
 In the course of the original involution of individual consciousness, for

instance, the human soul began as a central polarization between two principles or

expressions: the Jīvātman above the evolutionary sphere and the psychic being

situated at its inmost core. The purpose of integral psychospiritual development

is the self-fulfillment and a complete evolutionary culmination of the soul’s

unfolding journey to become unified again in identification with the Jīvātman in a

profound oneness of Being. The goal for postformal development, according to

an integral view, then, is an inner life awakened to the fullness of power, fullness

of life, fullness of being, and fullness of consciousness. Therefore,

accomplishment rests on the full dynamism from the highest levels of

superconscient reality, or the Supermind, descending into the individual

consciousness transfiguring terrestrial life into the Life Divine. The endeavor,

therefore, is to discover the reality, the significance, the happiness of a fulfilled

embodied and conscious soul within while awakening to its true existence, self-

knowledge, perfection, and joy-filled satisfied being in the material plane. This

integral fulfillment is the true telos towards which individual consciousness is

tending.

Subquestion Number Three

One might say that Sri Aurobindo’s answer to Washburn and spiral-

dynamic theories would maintain that the dynamic ground cannot in itself

transform the lower nature either. The subconscient Ground, according to integral

yoga psychology, is the lowest involved nature of Divinity in its most extreme

veiled possibility. It represents a dense inversion of the original Sachchidananda

233
in which all the Light of Being and Existence has become entirely concealed in a

primordial “veil of impenetrable darkness” (Sri Aurobindo, 1997a, p. 236). As

Sri Aurobindo (2014b) once pronounced, the psychologist who looks to the lower

obscurities of the Ground to explain the higher Lights is mistaken, as “the

foundation of these things is above and not below” (p. 616). In Sri Aurobindo’s

words,

The significance of the lotus is not to be found by analyzing the secrets of

the mud from which it grows here; its secret is to be found in the heavenly
archetype of the lotus that blooms for ever in the Light above. (p. 616)

It is further felt that both structural-hierarchical and spiral-dynamic

models of human psychospiritual development often insinuate that the rational

formal operational mind serves as some form of foundation for either the ladder

or the U-Turn. Therefore, it is accepted by this researcher that mental structure

stages described by both structural-hierarchical and spiral dynamic maps

represent something different from a true supramental progression as elucidated in

integral yoga psychology. Towards this observation, Sri Aurobindo (1940/2005)

has provided some important insight: “Our utmost universalization on the surface

is a poor and limping endeavor,—it is a construction, a make-believe and not the

real thing: for in our surface consciousness we are bound to separation of

consciousness from others and wear the fetters of the ego” (p. 1065).

It has been said from the outset that when psychology lost touch with its

Greek prefix, the psyche (meaning soul), its frameworks became empty and two-

dimensional as a consequence. Empty frameworks leave no way forward, as they

cannot account for cause and effect. Thus, personal reality is reduced to a form

234
without substance. In answer to the earlier-stated subquestion—Is, and if so, to

what extent is Sri Aurobindo's integral account of human postconventional

development a structural-hierarchical or a spiral-dynamic model of human

psychospiritual development?—Sri Aurobindo’s conception of psychospiritual

development, in this researcher’s view, cannot be seen exclusively in terms of

either a structural-hierarchical or a spiral-dynamic model. To wit, an integral

yoga framework admonishes the seekers of this Truth to “shun the barren snare of

an empty metaphysics and the dry dust of an unfertile intellectuality” (as cited in

Alfassa, 2001 p. 254).

Rather than a line or a spiral, a scaffolding, or a retrogression, it is this

writer’s position that an integral account of human psychospiritual development is

a spiral myth, or as Sir Aurobindo called it a Divine poem, whereby the soul, the

Existent, is the central hero that fills out the story and who’s experiences gives it’s

spiral course meaning. In Sri Aurobindo’s (1997a) words: “Your life on this earth

is a Divine poem that you are translating into earthly language or a strain of music

which you are rendering into words” (p. 100). As Marsh (2009) so eloquently put

it:

In so doing, narrative gives literature “a soul,” expressing the psyche,

import, and meaningfulness, be it human or supernatural (according to
how the perception of it lends meaning to a specific slice of human
experience) of a given context or literary situation, or it can communicate
what lies beneath the outward appearance, the covert materiality of the
words of the literary work in question. (p. 162)

After Washburn (2003; see also Pederson, 2011; Pfaffenberger, 2007a),

the researcher considers the hero’s journey as a legitimate spiral-dynamic

narrative account of postconventional transformation of personal consciousness.

235
As an important reconciliation, its storied nature provides meaning and metaphor

that exceed a mere two-dimensional map. In simpler language, the hero’s journey

considers not only the terrain but also is centered upon the unique and varied

psychological experience of the individual who is taking the continuous steps on

the path. Neither a straight line nor a spiral can explain development because

both lack a referent. They are empty two dimensional frameworks that map non-

individuation.

Subquestion Number Four

Towards such an integrally informed dialectical account, Sri Aurobindo

(1940/2005) offered, “the whole of creation may be said to be a movement

between two involutions” (p. 137). At one end of the pole, there is “Spirit in

which all is involved and out of which all evolves downward to the other pole of

Matter, Matter in which also all is involved and out of which all evolves upward

to the other pole of Spirit” (p. 137). The lower nature represents “a first

involutionary foundation in which originates all that has to evolve” (p. 731). The

emergence and action of the powers of body, life, and mind, already involved and

present in a material universe on this foundation of the involved principles of

being must at first emerge in an a priori and an established ascending series of

“necessary stages of the journey of evolutionary Nature” (pp. 731–732).

In the Life Divine, Sri Aurobindo (1940/2005) explained, at every

conversion, there inevitably emerges a tentative and incomplete nature, a mixture

of involutionary, evolutionary, and in some cases even, psychic influences, which

bring with it a partial modification and change—one aspect subjected partly to the

236
new and higher fundamental principle, another remains mostly mixed, and the last

rests partly in the lower unchanged nature that must be taken up toward a new and

higher order. Broadly speaking, then, to move beyond the established lower

nature, there is much that “has to be done in every direction, a long and difficult

growth towards perfection lies before the evolutionary endeavor” (p. 895).

Subquestion Number Five

The fifth and final subquestion asked: What is the evolutionary

consequence of non-individuation, or failure to complete the psychicization

process, for individuals in modern society? In The Human Cycle, Sri Aurobindo

(1997c) documented in great detail his notions of an evolutionary unfoldment

quite analogous to Jung’s individuation process in which individual consciousness

spirals around and around in order to find the true self, which, according to

integral yoga psychology, lies hidden behind the heart chakra in the secret cave

called Hrday Guhayam. In an incredibly similar way, Jung (Jung & Shamdasani,

1996) likewise maintained that individuation begins at the fourth chakra (i.e.,

anāhata or the heart chakra). Coward (1985) explained, “For Jung therefore,

anāhata is psychologically interpreted as the discovery of the self” (p. 121).

Where there was once only an invariant vertical ascent, there is now also a

horizontal passageway. At the one end, resides the innermost soul, the psychic

personality, which hides in a secret cave behind the heart chakra. At the other end

of the continuum, exists the superficial outer consciousness—an unreal, confused,

petrified, false substitute for the true soul. Identification with this latter end of the

pole can be said to block access to one’s true identity as an evolving psychic

237
being. Put yet another way, non-individuation means that the false self has

covered up the true soul with a wall, a thick veil of ego, passion, and desire.

Further Discussion

Sri Aurobindo touched upon the evolutionary significance, limitations, and

dangers of the purely ascending mind. He explained, for instance, that the mind

that purely ascends essentially misses the mark; it can only construct. To wit, it

would seem, then, that the taller the structure the bigger the shadow. Such mental

structures built up on the surface form a kind of superficial personality that is

lacking in a “conscious reference to what is within . . . it seems to itself to be self

formed or ready-made or formed by some ill-understood action of universal

Nature” (p. 852). That is, if these superstructures are built up high above the crust

of the mental surface, they are, essentially, moving in the opposite direction of the

pure Divine source at the center. Further development off of the scaffoldings will

only petrify and “mutilate our being and dry up or diminish the sources of life and

growth” (Sri Aurobindo, 1997b, p. 46). Sri Aurobindo maintained that whatever

their seeming foundation, upon closer inspection, the mind structures are empty,

as they are built upon on a featureless screen, growing out of nescience, thus

lacking any inherent personhood whatsoever. As he (2005) put it, “There is a

mass of superstructure which has no clear native relation to the fundamental

existence” (p. 310).

Such structures, as already noted, can go on for infinity and, furthermore,

can take multiple perspectives. Moreover, they can combine and merge into ever-

larger mega-structures; but never achieve integrality. Even in their so-called

238
highest and most spiritualized expression, the uppermost rung of such a

constructed ladder existing far out beyond the lower mentality, acts yet in its

original mental nature by division. And regardless, its spiritualization “does not

change this balance; for the tendency of the spiritualized mind is to go on upwards

and, since above itself the mind loses its hold on forms, it is into a vast formless

and featureless impersonality that it enters” (Sri Aurobindo, 1940/2005, p. 934).

Problem with Assuming a Rational Basis

As by definition, the problem with constructions, as Cornelissen (2012)

intelligently offered, is that they need a foundation. While there is emphasis

placed in integral yoga psychology on development of the mind especially during

the very critical rational phase of human developmental (that which makes the

higher re-integration possible), the mind, on its own, however, cannot be the

ontological basis for higher development. Sri Aurobindo explained, “No firm

metaphysical building can be erected upon these shifting quick sands” (pp. 860–

861).

[The mind can construct] no building or deliberate concatenation of idea

with idea in order to arrive at an ordered sum or outcome of knowledge;
for this limping action of our reason is a movement of Ignorance searching
for knowledge, obliged to safeguard its steps against error, to erect a
selective mental structure for its temporary shelter and to base it on
foundations already laid and carefully laid but never firm, because it is not
supported on a soil of native awareness but imposed on an original soil of
nescience. (pp. 974–975)

Sri Aurobindo (1940/2005) further elucidated: “Whatever astronomic or

more than astronomic figures you heap and multiply, they cannot overpass or

exceed that Oneness; for, in the language of the Upanishad, it moves not, yet is

always far in front when you would pursue and seize it” (p. 350). Especially on

239
the integral path, there sometimes emerges a nascent anarchic impulse, which

begins with a sense of intellectual and vital dissatisfaction with the prevailing

non-individuated and thoroughgoing mechanized conditions of life—“the inherent

defect of reason when it turns to govern life and labors by quelling its natural

tendencies to put it into some kind of rational order” (Sri Aurobindo, 1997b, p.

212). The urge toward anarchic awareness becomes more and more insistent until

the person finally submits and makes the decisive move inward to draw nearer to

one’s true center and embark on the journey of psychicization (i.e., transformation

of personality through the catalytic facilitation of the psychic being).

This phase of interiorization is symbolically represented by the

deconstructive Kali Yuga in the Human Cycle (1997b), which refers to three

successive periods in the cyclic wheel of human evolution from: (a) the perfect

state, the spiritual golden age, or Satya Yuga to (b) the decline and disintegration

in the age of the Kali Yuga; followed by (c) a new birth with the Satyayuga age.

“From the age of gold to the age of iron and back again through the iron to the

gold” (Sri Aurobindo, 1998, p. 72). Sri Aurobindo clarified that while the Kali

Yuga phase is destructive, it is not evil, as it represents the necessary conditions in

order to progressively build up “for a new Satyayuga, another harmony, a more

advanced perfection” (p. 72). In its long evolutionary climb, the developmental

yearning eventually reaches an antipode (i.e., the involutionary reversal) and thus

that which “was built up through this involution had to be unbuilt. The cause of

this involution had to be undone” (The Mother, 1981, p. 183). Consequently, “a

single decisive spiritual experience may undo a whole edifice of reasonings and

240
erected by the logical intelligence” (Sri Aurobindo, 1940/2005, pp. 485–486).

This anarchic phase, therefore, is not representative of the pure reason, but is

informed by the first touches of an abiding spiritual illumination.

Rejecting the idea that stages of development beyond identification with

the mind and vital ego are built upon lower ones, integral notions of

deconstruction, in particular, seem highly reminiscent of Dabrowski’s (1964,

1967) process he called positive disintegration. That is, in accordance with Sri

Aurobindo’s (1940/2005) quote from the Upanishad about the self-Existent being

who must “cut the doors of consciousness outward” (p. 1064), this proposed

framework uniquely presumes that advanced psychospiritual development

requires the break-down of many aspects of the lower psychological constructions

to prepare the consciousness for the psychic transformation. It is for this reason,

as outlined here, anarchic consciousness ought not be viewed as a new and higher

structure-stage built up and on top of the rational surface consciousness, but, in

fact represents the very reverse of this idea. Sri Aurobindo maintained that it

becomes necessary at this stage “to make a clean sweep at once of the truth and its

disguise in order that the road might be clear for a new departure and a surer

advance” (p. 13). The anarchic principle presents as a crude and confused

breakdown, and as such, it is necessary to ultimately make way for psychicization

as well as the spiritual and suprarational descent, which alone can replace and

transform the previous degraded order.

A brief qualification, however, is in order. That is, the lower stages are

not in reality destroyed; and, furthermore, in the consciousness’ total reversal and

241
dissolution, the movement is not downward as in the direction toward the

inconscient abyss or the subconscient ocean—as notions of the Ground of Being

sometimes bring to mind. But more precisely, the journey of transformation,

purification, and transmutation represents a descent of the higher consciousness

into the innermost center, the psychic being, the chaitya purusa, and from there it

moves horizontally outwards, first to the corresponding puruṣa in the inmost

being, then to the inner being, and afterward to the outer being, or parts of the

plane that make up the incarnate being. Then, the old outward instruments are

taken up, purified, and transformed according to their subordinate means in order

to allow for a more fully spiritualized basis for the emergent psychic aim and to

further best accommodate the next phase of the psychospiritual journey.

This anarchic phase of deconstruction can be swift and rapid or it can be

slow and delayed depending on the “amount of obscurity and resistance still left

in the nature, but it goes on unfalteringly so long as it is not complete” (Sri

Aurobindo, 1940/2005, p. 941). Since, its chief objective is to get rid of the

predominant conventional order, the rationalizing surface-structures, and their

ignorant mechanisms, its first “necessity is to dissolve that central faith and vision

in the mind, which concentrate it on its development and satisfaction and interests

in the old externalized order of things” (Sri Aurobindo, 1999, p. 72). Sri

Aurobindo, added: “For reason is only a particular and limited utilitarian and

instrumental activity that proceeds from something much greater than itself, from

a power that dwells in an ether more luminous, wider, illimitable” (p. 79). At

base, “as long as the outward personality we call ourselves is centered in the

242
lower powers of consciousness, the riddle of its own existence, its purpose, its

necessity is to it an insoluble enigma” (p. 191). According to the integral view,

only the psychic being by way of the descending and integrating truth

consciousness of Supermind can accomplish such a transforming aim. Lal,

(1973/2010) elucidated, “By this transformation he means an awakening of the

soul and relating matter, life, and mind to that awakened soul” (p. 207).

Supermind as Integrating Light

Situated at the threshold between the Overmind and the upper

Supramental hemisphere, there comes to the fore an integrative consciousness, the

positive expression of the anarchic impulse, which is the lower representation of

Supermind. It is fundamental here to stress that “Mind and Supermind belong to

quite different hemispheres, Mind to the lower status of the Ignorance, Supermind

to the higher status of the Divine Knowledge” (Sri Aurobindo, 1940/2005, p.

860). This integrative consciousness becomes steadily known in the individual

consciousness concurrent with the emergence of one’s an authentic identity; “for

it is the Supermind which links the higher and the lower hemispheres of the One

Existence” (pp. 243–244). Sri Aurobindo explained that this integrating

consciousness descends into individual consciousness to support the person’s

psychicization and further psychospiritual unfoldment toward identification with

the highest supramental realization, the pure all-inclusive Divine consciousness.

Individuation/Non-Individuation Bifurcation

The unsatisfying surface play of our feeble egoistic emotions must be

ousted and there must be revealed instead a secret deep and vast psychic
heart within that waits behind them for its hour; all our feelings, impelled
by this inner heart in which dwells the Divine, will be transmuted into

243
 calm and intense movements of a twin passion of Divine Love and
manifold Ananda. (Sri Aurobindo, 1999, p. 91)

The social developmental significance of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother's

integral vision is particularly revealed in Sri Aurobindo’s (1997b) The Human

Cycle: The Ideal of Human Unity while the individual developmental significance

is better described in The Life Divine (1940/2005) and The Synthesis of Yoga

(1999). According to the foregoing, as the evolution of individual consciousness

approaches identification with the plane of being associated with the psychic

being, Sri Aurobindo described a horizontal opening, which represents the

psychospiritual key to the problem of individual consciousness exceeding the

rational developmental stage. More precisely, beyond identification with the

rational mind, Sri Aurobindo described a critical evolutionary juncture he

classified as the subjective passageway, which could inevitably determine one’s

entire evolutionary fate. This important bifurcation point represents a momentous

and necessary choice between one of at least two divergent roads: (a) true

subjectivism representing a rare opportunity for abundant spiritual possibility and

the (b) other pathway towards false subjectivism, which can present the risk for

incredible disaster. Sri Aurobindo elucidated how “everything depends on how

that step is taken, to what kind of subjectivity we arrive and how far we go in self-

knowledge; for here the dangers of error are as great and far-reaching as the

results of right seeking” (p. 44).

Sri Aurobindo saw a large region of an inner world that he called the

intermediate zone, which becomes perceptible as a person becomes increasingly

conscious of his or her inner being. He said that this potential sojourn can be

244
characterized by ignorant, obscure, and obstinate powers, motives, and impulses

of the inextricable physical, vital, and mental nature, which bleed and intermingle.

This perilous zone of shadowy and perturbed experiences is that which Sri

Aurobindo (1997a) said is the “intervening country between the soul and its

superficial instruments or rather to its outermost fringes” (p. 368). Confused and

misguided by half-lights, unseen occult or subtle physical planes, mixed up

visions and symbols, and false voices, as the person moves inward and away from

the outer surface of the frontal sphere, if one is not careful, he or she can “be

swallowed up in a maze of vital experiences, not always reliable, [followed by]

the temptation of small siddhis, the appeal of the powers of darkness to the ego”

(p. 69). Passing through this intermediate zone, Sri Aurobindo (2014) however

clarified, is not necessarily harmful in itself, that is if “one does not stop there” (p.

306).

Again, Jung (Jung & Shamdasani, 1996) perspicaciously described a

comparable bifurcation that lies in wait just beyond the whirlpool of one's

passions and instincts. Also located at the fourth chakra, there is said to emerge a

new horizontal scale of consciousness evolution that Jung perspicaciously

described as the choice between individuation and non-individuation. Hence,

where there was once an invariant vertical ascent, there is now a temporary

horizontal passageway as well. That which comes next is the “price to be paid for

the entry into a wider existence” (Sri Aurobindo, 1940/2005, p. 58). At this very

important juncture “one discovers and identifies a new thing within, namely, the

first glimmers of the self” (Coward, 1985, p. 120). In Jung’s words (as cited in

245
Coward, 1985), individuation “means that we no longer identify with the desires .

. . Since most people never reach this level, he concluded that it is invariably

difficult to talk about” (p. 120).

The spirit of true subjectivism, for instance, “is in its very nature an

attempt at self-knowledge and at living by a true self-knowledge and by an inner

strength” (Sri Aurobindo, 1997c, p. 46). That is to say, individuals can “become

conscious not only of their own but of each other’s souls and learn to respect, to

help, and to profit, not only economically and intellectually but subjectively and

spiritually, by each other” (p. 40). True subjectivism, or individuation, is the

discovery “of the spiritual Reality within us, so our only means of true perfection

is the sovereignty and self-effectuation of the spiritual Reality in all the elements

of our nature” (Sri Aurobindo, 1940/2005, p. 1086). This, “inner self and truth of

spiritual existence [subsequently takes] up all truth of the instrumental existence

into itself and [gives] to it oneness, integration, harmony” (p. 1088). In The

Human Cycle, Sri Aurobindo (1997c) offered some additional insight:

A psychic self-knowledge tells us that there are in our being many formal,
frontal, apparent or representative selves and only one that is entirely
secret and real; to rest in the apparent and to mistake it for the real is the
one general error, root of all others and cause of all our stumbling and
suffering, to which man is exposed by the nature of his mentality. (p. 44)

Speaking on the nature of non-individuation, Jung explained at a 1932

seminar given on the Psychology of Kundalini Yoga (Jung & Shamdasani, 1996):

“But here again you are likely to get an inflation. Individuation is not that you

become an individualist. You know, an individualist is a man who did not

succeed in individuating; he is a philosophically distilled egoist” (p. 39). In terms

246
of non-individuation, the Mother (1881) said that the dynamic is reflected in

individuals who have “failed to follow a stepwise development, thus missing

bridges between the intermediate zones” (as cited in Julich, 2013, p. 194). Jung

warned that descending into madness is one of the greatest dangers that can come

about from prolonged non-individuation. In pointing this out, he persuasively

argued: “You have literally gotten swallowed up and possessed by the deeper,

more powerful transpersonal forces, falling totally into your unconscious. You

can become truly insane” (as cited in Levy, 2005, para. 13). In Essays Divine and

Human, Sri Aurobindo (1997a) similarly warned:

To effect so enormous an end great and dangerous processes have to be

used. Those who have been eager on this road or have opened up new
paths towards the goal, have had to affront as a possibility frequently
realized loss of reason, loss of life and health or dissolution of the moral
being. (p. 121)

Materialists and spiritual thinkers alike have intuited in differing ways that

this subjective terrain involves a “difficult journey, a battle and struggle, an often

painful and checkered growth, a life besieged by obscurity, falsehood, and

suffering” (Sri Aurobindo, 2012, p. 355). It is important to note that according to

Sri Aurobindo, the dangers of this inward journey were avoided in earlier

development as a consequence of the original buildup of inconscience in the

lower nature, which protected against the inherent traps and snares of the deeper

psychospiritual terrain by forming “a wall of self-limitation” (Sri Aurobindo,

1997c, p. 44). However, with higher development, “this wall becomes in the end

a prison of self-ignorance that it has to be broken down and the perilous but

fruitful adventure of [this inward journey] undertaken” (p. 44).

247
 Very interestingly, the term sin, or syn, originates from a Hebrew archery

term and literally indicates that an archer’s arrow, while hitting the target, has

etymologically missed the gold at the center. As such, the first course, or path of

non-individuation, makes the acute mistake of missing the true soul. Sri

Aurobindo (1997c) pointed out in The Human Cycle: “There is no other true

cause; for all apparent causes are themselves circumstance and result of this

original sin of the being” (p. 170). Rather than the soul-emergence, there arises

instead an exaggerated expansion of the lower parts. While there endures a tense

and strenuous effort of the mind to surpass and transcend itself; however,

according to Sri Aurobindo (1940/2005), the structures move in the opposite

direction of integrality and harmony:

This is our “original sin”, or rather let us say in a more philosophical

language, the deviation from the Truth and Right of the Spirit, from its
oneness, integrality and harmony that was the necessary condition for the
great plunge into the Ignorance which is the soul’s adventure in the world
and from which was born our suffering and aspiring humanity. (p. 169)
The Mother thus maintained that it is categorically imperative to first

begin the psychospiritual journey by finding one’s true soul, the Divine within,

and uniting with this innermost psychic being. The Mother (2004b) explained,

“This is an absolutely indispensable beginning. One can’t leap over that bridge; it

is not possible” (p. 351). Developmentally speaking, then, the “most crucial

bridge is the inner bridge, the bridge between our psyche and our outer being,

between our soul and our mind and vital.” (Cornelissen, 2001, para. 13). As Sri

Aurobindo (1940/2005) most beautifully expressed it, the significance of the

psychic center is that it is the pivot on which all else turns.

248
The liberation of the individual soul is therefore the keynote of the
definitive divine action; it is the primary divine necessity and the pivot on
which all else turns. It is the point of Light at which the intended
complete self-manifestation in the Many begins to emerge. But the
liberated soul extends its perception of unity horizontally as well as
vertically. Its unity with the transcendent One is incomplete without its
unity with the cosmic Many. And that lateral unity translates itself by a
multiplication, a reproduction of its own liberated state at other points in
the Multiplicity. (p. 45)

249
 CHAPTER 8: FINAL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

With the advent of the twenty-first century, postconventional

developmental theory has been undergoing a wave of popularity that according to

some scholars is currently reaching critical mass (Cook-Greuter, 2004). McIntosh

(2007) remarked: “Despite the objections of the materialist and postmodern

schools of psychology, developmental psychology has continued to increase its

sway within the larger field of psychology as a whole” (p. 30). Especially over

the last several decades, the research literatures have been gathering many varied

and rigorous efforts to situate and qualify a better understanding of these lesser-

understood advanced human developmental pathways. Above all, “the preceding

panoramic survey of the developments in modern psychology shows that the

young science has been . . . steadily growing towards an increasingly deeper and

more comprehensive view of the human being and of human life” (Dalal, 2001, p.

8).

Many such postconventional theories have provoked a great deal of

enthusiasm in their respective academic fields as well as attracting a larger

popular following in general. As Sinnott (1993) put it, “we were in the presence

of a ‘new area’ of development, called ‘postformal’” (as cited in Marchand, 2001,

para. 2). Burgeoning interest surrounding postformal developmental study, both

here and abroad, might point to the potential for such inquiry to inspire a renewed

cultural appreciation in the West for intuitive ways of knowing and practical

wisdom along with an overall orientation towards a values-directed life (see

Demick & Andreoletti, 2003).

250
 But in spite of all this, psychologists have become increasingly polarized

and progressively inclined to engage in considerable debate concerning their

contrasting views in regards to how such psychospiritual stages might ultimately

come about. Many developmental psychologists, for instance, seem to agree that

formal operational logic represents some kind of significant demarcation point

whereby past agreement about the succession of conventional stages cannot and

should not provide future formulas in terms of conceptual mapping of postformal

development. A past consensus among developmental theorists, if it exists, has

no prescriptive or predictive relevance for postformal and, particularly,

transpersonal stages. As Heron (2007) thoughtfully explained:

Past agreement about any kind of human experience, especially the

mystical kind, cannot and should not either provide a final standard for
judging its present occurrence, or provide a formula for its future
development. To make past spiritual experience an unalterable bench-
mark for the present and the future of human spirituality is to be locked in
a form of deleterious conservatism rooted in an appeal to the binding
authority of tradition. It is an indefensible form of oppressive,
intimidating, hegemonic absolutism: it cannot possibly serve the liberation
of postmodern spirituality. It is also, of course, incompatible with any
genuine theory of the unpredictable, emergent, innovative evolution of the
human spirit. (para. 41)

The adult development literatures, indeed, tell a fascinating epic narrative

regarding the nature and destiny of selfhood—albeit in oftentimes contradictory

and highly divergent accounts (Cortright, 2007). Paradoxically, on either side of

the postconventional debate, there appears to be significant division even among

the most ostensibly similar theories. In many ways, longstanding assumptions

and debates about that which lies beyond formal operational thinking seem to but

reflect competing paradigms, which are guided by rivaling ontological

251
assumptions and epistemological goals. Understandably, this situation has

resulted in a very confusing picture for spiritual practitioners and clinicians in the

field.

Dialectical Interchange: Three Paradigmatic Lenses

Recalling again Shirazi’s (1994) three broad-spectrum egocentric,

cosmocentric, and psychocentric paradigmatic lenses, it was found through

critical appraisal and exhaustive problematization of the extant postformal

literatures that the traditional route for many developmental theories has been to

adhere to at least one or two of these three spheres. Specifically, the overall

consensus that appeared throughout the postconventional literature was an

adherence to the egocentric and-or the cosmocentric spheres. While these

approaches are compelling in their own right, each can only discern a limited

degree of truth. With this, several problems have become increasingly apparent

on the grounds that each account is significantly partial and one-sided.

With perceptive consideration, for instance, Cornelissen (2001)

summarized the fundamental assumptions and pitfalls of egocentrism. He wrote,

“materialist reductionism is a puritan view; it clears out superstition, but in the

end it sterilizes and leaves one in a bare, severely diminished remnant of reality”

(p. 3). In contrast to the above-mentioned, Cornelissen pointed out that theories

that hold exclusively to cosmocentric view (e.g., the Māyāvadin schools) have

had “a similar impoverishing effect through their denial of the physical reality”

(p. 3). At the descriptive level‚ the cosmocentric lens, like its supposed

egocentric extreme opposite, arguably serves as a sophisticated theoretical

252
justification to deny not only physical reality but also the deeper psychocentric

context and meaning involved with personal transformations of consciousness

and, moreover, expunges any real possibility of individuation. Sri Aurobindo

(1940/2005) expressed the problem succinctly:

If we push the materialist conclusion far enough, we arrive at an

insignificance and unreality in the life of the individual and the race which
leaves us, logically, the option between either a feverish effort of the
individual to snatch what he may from a transient existence, to live his
life, as it is said, or a dispassionate and objectless service of the race and
the individual, knowing well that the latter is a transient fiction of the
nervous mentality and the former only a little more long-lived collective
form of the same regular nervous spasm of Matter. We work or enjoy
under the impulsion of a material energy, which deceives us with the brief
delusion of life or with the nobler delusion of an ethical aim and a mental
consummation. Materialism like spiritual Monism arrives at a Maya that
is and yet is not,—is, for it is present and compelling, is not, for it is
phenomenal and transitory in its works. At the other end, if we stress too
much the unreality of the objective world, we arrive by a different road at
similar but still more trenchant conclusions,—the fictitious character of
the individual ego, the unreality and purposelessness of human existence,
the return into the Non-Being or the relationless Absolute as the sole
rational escape from the meaningless tangle of phenomenal life. (p. 23)

The defect apparently lies in the fact that both spheres are monistic

doctrines—granted one side emphasizes “the monism of matter or of force” (Lal,

1973/2010, p. 160) and the other seems to subscribe entirely to the monism of

Spirit. Or to put it somewhat differently, the monism of matter, like

“constructionism is, till now, still a flatlanders' world. It recognizes that there are

different viewpoints, but they are all still within one single plane” (Cornelissen,

2012, para. 16). Schism and overall tension between the phenomenal and

noumenal poles of these monistic approaches is alienating because, as Tarnas

(1991) convincingly reasoned, “these dualisms ineluctably place us out of touch

from the reality that is the very source of our being” (as cited in Ferrer, 2002, p.

253
172). E. F. Kelly (2007) explained: “Scientific psychology has been struggling to

reconcile these most basic dimensions of its subject matter ever since it emerged

from philosophy near the end of the 19th century” (p. xvii).

Apparently, still at issue, there has long been a need for a synthesizing

bridge that might unite the cosmocentric and egocentric respective shores divided

perhaps by a nearly four-centuries-old Cartesian gulf. As Wade (1996)

articulated: “In fact, the very plethora of developmental schools suggests that

some higher-order theory focusing on consciousness itself, rather than the content

or expression of consciousness, might bring greater integration to the field of

developmental psychology” (p. 1). Nevertheless, many of the ontological and

epistemological assumptions that underlie many of the more recent developmental

theories based on consciousness itself, for instance, have apparently been founded

on lenses biased towards the impersonal. Employing terminology such as the

Numinous, the Noetic, and the Transcendent, it seems many tend to carry forward

the biases of moral philosophers such as Kant. As far as the Neo-Kantian lens

and its capacity to synthesize to any significant degree, Miśra (1998) opined that

such theories mostly disappoint in this regard.

Kant ultimately fails to give us a view of reason, which bridges the

yawning gulf between the subject and object. Thought in Kant is still very
much analytic. It has ultimately failed to attain concreteness and the true
power of synthesis on account of its utter dependence upon sensibility. It
is confronted on all sides by irreconcilable contradictions. It finds itself
unable to solve the contradiction between subject and object, reason and
sensibility, phenomena and noumena. (pp. 42–43)

Weiss (2012) underscored how Kantian assumptions ultimately fail in

terms of their explanatory power: “If we posit that all manifestation is the

254
expression of one, featureless, undifferentiated consciousness . . . then it becomes

difficult to account for the individualization of consciousness, which is so

prominent in our experience” (p. 65). Echoing Kantian anthropocentrism, for

instance, transpersonal theory seems to essentially negate the possibility of a

multidimensional unfolding of human development and, moreover, the

ontological status of a soul. The afore-identified problem of the field’s continued

exclusion of the psychocentric dimension “may be, as we can see in our own

intellectual tradition, to quickly reduce the res cogitans to the status of an

epiphenomenon, thus rendering it essentially irrelevant, and banishing it from

respectable discourse” (Weiss, 2004, p. 9). Thus, “the complexity and the

richness of inner experience” (pp. 5–6) has been reduced purely to the “poverty of

a holon” (p. 6). As Lal (1973/2010) contended, the Kantian solution ultimately

eliminates any evolutionary purpose for the universe.

Therefore, in a sense this theory preaches acosmism and reduces man

almost to the status of unreality. Another defect of this theory . . . is that it
rules out completely the possibility of the opening up [and being
transformed by] higher consciousness in this life and world, because it
believes that is possible only in a different-higher word. (p. 179)

Emergent Psychocentric Territory

To recollect to this point, throughout the relevant research, the

developmental approaches examined here seem to favor the positivistic approach

to psychological investigation that apparently disdains metaphysics and further

opts instead for anti-metaphysical philosophical sources such as Kant and post-

Kantian thinkers. Today, at the brink of emergent new scientific paradigms, it

seems many so-called integral theorists have failed to provide a more convincing

255
response to the still-dominant secularist operational assumptions. Consequently,

there appears to persist a frustratingly vague gap, or gulf, of missing personhood

between the two anti-metaphysical extremes (i.e., the egocentric and cosmocentric

spheres).

Particularly in terms of the egocentric-cosmocentric stacking, the present

writing has attempted to show, quite strongly at times, that such an apparent

scaffolding is not really a synthesis at all but represents a mere aggregation. More

specifically, it could be argued that synthesis just for the sake of synthesis can, in

itself, be problematic especially when truth is mixed with falsehood or when all

that remains is falsehood casting away the best of both spheres. Sri Aurobindo

(1940/2005) characterized this consequence succinctly:

We may accept this answer this answer [as Nihil, an impartial void, itself
nothing but containing all potentialities of existence or non-existence] if
we choose; but although we seek thereby to explain everything, we have
really explained nothing, we have only included everything. A Nothing
which is full of all potentialities is the most complete opposition of terms
and things possible and we have therefore only explained a minor
contradiction by a major, by driving the self-contradiction of things to
their maximum. (p. 105)

In the Western psychological tradition, there have been many admirable

theories of postconventional development attempting to achieve a complementary

relationship between Eastern and Western notions of the egoic self and the

transcendent Self, particularly, in terms of individual consciousness as it advances

towards ever greater maturity and enlightenment—all from markedly different

perspectives and guided by divergent goals and concerns. Variations of this

general theme can, of course, be found throughout the models reviewed here so

far. Drawing, for instance, on various conceptualizations of adaptation, many

256
postconventional theorists apparently do not speak so much of transformation in

terms of the evolution of an underlying and continuous person. While numerous,

Western psychological theories do not offer much help or insight into explaining

exactly who or what is doing the changing according to the transformations that

they describe. In so far as the literatures that were reviewed here, postformal

theories appear to function almost exclusively without a fundamental and

underlying ontological reference point, which once clearly indicated might help

explain the how and why of transformation.

Postconventional models, for instance, tend to assume that successful

stage change depends on shifts in underlying basic structures within an overall

spectrum of one unitive consciousness. In a somewhat pantheistic fashion, then,

the transpersonal paradigm often acknowledges only one true Self, the All, an

ultimate reality entirely devoid of individuality. In other words, “transpersonal

theorists have typically regarded [impersonal] Spirit not only as the essence of

human nature, but also as the ground, pull, and goal of cosmic evolution” (Ferrer,

2002, p. 7). Such psychospiritual models describe a mediation process from one

locus of Cosmic Self-identification to the next, which thus only creates an illusion

of continuity of change. Rather than transformation, then, there is merely a

switch-point (a fulcrum) in the self-system’s center of gravity around which the

basic structures progressively identify. The rungs on the ladder, or the stages

themselves, moreover, are said to teleologically generate the next emergent higher

stage. While not immediately obvious, the foregoing calls to mind earlier

discussion of Buddhist metaphors of still photos flickering inside a

257
cinematograph. In a similar way, structure stages are assumed to represent

separate loci of exclusive identifications that unfold in “an empty succession of

images with no person within” (Cortright, 2007, p. 46). All this being as it may,

any conjecture of continuous evolution of a personal soul within can be regarded

as the most deceptive of delusions. As has been seen, the Buddhist doctrine tends

to fundamentally deny the existence of a central, permanent, and psychocentric

dimension of self.

Towards a Tri-Spheric Integral Framework

There seems to be subtle unease growing among the field of psychology’s

various disciplines—a sense, perhaps, that its dominant frameworks have

exhausted many of their explanatory powers. As the foregoing review of the

literature has tried to show, “a critical stance regarding the assumptions that have

guided” (Day & Youngman, 2003, p. 527) the whole Newtonian/Cartesian/neo-

Kantian project forward “leave us suspicious about the story these

developmentalists have told, and leave open alternative possibilities for

redescribing the story of development, and for imagining its uses in psychological

science and related research practices” (p. 527). As should be obvious, Cortright

(2007) noted, “here we come upon new, evolutionary, emergent territory that is

just beginning to be manifested” (p. 77). Dalal (2007) similarly contended:

During the past several decades there has been occurring what has been
called a “paradigm shift”—a fundamental change in the general
conceptual framework—in several fields, particularly physics, medicine,
psychology, and economics. In psychology, while the great majority are
still wedded to the paradigms of one or another of the established schools,
a growing number of researchers are shifting to a new psychological
paradigm, giving rise to a new trend in psychology as yet not quite well
defined. (p. 384)

258
 Overall and very generally, it seems to this researcher that the egocentric

and-or cosmocentric problems and limitations underlying many of the

developmental literatures might strongly suggest that an alternative framework

could offer a deeper and more explanatory vision. More than a century ago,

Myers (1886), for instance, discerned some important avenues for exploring the

thesis of this study. As he put it very simply, “Our notions of mind and matter

must pass through many a phase as yet unimagined” (as cited in E. F. Kelly, 2007,

p. 610). Corbin (1972) similarly spoke of an imaginal intermediate metaphysic he

thought was necessary to restore meaning and creative connections between self

and the world. Hillman (1976/1992) described this middle-way, or uniting realm,

as the place of soul.

Within the narrow discourse of modern developmental theory, that which

has not yet been attempted, to this researcher’s knowledge, is an intelligible tri-

spheric (i.e., egocentric-psychocentric-cosmocentric), multidimensional

framework of psychospiritual development that places emphasis on the integral

path of the psychic being and thus grants the innermost soul as the unbroken

developmental thread of being, the ontic substrate, and reference point for the

evolution of individual consciousness over the course of one and many lifetimes.

More precisely, the concept of an evolving individuality like the psychic being

distinguished from the ego, on the one hand, and from the unevolving

transcendent Self, on the other, could only be found by this researcher in the

integral yoga psychology of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. Speaking toward the

common assumption that the transcendent Self is purely impersonal, Sri

259
Aurobindo (1940/2005) described the evolutionary importance of its personal

aspect:

If we look at things from a larger point of view, we might say that what is
impersonal is only a power of the Person: existence itself has no meaning
without an Existent, consciousness has no standing-place if there is none
who is conscious, delight is useless and invalid without an enjoyer, love
can have no foundation or fulfillment if there is no lover, all-power must
be otiose if there is not an Almighty. (pp. 367–368)

In today's world, with access to the riches of the world's psychological

traditions, an integral vision of psychology can at last be formulated (Cortright,

2007). Such a tri-spheric integral framework places the eternal soul—the

innermost permanent referent of personal consciousness, the occult psychic

center, and one’s true psychospiritual identity at the very center of a

comprehensive whole person vision of human growth and development. The aim

of such an integrated framework as proposed herein, then, is not to exclude any

egocentric perspective or cosmocentric ontology, but to clarify and defend the

psychocentric sphere and to locate its proper role in the developmental story (B.

Shirazi, personal communication, March 28, 2014).

Significance of the Framework

[Sri Aurobindo] has not constructed speculative theories from bottom up,
but he has gone to that higher consciousness and from there expressed the
things that he saw, with a highly developed modern mind. He sees his
work as the very first step towards a radical new stage in our collective
evolution, what he calls the supramental stage. . . . Sri Aurobindo’s idea of
an ongoing evolution of consciousness . . . explains the fantastic way in
which the concept of integrality comes back at many different levels, at
many different scales (Cornelissen, 2002a, para. 9).

Cortright (2007) offered, “The greatest thinkers of the religious traditions

of the world are unanimous in their verdict that failing to see the spiritual

260
dimension of human consciousness as fundamental leads to limited and ultimately

incorrect psychologies” (p. 2). Borrowing once again from the late nineteenth

century book Flatland, the significance of Abbott’s (1884/2007) remarkable fable

goes beyond purely describing the conceptual prejudices of Euclidian geometry.

But much more profoundly and in accordance with the conclusions of theologians

and philosophers expressed throughout history, his allegorical tale of a circle, a

sphere, and the fourth dimension seems to illustrate the need to meaningfully

situate the understanding of human existence within its full multiplicity of

dimensions.

It seems such a tri-spheric metaphysic would be beneficial not only to

better account for the individual spheres but also to offer a full range of

possibilities in terms of improved mapping of human development and change as

a whole. Not to be repudiated, abandoned, or replaced, the adequacy and validity

of the egocentric and cosmocentric spheres may be better qualified and situated

within a much larger integrated understanding. In fact, by integrating the

psychocentric sphere, it seems an integral model of development could help

facilitate a broader valuing of the egocentric and cosmocentric spheres’

significant contributions to the developmental literatures. In terms of such an

integral psychological framework, Miovic (2004) elucidated that

transpersonal growth is possible precisely because the psychic being (soul)

is entirely real and can, through its direct link with the Divine, bring to the
outer being a deep source of psychological strength and sustenance.
Practically, this means the psychic being (soul) has the power to transform
ego functioning, even to heal psychological wounds that seem
therapeutically unsolvable. (pp. 127–128)

261
 Throughout the research process, several potential benefits of giving Sri

Aurobindo and the Mother’s integral framework a voice within the larger

scholarly developmental discourse have been revealed. For want of a better

integrated (multidimensional, tri-spheric) theory, such an integral framework

would seek to effectuate a most direct route to the largest, highest, and deepest

attainment of individual consciousness evolution possible—all the while, hoping

to possibly enlarge and enrich some of the dominant postformal developmental

models currently established in the extant literatures. Sri Aurobindo observed, for

instance, that Western academic thinking cannot begin to explain the dynamic of

evolutionary change for it lacks permanence and solidity. For him, change is not

possible in a solely materialistic or pantheistic reality. Ideally, in fact, there must

be a continuity of status of being. Sri Aurobindo and the Mother’s highly unique

cosmology might be very helpful in this regard, as their “stages of the ascent

enjoy their authority and can get their own united completeness only by a

reference to a third level” (Sri Aurobindo, 1940/2005, p. 981). Particularly, their

assumption of multidimensional reality radically alters the concept of evolution.

Sri Aurobindo maintained that this integrated third psychic dimension, can

account for transformation, as there “dwells the intuitional being [from hence the

higher descending stages] derive the knowledge which they turn into thought or

sight and bring down to us for the mind’s transmutation” (p. 981).

Change is possible only if there is a status from which to change; but

status again exists only as a step that pauses, a step in the continuous
passage of change or a step on which change pauses before it passes on to
another step in its creative passage. And behind this relation is a duality
of eternal status and eternal motion and behind this duality is something

262
 that is neither status nor change but contains both as its aspects—and that
is likely to be the true Reality. (Sri Aurobindo, 1997a, p. 203)

Exceptionally, an integral theory could better elucidate the facilitative

factors involved in stage change along with the evolutionary shape, goals, and

purposes that guide the transformation of human consciousness beyond

identification with the mind and ego. Sri Aurobindo’s (1940/2005) writings, for

instance, reveal that to go beyond mind one must first go behind mind and see the

true hidden determinates of change, referring once again to the psychic

dimension. “The real truth of things lies not in their process, but behind it, in

whatever determines, effects or governs the process” (p. 520). He continued, “To

do this we must dare . . . to penetrate the unfathomable depths of consciousness”

(p. 520). In essence, to know all, one must turn one’s gaze to that which is

beyond all. To better understand postformal development from an integral

psychological sense, it “is not possible in the inconscience, or in the subconscient,

since profit cannot come by plunging down into our depths back towards the

Inconscient” (Sri Aurobindo, 1940/2005, p. 236). An integral framework, then,

would positively assert that it is the psychic being that is the guide of postformal

evolution, the facilitative agent of transpersonal stage change.

Having postulated an integral paradigm, the truth of transformation is not

that evolution moves around the ego as the center of existence “but that the

Divine is itself the center and that the experience of the individual only finds its

own true truth when it is known in the terms of the universal and the

transcendent” (Sri Aurobindo, 1940/2005, p. 59). The soul represents the

meaningful content in the overarching frame of reality. “It is because of the

263
deeper soul that we have the phenomenological experience of being an existence,

a presence, instead of being an empty succession of images with no person

within” (Cortright, 2007, p. 46).

Theoretical Synthesis: Three Victories

The Mother (2004d) once remarked, “When the path is known it is easy to

tread upon it” (p. 29). With profound psychological perspicacity, the Mother

related an integral psychology framework (i.e., integration of the egocentric, the

psychocentric, and the cosmocentric spheres), which she called the three victories

(see Alfassa, 2004a, p. 402). Indeed, echoing Sri Aurobindo’s triple

transformations, her three victories speak to the evolutionary journey out of the

Ignorance “with its play of the possibilities of a partial developing knowledge”

(Sri Aurobindo, 1940/2005, p. 708). In this section in The Life Divine, Sri

Aurobindo summarized,

An evolution in the Inconscience is the beginning, an evolution in the

Ignorance is the middle, but the end is the liberation of the spirit into its
true consciousness and an evolution in the Knowledge. This is actually
what we find to be the law and method of the process, which has hitherto
been followed and by all signs is likely to be followed in her future
working by evolutionary Nature. (p. 731)

The First Victory

According to integral yoga psychology, the human impulse toward growth

and development begins like all the rest in nature, taking its rise from the “very

province of the Infrarational, a first formulation of consciousness out of the

Inconscient, nearest to it in the scale of being” (Sri Aurobindo, 1997c, p. 164).

The infrarational, then, “still bears some stamp of the Inconscient in an underlying

insensitiveness, a dullness of fiber, a weakness of vibratory response” (pp. 171–

264
172). To this end, infrarational thinking in the human being is significantly

devoid of logical cognitive abilities, critical observation skills, and systematic

methods for investigating and understanding reality. Rather, the dominant

elements indicative of infrarational awareness is “of instinct, vital intuition and

impulse, mechanical custom and tradition . . . The unrefined reason and

unenlightened spirit in him cannot work for their own ends; they are bond-slaves

of his Infrarational nature” (Sri Aurobindo, 1997c, p. 186). Speaking to the pre-

personal quality of the infrarational mind, Dalal (2007) summarized, “So long as

the individuality has yet to be formed, the person is not yet considered a rational,

autonomous human being who can think and understand his or her way through

life” (p. 240). As such, the infrarational thinker, essentially “remains an

amorphous entity, more or less, fused with the unconscious totality of existence”

(p. 240).

The first victory, according to the Mother, is to become a fully conscious,

individual, and sovereign being while spiritually embodied in the knowledge and

fulfillment of one’s own deepest truth and law. Importantly, in order to

sufficiently realize one’s true individuality, the Mother asserted that it is

imperative that a person first develops a strong ego consciousness. Then, and

only then, can the individual attempt to exceed the egocentric sphere. She

offered: “One needs his [or her] ego; that is why it is there” (as cited in

Bloomquist, 1990, p. 33). Pandit (2008) put it this way: “Nature's intention is that

once you become self-aware, once this ego brings you to the point of being aware

of yourself as an individual, as an entity, the ego has served its purpose” (p. 92).

265
It is only at this time, when a person no longer needs the ego can he or she afford

to transform it because its functional utility is necessarily over. As Sri Aurobindo

(1940/2005) expressed the need for the egocentric sphere in the Life Divine, there

is in fact an increasing concentration

around the ego until the being is no longer need of any such . . .
contrivance because there has emerged the true self, [the psychic
being,] which is at once wheel and motion and that which holds all
together, the center and the circumference. (pp. 574–575)

First of all, according to integral yoga psychology, “the ego is not the self;

there is one self of all and the soul is a portion of that universal Divinity” (Sri

Aurobindo, 1997c, p. 46). In this regard, Sri Aurobindo (2012), explained that the

ego is simply the mental, vital, and physical formations of nature; “but it is not a

formation of physical nature alone, therefore it does not cease with the body.

There is a mental and vital ego also” (p. 57). Echoing Sri Aurobindo’s important

insight, the Mother (2004a) offered that each concentric sheath apparently has a

thick egoic outer coating. She continued: “It seems that there is an ego in each

state of consciousness; for example: mental ego, vital ego, physical ego. There is

also a spiritual ego” (p. 52).

Sri Aurobindo (1997c) explained how the separative ego and its imperfect

legislative action increasingly become a force for limitation. The ego’s enacted

“interests of order and conservation become a cause of petrifaction and the sealing

up of the fountains of life” (p. 115). He further explained that the ego is full of

obscure and unconscious movements eventually devolve into the final knot of

human bondage. The fulfillment and satisfaction of the individual ego, its

“egoistic intellect, vital force, physical well-being and the utmost satisfaction of

266
[its] mental, emotional, physical cravings” (p. 46), then, according to integral

yoga psychology, are not the ultimate fulfillment of consciousness evolution.

Tellingly, however, its underlying vital nature, intrinsically lacks in the power of

the Spirit, and thus it cannot ultimately attain the mastery of its self and its world

that it seeks, as its vital aims “are stricken with imperfection, fragmentariness,

impermanence and the impact of their opposites” (pp. 171–172). While

redeeming at times, the spiritualized ego and mentalized spheres of consciousness

are not enough to bring about a Divine culmination.

When the true psychic being is discovered, however, “the utility of the ego

is over and this formation has to disappear—the true being is felt in its place” (Sri

Aurobindo, 2012, p. 97). As Pandit (2008) put it: “But as things go, the ego

refuses to abdicate, the ego insists on continuing its innings, it becomes an

obstacle” (p. 92). By virtue of this bondage, the Mother remarked:

“Unfortunately most people, as soon as they become real individuals, have such a

sense of their importance and their ability that they no longer even think at all of

getting rid of their ego” (as cited in Bloomquist, 1990, p. 33). According to Sri

Aurobindo (1940/2005) that which started as a help, or a centralizing agent, has

eventually become a persistent obstacle, which blocks the true individuality from

coming to the surface. Therefore, in order to be freed from the ego, “it is not

enough to surrender; the ego must be dissolved, must merge with the Divine,

[and] disappear in Him” (The Mother, 2004a, p. 51). This first primary victory,

then, faithfully echoes that which Sri Aurobindo (1998) expressed in his

267
aphorism: “When we have passed beyond individualizing, then we shall be real

Persons. Ego was the helper; Ego is the bar” (p. 199).

Anarchic Impulse Toward Deconstruction

In the fulfillment of our psychic being as in the consummation of our parts

of mind and life, it is the relating of it to its Divine source, to its
correspondent truth in the Supreme Reality, that is the indispensable
movement; and, here too as there, it is by the power of the Supermind that
it can be done with an integral completeness, an intimacy that becomes an
authentic identity; for it is the Supermind which links the higher and the
lower hemispheres of the One Existence. In Supermind is the integrating
Light, the consummating Force, the wide entry into the supreme Ananda:
the psychic being uplifted by that Light and Force can unite itself with the
original Delight of existence from which it came: overcoming the dualities
of pain and pleasure, delivering from all fear and shrinking the mind, life
and body, it can recast the contacts of existence in the world into terms of
the Divine Ananda. (Sri Aurobindo, 1940/2005, p. 244)

The above-mentioned ever enlarging circles and mental formations of the

lower mind, according to Sri Aurobindo, cannot ultimately reach beyond to the

higher and fundamentally “change or transform the principle of consciousness or

its characteristic operation” (p. 750). Conceptually, it is argued here that

according to an integral perspective, structure stages cannot take individual

consciousness past the rational stages of development, as such impersonal mental

structures are not adequate to the task for this most-difficult endeavor. That is,

biological machinery, outward circumstance, nor the purely logical mind, with its

constructions, deductions, and inferences, can make the step-by-step advance

towards the supramental conclusion. According to its own mental formula, then,

the logical convention of the rational mind eventually becomes like “a stumbling-

block by the very faculty, which gives it its peculiar use” (p. 382).

268
The Second Victory

The foregoing leads to that which the Mother called the second victory.

She explained that once the psychic center has been sufficiently developed, “the

second victory is to give this individuality to the Divine” (The Mother, 2004b, p.

402). Once a person, you can “keep this identification, the psychic governs the

rest of the nature and life. It becomes the master of existence” (Sri Aurobindo,

1999, p. 121). By psychicization, the Mother (2004b) explained, this is what is

meant by saying the psychic being comes to the front. It means that the psychic

being now “governs, directs, even organizes the life, [and] organizes the

consciousness, the different parts of the being. When this happens, the work goes

very fast Very fast, well . . . relatively very fast” (p. 291). As the being becomes

increasingly psychicized, the psychic conversion speeds up. It is for this reason

that psychospiritual development is much faster than conventional development.

In individual development, with the psychic part emerging from behind the veil

and thereby becoming the master of the lower instrumentation, “the personality is

able to develop with a much greater rapidity than in the inferior creation” (Sri

Aurobindo, 1940/2005, p. 877). Crossing the upper mental border of the lower

nature marks the entry point to the psychospiritual path where “evolution

becomes increasingly conscious and speeds up, moving straight toward the goal

rather than wandering slowly and unconsciously with no clue as to life's purpose”

(Cortright, 2007, p. 181). In Sri Aurobindo’s (1940/2005) words:

The increased rapidity is possible only because the conscious participation

of the inner being is there and the power of the Supernature is already at
work in the half-transformed lower nature, so that the steps which would
otherwise have had to be taken tentatively in the night of Inconscience or

269
 Ignorance can now be taken in an increasing light and power of
Knowledge. (p. 966)

The person becomes increasingly identified with a wider cosmocentric

consciousness increasingly built on the basis of the psychic being’s progressive

identification with the Jīvātman. This second victory constitutes a greater inner

life with a spiritualized consciousness. Representing a total reversal of egoic

consciousness, Sri Aurobindo (1940/2005) in The Life Divine eloquently

proclaimed: “Life falls quiet, the body ceases to need and to clamor, the soul itself

merges into spiritual silence” (p. 934–935). Generally, all yogas have historically

stopped at this second victory. With this second victory, Sri Aurobindo (2012)

proclaimed,

As the Self or Atman is free and superior to birth and death, the
experience of the Jivatman and its unity with the supreme or universal Self
is sufficient to bring the sense of liberation; but for the transformation of
the life and nature the full awareness and awakening of our psychic being
also is indispensable. The psychic being realizes at this stage its oneness
with the true being, the Self, but it does not disappear or change into it; it
remains as its instrument for psychic and spiritual self-expression, a divine
manifestation in Nature. (p. 65)

The Third Victory

And lastly, according to the Mother, the third victory is when the Divine

takes possession of the being to change its individuality into a Divine being in His

own image. In Sri Aurobindo's vision (1940/2005), “it is only with the descent of

the Supermind with its perfect unity of Truth-Knowledge and Truth-Will can

establish in the outer as in the inner existence the harmony of the Spirit; [turning]

the values of the Ignorance entirely into the values of the Knowledge” (p. 243–

244). As noted before, with the triple transformation (whether by way of the

270
Jīvātman or the psychic being), the Supramental consciousness in its ultimate

nature can be established in the physical body as its outer instrument. The Divine

perfection of the body, down to its very cells, represents a very important aspect

of this distinctive integral path, as the body’s Supramental conversion completes

the Divine human cycle on Earth. Fully spiritually embodied, in this yoga, the

unfolding of the individual’s self-existence unveils itself as an absolute

consciousness of ineffable Presence and Light.

With its final descent into the physical as its basis for action, the

supramental change can now accomplish in the material universe that which could

only be prepared in the higher planes and non-physical worlds. With this

evolutionary ultimate, the individual consciousness can arrive at the Life Divine

living abundantly in a state of perfect self-consciousness without an ego. That is,

the person’s cosmic individuality knows the significance of its movements in that

they are the movements of the cosmos itself, as all the movements of the cosmos

are a part of the individual as well. With this supramental realization established

in the upper hemisphere, the individual can consequently live in a superior

harmonic of universal self-expression and dynamic truth-consciousness expressed

in perfect right relation with all of existence.

This last ascent toward the farthest, highest, and largest heights of

cosmocentric consciousness and expansion to the “universal wideness of a

harmonious concert of knowledge” (Sri Aurobindo, 1940/2005, p. 987) represents

the ultimate in Supramental perfection. At this final consummating movement of

the highest possible status-dynamis, there increases a demand for the psychic

271
being to take up every part that constitutes its being all the way down to the

subconscient—with all its deficient characteristic workings, adverse ignorance,

and disease that remain—and raise them up to be Supramentalized and thus

restoring their original Divinity. The human body hence becomes a purified,

harmonized, and divinized body and human life is converted into a life of

knowledge, love, beauty, harmony, and joy quite free from sufferings, miseries,

disease, and death representing that which Sri Aurobindo termed the Life Divine.

Conclusion

American writer, Thomas Moore (1992), in his book Care of the Soul,

reproved, “The great malady of [modernity], implicated in all of our troubles and

affecting us individually and socially, is ‘loss of soul’” (p. xi). Sri Aurobindo

(1940/2005) anticipated Moore by several decades when he similarly expressed:

“The malady of the world is that the individual cannot find his real soul” (p. 234).

As part of the task of defining the fall out for such a loss, Moore offered, “When

soul is neglected, it doesn't just go away; it appears symptomatically in

obsessions, addictions, violence, and loss of meaning” (xi). Not surprisingly, as

Moore observed: “Our temptation is to isolate these symptoms or to try to

eradicate them one by one; but the root problem is that we have lost our wisdom

about the soul, even our interest in it” (p. xi). Sri Aurobindo defined the

parameters for such symptoms. At the heart of the matter, Sri Aurobindo

elucidated is a “psychic deformation and wrong reception of the touch of things”

(p. 234). Hence psychopathology ensues by attempting to locate the soul, the

272
fullness of life, at the surface of temporal reality and thus mistaking the desire-

soul’s projections for the true soul and its deeper soul-life.

It is interesting to recall that Western psychology was originally the

science of consciousness and, more broadly, based its study on the psyche or soul.

Nevertheless, the academic field, “attempting to mimic the natural sciences in its

early years” (Cortright, 2007, p. 2) thus has grown up “hewed to a purely

empirical, materialistic paradigm” (p. 2). Sri Aurobindo explained, “In the last

rationalistic period of human thought from which we are emerging, [the soul] has

been swept aside as an age-long superstition” (Sri Aurobindo, 1940/2005, p. 802).

But how can the science of consciousness explain the very consciousness that it

now denies?

This researcher thinks that Cortright (2007) rightly stated, “Our deepest

identity is our psychic center. Our frontal self and organism are an expression of

this deeper source, and it must be placed at the very center of any comprehensive

vision of psychology” (p. 26). To this he noted, “Different schools of psychology

have been tentatively groping toward this inmost core but have not yet come upon

it” (p. 26). For self and ego have long-replaced the vocabulary of the soul. The

value of the individual path does not lie in its conventional a priori part, but like

story of fiction, the interesting parts come from that which makes the journey

unique. As the Mother (2002) once proclaimed, “But the supreme value of the

discovery lies in its spontaneity, its ingenuousness, and that escapes all ordinary

mental laws” (p. 32). Similarly, according to Sri Aurobindo (2012), the object of

integral development is the soul’s growth by experience,

273
 whatever reactions come to past deeds must be for the being to learn and
grow . . . The real sanction for good and ill is not good fortune for the one
and bad fortune for the other, but this that good leads us towards a higher
nature which is eventually lifted above suffering and ill pulls us towards
the lower nature which remains always in the circle of suffering and evil
(p. 533)

Especially in terms of his idea of psychospiritual redemption, Washburn

(2003) suggested that human postconventional development essentially follows a

spiral course of birth, death, and transformation, which has been given voice

throughout “folk, wisdom, mythology, and religion around the world” (p. 2). In

particular, Washburn established a meaningful relationship between his spiral-

dynamic model and Campbell’s (1949/2014) concept of the hero's journey—the

passage and descent of an omnipresent figure into an archetypal underworld to

confront and eventually overthrow forces of darkness.

In most accounts—whether mythological, spiritual, or psychological – the

descent into the underworld or to the Dynamic Ground is not only a
dangerous odyssey but also an essential stage for a longer journey. It is a
dangerous odyssey because it poses the risk, variously conceived, of
destruction, damnation, ensnarement, or psychosis. (Washburn, 2003, p.
55)

Washburn (2003) elucidated that in this “underworld, the hero faces life-

threatening tests and does battle with monstrous forces. The hero repeatedly faces

destruction but somehow survives each encounter with death, usually by magical

means or protection from the gods” (p. 54). Contextually, Washburn compared

this regenerative journey to the classical conversion experiences conveyed

throughout the religious literatures that have been frequently “depicted as a

spiritual seeker's passage through demonic realms, a passage during which the

seeker is preyed upon by dark forces and subjected to an ordeal of trial and

274
temptation” (p. 54). Washburn explained that before a spiritual seeker can

achieve transcendence toward a higher plane of existence, he or she must first

endure a dangerous struggle

tormented by evil spirits or apparitions: Satan's minions, Asuras

(Hinduism), the demon tempter Mara (early Buddhism), Makyo or
diabolical phenomena (Zen). In Western contemplative traditions, people
at this stage of the spiritual path are counseled to exercise discernment and
to pray for protection from God, angels, Jesus, Mary, or saints if they are
to free themselves from evil and find their way to higher spiritual ground.
In the primary Asian traditions, Hinduism and Buddhism, in contrast,
people at this stage are counseled to exercise steadfast witness-
consciousness or mindfulness so that they can liberate themselves from the
snares of conditioned existence (Samsara) and achieve a higher,
unconditioned plane beyond good and evil. The best-known description
of descent into the underworld in all of spiritual literature is Dante's
account, in the Comedy, of the descent into Hell. (p. 55)

Washburn (2003) further proposed that the spiral-dynamic metaphor can

be as easily be applied to Jung’s initiation journey of the solar hero—sometimes

termed the night sea journey of the sun. For instance, the core themes of the

mythic sea journey are these: “(1) the sun (representing the ego) descends into the

ocean depths; (2) the sun is then swallowed by a sea monster; and (3) the sun is

released from the sea monster and rises for the dawn of a new day” (p. 54).

According to Frobenius, several versions of the sun myth appear throughout most

all cultures like Jonah “being swallowed by sea monsters only to be given a new

lease on life” (p. 54). Frobenius concluded, “In general, the myth of the night sea

journey and related myths are symbolic expressions of the need to descend into

depths and therein to undergo a deathlike ordeal before being granted renewed or

higher life” (p. 54). As has been well described by both Campbell and Jung, this

story of descent is an ancient one and thus serves as a major thematic focus—

275
present in the oldest tales recorded in human history (e.g., the ancient stories of

Innana and of Gilgamesh). For Washburn, then, these stories represent an ancient

healing template, which can provide modern psychologists important insight into

the nature of psychospiritual redemption and recovery of the self.

While each person’s myth of personal transformation is unique and one-

of-a-kind in its personal content, the main point is that the hero's journey consists

of a sequence of universal steps that, when taken together, express an

unmistakable spiral-dynamic journey of personal transformation that remain

highly fluid and intentional. From an integral view, the hero’s journey is a

modern expression of a Divine myth, which represents the starting point for the

centrality of the soul to be infused into empty developmental frameworks so that

these maps can be made whole. To conclude, Sri Aurobindo (1940/2005) offered

that underlying humanity’s desire for meaning, lives the soul, the psychic being,

the protagonist, the “inner light, or inner voice of the mystic. It is that which

endures and is imperishable in us from birth to birth, untouched by death, decay

or corruption, an indestructible spark of the Divine” (p. 238).

Strengths and Limitations of the Study

In theoretical and hermeneutical inquiry, “a hallmark of accomplished

research will include being able to comment thoughtfully on [a study’s particular]

strengths, as well as the limitations” (Paterson et al., 2001, p. 129). An important

strength of the present study is its employment of problematization, which places

theories in dialogue with an alternative assumption ground in order to discover a

deeper and broader understanding of the topic at hand. A related limitation of this

276
dissertation, however, has been dictated by the decreasing availability of time and

space. Indeed, the sheer volume of the material to be analyzed was immense,

which included theoretical dialogue and dialectical synthesis among a vast

quantity of theoretical models informed by oftentimes contradictory paradigms

and conflicting schools of thought along with close examination and coding of

thousands upon thousands of pages of writings on integral yoga. This time-

intensive process required meticulous attention to detail to ensure accuracy along

with consistency of interpretation.

In response to the literatures citing cross-cultural and universal

applicability of Western stage models, based on the foregoing, it seemed to this

researcher that the research-based conclusions of many Western developmental

theories do not appear to contradict Sri Aurobindo and the Mother’s writings on

the initial evolution of human consciousness in the lower nature. Indeed, the in-

depth hermeneutical analysis of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother’s integral writings

revealed much of the very same familiar conventional terrain as presented by

many universally recognized Piagetian and neo-Piagetian theories. However, any

claim to an integral framework’s capacity to account for cross-cultural

universality has proven to be far too complex to answer in any reasonable amount

of space without significant argument and need for capacious substantiation.

Another limitation of this study is that it could not make a definitive claim

toward the existence of the immortal, transmigrating soul or provide

incontrovertible proof of a psychocentric dimension. However, as alluded earlier

in the methodology chapter, proving the soul dimension was never the

277
researcher’s intent. To this, Sri Aurobindo (1940/2005) made a strong argument

that

this demand for physically valid proof of a supraphysical fact is irrational

and illogical; it is an irrelevant attitude of the physical mind which
assumes that only the objective and physical is fundamentally real and
puts aside all else as merely subjective. (p. 802)

Suggestions for Further Research

This dissertation study should help set the stage to help introduce the

significance for an integral theory of postconventional development and its

potential contribution to deepen and advance the related domains of

developmental inquiry and clinical practice of both Western developmental

psychology and integral psychology. An ancillary goal throughout this project

has been not simply to celebrate Sri Aurobindo and the Mother’s deep and

insightful psychological acumen, but also, to look at their metaphysic in the

context of its substantive relevance and significance for the future of humankind

in the intervening century (particularly its clinical, educational, and spiritual

possibilities) while raising imperative issues for consideration in subsequent

research, for instance:

• Developmental Psychology: How do integral yoga's parts and planes of

being correspond with different theorized lines and levels of postformal

development?

• Transpersonal Theory: How might Sri Aurobindo's writings pertaining to

the psychic being as a personal ontological referent help synthesize, and-

or provide clarity to the ongoing pre-trans fallacy debate?

278
 • Education: Continuing the work of the Mother on psychic education, how

might educational institutions help students, both young and adult alike, to

find their psychic beings and maintain the psychic influence to guide them

in their academic and psychospiritual work across the lifespan?

• Mental Illness: Especially with the case of narcissism along with the other

Cluster B personality disorders in the DSM-IV (e.g., antisocial, borderline,

and histrionic categories), what is the relationship between mental illness

and non-individuation? More specifically, why does it sometimes seem

the case that malignant narcissism apparently gets worse in affected

individuals as cognitive development increases?

• Spiritual Disturbance/Spiritual Crises: How might practitioners employ

knowledge of the psychic being and its role in postconventional

development to identify, recontextualize, and, moreover, help design

customizable strategies to help patients engage their psychic being to

guide them through painful dark nights, mental health breakdowns, and

spiritual crises?

Ending on a Personal Note

This dissertation project represents a very personal and organic outgrowth

of a mystical healing experience I had five years ago. Against this background, it

is beyond the scope of this present writing, however, to discuss the high personal

cost, the tests, the trials, the tribulations, and, at the same time, the profound

healings and transformations that have come about along the way as a result of

this intensely satisfying journey. Before concluding, the following are some

279
words of caution. The research objective advanced here concerning an

exploration into the hidden determinates of human change and transformation is

one that seems sharply at odds with current mainstream thinking, but represents

an agenda that the researcher discerns might penetrate far closer to the actual truth

of the matter than positivistic assumptions, which currently dominate the

postconventional discourse. Therefore, this rather ambitious undertaking requires

some justification, especially in light of current academic disfavor bestowed on

metaphysical matters like the soul especially in regards to its larger Western

occult context—let alone historical skepticism typically expressed toward these

kinds of esoteric issues.

Identification of a facilitative agent remains an unresolved issue for the

simple reason that any claim of multidimensional (occult) reality might run the

risk of being judged as unscientific. Perhaps chief among critics of such residual

positivism, Ferrer (2014) contended that even the outwardly broad-minded field

of transpersonal psychology has long been held hostage by psychology’s

commitment to neo-Kantian dualism and metaphysical agnosticism. As Ferrer

(2002) put it “retentions of these positivist prejudices sacrifices the integrity of

[the whole enterprise] and leaves us with a self-defeating account of spiritual

inquiry” (p. 60). In many ways, this dissertation project represents a first

emancipatory attempt to free the soul from the taboo constraints imposed on it by

modern academic orthodoxy.

Cortright (2007) thoughtfully called for a more comprehensive

psychology—“one that is not afraid of all things spiritual lest it appear

280
unscientific, for if spirit is the fundamental nature of reality, then both reason and

science demand that we pursue this wherever it may lead us” (p. 46). Sri

Aurobindo and the Mother’s integral cosmology is arguably a wider, more

comprehensive, and higher scientific enquiry that deals with multidimensional

planes and dimensions of reality, subtle worlds, and even non-physical beings

formed by their associated realms of consciousness “with which material Science,

the Science of this immediately visible world, cannot yet deal, and for the most

part, not believing in it as fact, refuses to deal” (Sri Aurobindo, 1997a, p. 74). Sri

Aurobindo (1997c) thus proclaimed:

There will be new unexpected departures of science or at least of

research,—since to such a turn in its most fruitful seekings the orthodox
still deny the name of science. Discoveries will be made that thin the
walls between soul and matter; attempts there will be to extend exact
knowledge into the psychological and psychic realms with a realization of
the truth that these have laws of their own which are other than the
physical, but not the less laws because they escape the external senses and
are infinitely plastic and subtle. (pp. 248–249)
Through their exploration of the terrain of consciousness in all its

gradations, Sri Aurobindo and the Mother foreshadowed “the greater psychology

awaiting its hour” (Dalal, 2001, p. 8). With a keen eye toward the aforementioned

concentric realms and vertical planes of being and, specifically, the role that the

evolutionary soul has in facilitating the transformation of human consciousness,

Sri Aurobindo and the Mother’s framework seems exceptionally apt to

accomplish the task at hand—that is, an integral synthesis of egocentric,

cosmocentric, and psychocentric dimensions of human psychospiritual

development.

281
 Altogether, this long five-year process has proven itself as a test of

personal endurance, intellectual autonomy, self-reliance, confidence, and

commitment to higher metaphysical truth. With this, there emerged some very

real personal limitations that made the research process increasingly difficult at

times, which involved the unfolding storyline of my own psychospiritual journey.

To wit, it often felt that a specific reflective interpretation or understanding of a

particular text would involve a prerequisite learning experience in my own life

experience. As Harman (1993) put it, “The scientist who would explore the topic

of consciousness . . . must be willing to risk being transformed in the process of

exploration” (p. 139). Similarly, N. Kramer (2011) beautifully noted, “The real

discipline of the independent thinker and the spiritual warrior, lies not in [his or

her] scholarly capabilities and education, nor even in the anchoring of [one’s]

knowledge into felt experience” (para. 18). Rather, “it is in their willingness to

transform [his or her] own consciousness . . . [that is, to risk] change” (para. 18).

At the very least, Palmer (1969) articulated, “One must risk their personal world

if they are to enter the life-world of a great lyric poem, novel, or drama” (as cited

in Gibson-Kottler, 2009, p. 60).

282
 REFERENCES

Abbott, E. (2007). Flatland: A romance of many dimensions. New York, NY:

Cosimo Classics. (Original work published 1884)

Abe, K. (2014). Compartmentalization and dehumanization as one of the root

causes of today's global concerns. European Journal of Academic Essays,
1(11), 18–26. Retrieved from http://euroessays.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/12/EJAE-310.pdf

Adams, G. (2002). A theistic perspective on Ken Wilber's transpersonal

psychology. Journal of Contemporary Religion, 17(2), 165–179.
Retrieved from www.newdualism.org/papers/G.Adams/Adams-on-
Wilber.htm

Alexander, C. N., Heaton, D. P., & Chandler, H. M. (1994). Advanced human

development in the Vedic psychology of Maharishi: Theory and research.
In M. E. Miller & S. R. Cook-Greuter (Eds.), Transcendence and mature
thought in adulthood (pp. 39–70). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Alexander, C. N., & Langer, E. J. (1990). Growth of higher stages of

consciousness: Maharishi's Vedic psychology of human development. In
C. N. Alexander, J. L. Davies, C. A. Dixon, M. C. Dillbeck, R. M. Oetzel,
S. M. Drucker, J. M. Muehlman, D. W. Orme-Johnson, et al. (Eds.),
Higher stages of human development: Perspectives on adult growth (pp.
286–341). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Alexander, C. N., Rainforth, M. V., & Gelderloos, P. (1991). Transcendental

meditation, self-actualization, and psychological health: A conceptual
overview and statistical meta-analysis. Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality, 6, 189–247. Retrieved from http://resources.ciis.edu:2048/
login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/617951408?accountid=252
60

Alvesson, M., & Deetz, S. (2000). Doing critical management research.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. (2000a). Taking the linguistic turn in

organizational research challenges, responses, consequences. The Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, 36(2), 136–158. Retrieved from
http://resources.ciis.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docvie
w/236363715?accountid=25260

Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. (2000b). Varieties of discourse: On the study of

organizations through discourse analysis. Human Relations, 53(9), 1125–
1149. doi:10.1177/0018726700539002

283
Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. (2007). Constructing mystery: Empirical matters
in theory development. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1265–
1281. Retrieved from http://resources.ciis.edu:2048/
login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/210971740?accountid=252
60

Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. (2011). Qualitative research and theory

development: Mystery as method. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage.

Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating research questions through

problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 247–271.
Retrieved from http://resources.ciis.edu:2048/
login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/861240860?accountid=252
60

Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2013a). Constructing research questions: Doing

interesting research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2013b). Has management studies lost its way?
Ideas for more imaginative and innovative research. Journal of
Management Studies, 50(1), 128–152. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
6486.2012.01070.x

Anderson, R. (2004). Intuitive inquiry: An epistemology of the heart for scientific

inquiry. The Humanistic Psychologist, 32(4), 307–341.
doi:10.1080/08873267.2004.9961758

Anfara, V. A., & Mertz, N. T. (Eds.). (2006). Theoretical frameworks in

qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Anfara, V. A., & Mertz, N. T. (Eds.). (2014). Theoretical frameworks in

qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Arlin, P. K. (1975). Cognitive development in adulthood: A fifth stage?

Developmental Psychology, 11(5), 602–606. doi:10.1037/0012-
1649.12.5.472

Armon, C. (1984). Ideals of the good life and moral judgment: Ethical reasoning
across the life span. In M. L. Commons, F. A. Richards, & C. Armon
(Eds.), Beyond formal operations: Late adolescent and adult cognitive
development (Vol. 1, pp. 357–380). New York, NY: Praeger Publisher.

Assagioli, R. (1961). Self-realization and psychological disturbances. New York,

NY: Psychosynthesis Research Foundation.

284
Assagioli, R. (1965). Psychosynthesis: A collection of basic writings. New York,
NY: The Viking Press.

Assagioli, R. (1991). Transpersonal development: The dimension beyond

psychosynthesis. London, United Kingdom: Thorsons. (Original work
published 1988)

Atkinson, P. (1988). Ethnomethodology: A critical review. Annual Review of

Sociology, 14, 441–465. Retrieved from http://resources.ciis.edu:2048/
login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/60980304?accountid=2526
0

Austin, J. H. (1998). Zen and the brain: Toward an understanding of meditation

and consciousness (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bakan, D. (1967). On method: Toward a reconstruction of psychological

investigation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.

Baker, R. A. (1982). The effect of suggestion on past-lives regression. American

Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 25(1), 71–76. Retrieved from
http://resources.ciis.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docvie
w/616736460?accountid=25260

Baltes, P. B., Dittmann-Kohli, F., & Dixon, R. A. (1984). New perspectives on

the development of intelligence in adulthood: Toward a dual-process
conception and a model of selective optimization with compensation. In P.
B. Baltes & O. G. Brim, Jr. (Eds.), Life-span development and behavior
(Vol. 6, pp. 33–76). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Baltes, P. B., Lindenberger, U., & Staudinger, U. M. (1998). Lifespan theory in

developmental psychology. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child
psychology. Theoretical models of human development (Vol. 1, 5th ed.,
pp. 1029–1143). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Baltes, P. B., & Staudinger, U. M. (2000). Wisdom: A metaheuristic (pragmatic)

to orchestrate mind and virtue toward excellence. American Psychologist,
55(1), 122–136. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.122

Baltes, P. B., Staudinger, U. M., & Lindenberger, U. (1999). Lifespan

psychology: Theory and application to intellectual functioning. In J. T.
Spence, J. M. Darley, & D. J. Foss (Eds.), Annual Review of Psychology
(Vol. 50, pp. 471–507). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.

285
Barrett, L. P. (2013). Maid of clay: An alchemical hermeneutics of Marija
Gimbutas's (1989) “Language of the Goddess” (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. (Order No.
3596997)

Barrett, W. (1986). Death of the soul: From Descartes to the computer. Garden
City, NY: Doubleday/Anchor.

Basseches, M. (1980, January). Dialectical schemata: A framework for the

empirical study of the development of dialectical thinking. Dialectical
Schemata. Human Development, 23(6), 400–421. Retrieved from
http://resources.ciis.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docvie
w/616442405?accountid=25260

Basseches, M. (1984a). Dialectical thinking and adult development. Norwood,

NJ: Ablex.

Basseches, M. (1984b). Dialectical thinking as a metasystematic form of

cognitive organization. In M. L. Commons, F.A. Richards, & C. Armon
(Eds.), Beyond formal operations: Late adolescent and adult cognitive
development (pp. 216–238). New York, NY: Praeger.

Basseches, M. (1986, January). Comments on social cognition in adulthood: A

dialectical perspective. Educational Gerontology, 12(4), 327–334.
Retrieved from http://resources.ciis.edu:2048/
login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/617360540?accountid=252
60

Bauer, J. J. (2011). The postconventional self: Ego maturity, growth stories . . .

and happiness? In A. Pfaffenberger, P. W. Marko, & A. Combs (Eds.),
The postconventional personality: Assessing, researching, and theorizing
higher development (pp. 101–117). Albany, NY: State University of New
York Press.

Bauer, J. J., Schwab, J. R., & McAdams, D. P. (2011). Self-actualizing: Where

ego development finally feels good? The Humanistic Psychologist, 39(2),
121–136. doi:10.1080/08873267.2011.564978

Baumeister, R. F. (1987). How the self became a problem: A psychological

review of historical research. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 52(1), 163–176. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.163

Beck, D. E., & Cowan, C. (1996). Spiral dynamics: Mastering values, leadership
and change. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

286
Beck, J. R. (2002). Self and soul: Exploring the boundary between psychotherapy
and spiritual formation. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 31(1), 24–
36. Retrieved from http://resources.ciis.edu:2048/
login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/223673426?accountid=252
60

Benack, S. (1984). Post-formal epistemologies and the growth of empathy. In M.

Commons, F. A. Richards, & C. Armon (Eds.), Beyond formal operations
(pp. 340–356). New York, NY: Praeger.

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of knowledge: A

treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (1992). Cross-
cultural psychology: Research and applications. Cambridge,
MA: Cambridge University Press.

Blasi, A., & Hoeffel, E. C. (1974). Adolescence and formal operations. Human
Development, 17(5), 344–363. Retrieved from
http://resources.ciis.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docvie
w/616003393?accountid=25260

Bloomquist, W. (1990). Search for the soul in everyday living. Wilmot, WI: Lotus
Light Publications.

Blumentritt, T. (2011). Is higher better? A review and analysis of the correlates of

postconventional ego development. In A. Pfaffenberger, P. W. Marko, &
A. Combs (Eds.), The postconventional personality: Assessing,
researching, and theorizing higher development (pp. 153–162). Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press.

Blumer, H. (1969). Social movements. In B. McLaughlin (Ed.), Studies in social

movements: A social psychological perspective (pp. 8–29). New York,
NY: Free Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Polity

Press.

Boyd, J. H. (1994). Affirming the soul: Remarkable conversations between mental

health professionals and an ordained minister. Cheshire, CT: Soul
Research Institute.

Boyd, J. H. (1996). Reclaiming the soul: The search for meaning in a self-
centered culture. Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press.

287
Bragdon, E. (1990). The call of spiritual emergency. From personal crisis to
personal transformation. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Brandtstädter, J., Wentura, D., & Rothermund, K. (1999). Intentional self-

development through adulthood and later life: Tenacious pursuit and
flexible adjustment of goals. In J. Brandstädter & R. Lerner (Eds.), Action
and self-development: Theory and research through the life span (pp.
373–400). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Brennan, T., & Piechowski, M. (1991). A developmental framework for self-

actualization: Evidence from case studies. Journal of Humanistic
Psychology, 31(3), 43–64. Retrieved from http://resources.ciis.edu:2048/
login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/618074588?accountid=252
60

Broughton, J. M. (1979). The limits of formal thought. In R. L. Mosher (Ed.),

Adolescents’ development and education: A Janus knot (pp. 49–60).
Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Broughton, J. M. (1981). The divided self in adolescence. Human Development,

24(1), 13–32. Retrieved from http://resources.ciis.edu:2048/
login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/63641427?accountid=2526
0

Broughton, J. M. (1984). Not beyond formal operations but beyond Piaget. In M.

L. Commons, F. A. Richards, & C. Armon (Eds.), Beyond formal
operations: Late adolescent and adult cognitive development (Vol. 1, pp.
395–412). New York, NY: Praeger.

Broughton, J. M., & Zahaykevich, M. K. (1988). Ego and ideology: A critical

review of Loevinger’s theory. In D. K. Lapsley and F. C. Power (Eds.),
Self ego, and identity: Integrative approaches (pp. 179–208). New York,
NY: Springer–Verlag.

Bryman, A. (Ed.). (2006). Mixed methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bucke, R. M. (1969). Cosmic consciousness: A study in the evolution of the

human mind. New York, NY: E. P. Dutton. (Original work published
1901)

Calas, M., & Smircich, L. (1996). From the “woman’s” point of view. Feminist
approaches to organization studies. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy & W. Nord
(Eds.), Handbook of Organization Studies. London, United Kingdom:
Sage.

288
Campbell, J. (2014). The hero with a thousand faces. Novato, CA: New World
Library. (Original work published 1949)

Cartwright, K. B. (2001). Cognitive developmental theory and spiritual

development. Journal of Adult Development, 8(4), 213–220. Retrieved
from www.researchgate.net/profile/Kelly_Cartwright/publication/
225987547_Cognitive_Developmental_Theory_and_Spiritual_Developme
nt/links/00b4952c37fcdccaf3000000.pdf

Case, R. (1978). Intellectual development from birth to adulthood: A neo-

Piagetian investigation. In R. S. Siegler (Ed.), Children's thinking: What
develops? (pp. 109–150). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Chalquist, C. (2014, January). Earthrise: A mythic image for our time? Huffington
Post Science. Retrieved from www.huffingtonpost.com/ craig-chalquist-
phd/earthrise-a-mythic-image_b_4661247.html

Chandler, H. M., & Alexander, C. N. (2005). The transcendental meditation

program and postconventional self-development: A 10-year longitudinal
study. Retrieved from http://mum.magic-
hour.com/Customized/Uploads/ByDate/2013/September_2013/September
_25th_2013/Vol.%202.%20Consciousness-
Based%20Education19375.pdf#page=389

Chapman, J. H. (2005). Ferre's postmodern metaphysical support for soul. In G.

Allan & M. F. Allshouse (Eds.), Nature, truth, and value: Exploring the
thinking of Frederick Ferre (pp. 25–38). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Clayton, V. P., & Birren, J. E. (1980). The development of wisdom across the life
span: A reexamination of an ancient topic. In P. B. Baltes & O. G. Brim,
Jr. (Eds.), Life-span development and behavior (Vol. 3, pp. 103–135).
New York, NY: Academic Press.

Cohn, L. D. (1998). Age trends in personality development: A qualitative review.

In P. M. Westenberg, A. Blasi, & L. D. Cohn (Eds.), Personality
development. Theoretical, empirical, and clinical investigations of
Loevinger’ s conception of ego development (pp. 133–144). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.

Colby, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1987). The measurement of moral judgment. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Colby, A., Kohlberg, L., Gibbs, J., Lieberman, M., Fischer K., & Saltzstein, H. D.
(1983). A longitudinal study of moral judgment. Monographs of the
Society for Research in Child Development, 48(1–2), 1–124.
doi:10.2307/1165935

289
Combs, A., & Krippner, S. (2011). A dynamical view of the personality in
evolution. In A. Pfaffenberger, P. W. Marko, & A. Combs (Eds.), The
postconventional personality: Assessing, researching, and theorizing
higher development (pp. 205–220). Albany, NY: State University of New
York Press.

Commons, M. L. (Ed.). (1989). Adult development: Comparisons and

applications of developmental models (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Praeger.

Commons, M. L. (1999, June). Producing and measuring transition to higher

stages in individuals, organizations, and developing cultures. Paper
presented the Fourteenth Annual Adult Development Symposium
sponsored by the Society for Research in Adult Development. Salem, MA.

Commons, M. L., Armon, C., Kohlberg, L., Richards, F. A., Grotzer, T. A., &
Sinnott, J. D. (Eds.). (1990). Adult development: Models and methods in
the study of adolescent and adult thought (Vol. 2). New York, NY:
Praeger.

Commons, M. L., Armon, C., Richards, F. A., & Schrader, D. E. (with Farrell, E.
W., Tappan, M. B., & Bauer, N. F.). (1989). A multidomain study of adult
development. In M. L. Commons, J. D. Sinnott, F. A. Richards, & C.
Armon (Eds.), Adult development: Comparisons and applications of
developmental models (Vol. 1, pp. 33–56). New York, NY: Praeger.

Commons, M. L., & Richards, F. A. (1984a). A general model of stage theory. In

M. L. Commons, F. A. Richards, & C. Armon (Eds.), Beyond formal
operations: Late adolescent and adult cognitive development (Vol. 1, pp.
120–130). New York, NY: Praeger.

Commons, M. L., & Richards, F. A. (1984b). Systematic, metasystemic, and

cross-paradigmatic reasoning: A case for stages of reasoning beyond
formal operations. In M. L. Commons, F. A. Richards, & C. Armon
(Eds.), Beyond formal operations: Late adolescent and adult cognitive
development (Vol. 1, pp. 92–119). New York, NY: Praeger.

Commons, M. L., & Richards, F. A. (2002). Organizing components into

combinations: How stage transition works. Journal of Adult Development,
9(3), 159–177. doi:10.1023/A:1016047925527

Commons, M. L., & Richards, F. A. (2003). Four postformal stages. In J. Demick

& C. Andreoletti (Eds.), Handbook of adult development (pp. 199–219).
New York, NY: Springer.

290
Commons, M. L., Richards, F. A., & Armon, C. (Eds.). (1984). Beyond formal
operations: Late adolescent and adult cognitive development (Vol. 1).
New York, NY: Praeger.

Commons, M. L., Richards, F. A., & Kuhn, D. (1982). Systematic and

metasystematic reasoning: A case for levels of reasoning beyond Piaget's
stage of formal operations. Child Development, 53, 1058–1069.
doi:10.2307/1129147

Commons, M. L., Sinnott, J. D., Richards, F. A., & Armon, C. (Eds.). (1989).
Adult development: Comparisons and applications of adolescent and adult
developmental models (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Praeger.

Commons, M. L., Trudeau, E. J., Stein, S. A., Richards, F. A., & Krause, S. R.
(1998). Hierarchical complexity of tasks shows the existence of
developmental stages. Developmental Review, 18(3), 237–278. Retrieved
from http://resources.ciis.edu:2048/login?url=http://
search.proquest.com/docview/619368741?accountid=25260

Cook-Greuter, S. R. (1990). Maps for living: Ego-development stages from

symbiosis to conscious universal embeddedness. In M. L. Commons, C.
Armon, L. Kohlberg, F. A. Richards, T. A. Grotzer, & J. D. Sinnott (Eds.),
Adult development: Models and methods in the study of adolescent and
adult thought (Vol. 2, pp. 79–104). New York, NY: Praeger.

Cook-Greuter, S. R. (1994). Rare forms of self-understanding in mature adults. In

M. Miller & S. R. Cook-Greuter (Eds.), Transcendence and mature
thought in adulthood: The further reaches of adult development (pp. 119–
146). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Cook-Greuter, S. R. (1999). Postautonomous ego development: A study of its

nature and measurement (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database. (Pub. No. AAT 9933122)

Cook-Greuter, S. R. (2000). Mature ego development: A gateway to ego

transcendence? Journal of Adult Development, 7(4), 227–240.
doi:10.1023/A:1009511411421

Cook-Greuter, S. R. (2004). Making the case for a developmental perspective.

Industrial and Commercial Training, 36(7), 275–281.
doi:10.1108/00197850410563902

291
Cook-Greuter, S. R. (2011). A report from the scoring trenches. Generating and
measuring practical differences in leadership performance at
postconventional action-logics. In A. H. Pfaffenberger, P. W. Marko, & A.
Combs (Eds.), The postconventional personality: Assessing, researching,
and theorizing higher development (pp. 57–71). Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.

Corbett, S. (2009). The holy grail of the unconscious. New York Times Magazine,
20, 34–65. Retrieved from
www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/magazine/20jung-t.html

Corbin, H. (1972). Mundus Imaginalis or the imaginary and the imaginal. Spring,
1–7. (Original work published 1964) Retrieved from
www.imagomundi.com.br/espiritualidade/mundus_imaginalis.pdf

Cornelissen, M. (2001, October). Introducing Indian psychology: The basics.

Paper presented at the National Seminar on Psychology in India: Past
Present and Future. Kerala, India. Retrieved from
www.ipi.org.in/texts/matthijs/mc-kollam-2001-introindpsybasics.php

Cornelissen, M. (2002, April). Integrality. A talk given at the Cultural Integration

Fellowship. San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from
www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/i_es/i_es_corne_integrality.htm

Cornelissen, M. (2004). Sri Aurobindo's evolutionary ontology of consciousness.

In K. Joshi & M. Cornelissen (Eds.), Consciousness, Indian psychology
and yoga (pp. 11–52). New Delhi, India: Centre for Studies in
Civilizations.

Cornelissen, M. (2005). Sri Aurobindo’s theory of knowledge [Transcript]. Port

Townsend, WA. Retrieved from www.sciy.org/2010/
01/01/transcript-of-matthijs-aum2005-talk-sri-aurobindo%E2%80%99s-
theory-of-knowledge/

Cornelissen, M. (2007). In defense of rigorous subjectivity. Retrieved from

www.ipi.org.in/texts/matthijs/mc-idos-btp-sep2007.php

Cornelissen, M. (2008). The evolution of consciousness in Sri Aurobindo's

CosmoPsychology. In H. Wautischer (Ed.), Ontology of consciousness:
Percipient action (pp. 399–427). Boston, MA: The MIT Press.

Cornelissen, M. (2011a). Beyond the mask: An exploration of human identity

based on the work of Sri Aurobindo. Retrieved from
www.ipi.org.in/texts/matthijs/mc-identity.php

292
Cornelissen, M. (2011b). What is knowledge? A reflection based on the work of
Sri Aurobindo. In M. Cornelissen, G. Miśra, & S. Varma (Eds.),
Foundations of Indian psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 332–360). New Delhi,
India: Pearson.

Cornelissen, M. (2012). Types of knowledge and what they allow us to see: How
our research methods affect the quality of our psychological
understanding. Retrieved from www.ipi.org.in/texts/matthijs/mc-tok-
ppb.php

Cornelissen, M. (2016). The self and the structure of the personality: An overview
of Sri Aurobindo's terminology. Retrieved from www.ipi.org.in/texts/
matthijs/mc-ppb-infinity-v3.php

Cornelissen, M., Miśra, G., & Varma, S. (2014). Introduction to the second
edition. In M. Cornelissen, G. Miśra, & S. Varma (Eds.), Foundations of
Indian psychology (Vol. 11, 2nd ed., pp. xi–xxv). New Delhi, India:
Pearson.

Cortright, B. (2007). Integral psychology: Yoga, growth, and opening the heart.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Coward, H. G. (1985). Jung and eastern thought. Albany, NY: State University of
New York Press.

Crabtree, A. (2007). Automatism and secondary centers of consciousness. In E. F.

Kelly, E. W. Kelly, A. Crabtree, A. Gauld, M. Grosso, & B. Greyson
(Eds.), Irreducible mind: Toward a psychology for the 21st century (pp.
301–363). Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among

five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dabrowski, K. (1964). Positive disintegration. Boston, MA: Little Brown.

Dabrowski, K. (1967). Personality shaping through positive disintegration.

Boston, MA: Little Brown.

Dalal, A. S. (Ed.). (2001). A greater psychology: An introduction to Sri

Aurobindo's psychological thought. New York, NY: Jeremy P.
Tarcher/Putnam.

Dalal, A. S. (Ed.). (2002). Emergence of the psychic: Governance of life by the

soul. Selections form the works of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother.
Pondicherry, India: Sri Aurobindo Ashram.

293
Dalal, A. S. (Ed.). (2007). Sri Aurobindo and the future of psychology:
Supplement to a greater psychology. Pondicherry, India: Sri Aurobindo
International Centre of Education.

Dalal, A. S. (2012). Our many selves: Practical yoga psychology. Pondicherry,

India: Sri Aurobindo Ashram.

Daniels, M. (2001). On transcendence in transpersonal psychology.

Transpersonal Psychology Review, 5(2), 3–11. Retrieved from
www.transpersonalscience.org/Papers/daniels01b.pdf

Daniels, M. (2005). Shadow, self, spirit: Essays in transpersonal psychology.

Charlottesville, VA: Imprint Academic.

Dasen, P. R. (1972). Cross-cultural Piagetian research. Journal of Cross-Cultural

Psychology, 3, pp. 23–40. doi:10.1177/002202217200300102

Dasen, P. R. (1977a). Are cognitive processes universal? A contribution to cross-

cultural Piagetian psychology. In N. Warren (Ed.), Studies in cross-
cultural psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 155–201). London, United Kingdom:
Academic Press.

Dasen, P. R. (1977b). Piagetian psychology: Cross-cultural contributions. New

York, NY: Halsted. Retrieved from http://resources.ciis.edu:2048/
login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/616255696?accountid=252
60

Dasen, P. R., & Heron, A. (1981). Cross-cultural tests of Piaget's theory. In H. C.

Triandis & A. Heron (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology:
Developmental psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 295–342). Boston, MA: Allyn and
Bacon.

Day, J. M. (2011). Believing as if: Postconventional stages, cognitive complexity,

and postformal religious constructions. In A. Pfaffenberger, P. W. Marko,
& A. Combs (Eds.), The postconventional personality: Assessing,
researching, and theorizing higher development (pp. 189–203). Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press.

Day, J. M., & Naedts, M. H. (1995). Convergence and conflict in the development
of moral judgment and religious judgment. Journal of Education, 177(2),
1–23. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42742359

Day, J. M., & Youngman, D. J. (2003). Discursive practices and their

interpretation in the psychology of religious development. In J. Demick &
Andreoletti (Eds.), Handbook of adult development (pp. 509–532). New
York, NY: Springer.

294
Demick, J., & Andreoletti, C. (2003). Future research directions in adult
development. In J. Demick & Andreoletti (Eds.), Handbook of adult
development (pp. 599–629). New York, NY: Springer.

Dennett, D. C. (1995). Darwin's dangerous idea. The Sciences, 35(3), 34–40.

Retrieved from https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~jaru003/vitae/dennett.pdf

Denzin, N. K. (1997). Interpretive ethnography: Ethnographic practices for the

21st century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Denzin, N. K. (1999). Interpretive ethnography for the next century. Journal of

Contemporary Ethnography, 28(5), 510–519.
doi:10.1177/089124199129023631

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of qualitative research

(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Derrida, J. (1978). Edmund Husserl's origin of geometry: An introduction. New

York, NY: Harvester Press. (Original work published 1967)

Derrida, J. (1981). Positions (A. Bass, Trans.). Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press. (Original work published 1972)

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The “Iron Cage” revisited: Institutional
isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American
Sociological Review, 48, 147–160. Retrieved from
http://resources.ciis.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docvie
w/61049380?accountid=25260

Du Toit, C. W. (2007). Viewed from the shoulders of God: Themes in science and
theology. Pretoria, South Africa: Research Institute for Theology and
Religion, University of South Africa. Retrieved from
http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/4262/Shoulders-
Du%20Toit%20-%2002-03-2012.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y

Duvall, N. S. (1998). From soul to self and back again. Journal of Psychology and
Theology, 26(1), 6–15. Retrieved from http://resources.ciis.edu:2048/
login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/619331951?accountid=252
60

Edelmann, J., & Bernet, W. (2007). Setting criteria for ideal reincarnation
research. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 14(12), 92. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/William_Bernet/publication/2503961
10_Setting_Criteria_for_Ideal_Reincarnation_Research/links/0deec53b16
0ea9fd36000000.pdf

295
Edelstein, W., & Noam, G. (1982). Regulatory structures of the self and
postformal stages in adulthood. Human Development, 25(6), 407–422.
doi:10.1159/000272823

Eisner, E. W. (1990). The meaning of alternative paradigms for practice. In E.

Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 88–102). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Elkins, D. N. (1995). Psychotherapy and spirituality: Toward a theory of the soul.

Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 35(2), 78–98.
doi:10.1177/00221678950352006

Elkins, D. N. (1998). Beyond religion: A personal program for building a

spiritual life outside the walls of traditional religion. Wheaton, IL: Quest
Books.

Fenn, R. K., & Capps, D. (1995). On losing the soul: Essays in the social
psychology of religion. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Ferrer, J. N. (1998). Speak now or forever hold your peace. A review essay of
Ken Wilber’s “The Marriage of Sense and Soul: Integrating Science and
Religion.” The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 30(1), 53–67.
Retrieved from www.atpweb.org/jtparchive/trps-30-98-01-053.pdf

Ferrer, J. N. (1999). Revisioning transpersonal theory: An epistemic approach to

transpersonal and spiritual phenomena (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved
from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. (Order No. 9949443)

Ferrer, J. N. (2002). Revisioning transpersonal theory: A participatory vision of

human spirituality. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Ferrer, J. N. (2008). Spiritual knowing as participatory enaction: An answer to the

question of religious pluralism. In J. N. Ferrer & J. H. Sherman (Eds.), The
participatory turn: Spirituality, mysticism, religious studies (pp. 135–169).
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Ferrer, J. N. (2011). Participation, metaphysics, and enlightenment: Reflections

on Ken Wilber’s recent work. Transpersonal Psychology Review, 14(2),
3–24. Retrieved from www.integralworld.net/ferrer3.html

Ferrer, J. N. (2014). Transpersonal psychology, science, and the supernatural. The

Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 46(2), 152–186. Retrieved from
http://www.atpweb.org/jtparchive/trps-46-14-02-152.pdf

Ferrer, J. N. (2015). Participation, metaphysics, and enlightenment: Reflections

on Ken Wilber’s recent work. Approaching Religion, 5(2), 42–66.
Retrieved from https://ojs.abo.fi/index.php/ar/article/download/963/1351

296
Ferrer, J. N., & Sherman, J. H. (Eds.). (2008). The participatory turn: Spirituality,
mysticism, religious studies. Albany, NY: State University of New York
Press.

Firman, J., & Gila, A. (2002). Psychosynthesis: A psychology of the spirit.

Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Fischer, K. W. (1980). A theory of cognitive development: The control and

construction of hierarchies of skills. Psychological Review, 87(6), 477–
531. Retrieved from www.gse.harvard.edu/~ddl/articlesCopy/
FischerTheoryCognDev1980.pdf

Fischer, K. W., & Bidell, T. R. (2006). Dynamic development of action and

thought. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child
psychology: Theoretical models of human development (Vol. 1, 5th ed.,
pp. 467–561). New York, NY: Wiley.

Fischer, K. W., Hand, H. H., & Russell, S. (1984). The development of

abstractions in adolescence and adulthood. In M. L. Commons, F. A.
Richards, & C. Armon (Eds.), Beyond formal operations: Late adolescent
and adult cognitive development (Vol. 1, pp. 43–73). New York, NY:
Praeger Publisher.

Flavell, J. H. (1963). The developmental psychology of Jean Piaget (Vol. 1).

Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.

Flavell, J. H. (1971). Stage-related properties of cognitive development. Cognitive

Psychology, 2(4), 421–453. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(71)90025-9

Foucault, M. (1972). The archeology of knowledge. London, United Kingdom:

Tavistock.

Fowler, J. (1981). Stages of faith: The psychology of human development and the
quest for meaning. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.

Freeman, M. (2008). Hermeneutics. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The sage encyclopedia

of qualitative research methods (Vol. 1., pp. 81–95). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Frick, W. B. (1982). Conceptual foundations of self-actualization: A contribution

to motivation theory. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 22(4), 33–52.
doi:10.1177/002216788202200404

Gadamer, H. G. (1975). Truth and method (2nd ed., Sheed & Ward Ltd. Trans.).
New York, NY: Crossroad. (Original work published 1960)

297
Gardiner, H. W., & Kosmitzki, C. (2004). Lives across cultures: Cross-cultural
human development (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson, Allyn, & Bacon.

Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New

York, NY: Basic. (Original work published 1983)

Gardner, H., & Moran, S. (2006). The science of multiple intelligences theory: A
response to Lynn Waterhouse. Educational Psychologist, 41(4), 227–232.
Retrieved from http://alliance.la.asu.edu/temporary/students/
katie/MultipleIntelligencesGardner.pdf

Garfinkel, H. (Ed.). (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Gaskins, R. W. (1999). “Adding legs to a snake:” A reanalysis of motivation and

the pursuit of happiness from a Zen Buddhist perspective. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 91(2), 204–215. doi:10.1037/0022-
0663.91.2.204

Gebser, J. (1986). The ever-present origin (N. Barstad & A. Mickunas, Trans.).
Athens, OH: Ohio University Press. (Original work published 1949)

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays (Vol. 5019).

New York, NY: Basic Books.

Giegerich, W. (2008). The soul’s logical life. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.
(Original work published 1998)

Gibson-Kottler, R. (2009). The secret of the blue canyon caves: An analysis of the
lost child archetype, an experiential narrative for the clinician (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
(Order No. 3417864)

Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of

structuration. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Polity.

Giddens, A. (1993). New rules of sociological method: A positive critique of

interpretive sociologies (2nd ed.). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Polity.

Gidley, J. M. (2007). Educational imperatives of the evolution of consciousness:

the integral visions of Rudolf Steiner and Ken Wilber. International
Journal of Children's Spirituality, 12(2), 117–135. Retrieved from
https://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/view/rmit:3645/n2006012277_am.pdf

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s

development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

298
Gilligan, C., & Murphy, J. M. (1979). Development from adolescence to
adulthood: The philosopher and the dilemma of the fact. In D. Kuhn (Ed.),
Intellectual development beyond childhood (pp. 85–99). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey–Bass.

Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. Mill Valley,
CA: Sociology Press.

Goldsmith, N. M. (2011). Psychedelic healing: The promise of entheogens for

psychotherapy and spiritual development. Rochester, VT: Healing Arts
Press.

Gowan, J. C. (1974). Development of the psychedelic individual. Buffalo, NY:

Creative Education Foundation.

Graves, C. W. (1970). Levels of existence: An open system theory of values.

Journal of Humanistic Psychology. 10(2), 131–155. Retrieved from
https://d3gxp3iknbs7bs.cloudfront.net/attachments/ed36b512-5529-4858-
816e-b0a8930a10ce.pdf

Graves, C. W. (1981). Up the existential staircase: A seminar on the development,

nature, meaning, and management of the level of existence, emergent,
cyclical, double-helix model of adult human psychosocial coping systems.
Schenectady, NY: Schaffer Library. Retrieved from
http://flow.ph/l/links/research/developmental/1981_summary.pdf

Graves, C. W. (2005). The never-ending quest: Dr. Clare W. Graves explores

human nature: Clare W. Graves explores human nature (with C. C.
Cowan, & N. Todorovic, Eds.). Santa Barbara, CA: ECLET.

Grof, C., & Grof, S. (1986). Spiritual emergency: The understanding and
treatment of transpersonal crises. Revision, 8(2), 7–20. Retrieved from
http://resources.ciis.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docvie
w/617257068?accountid=25260

Grof, C., & Grof, S. (1990). The stormy search for the self: A guide to personal
growth through transformational crisis. Los Angeles, CA: J. P. Tarcher.

Grof, S. (1975). Realms of the human unconscious: Observations from LSD

research. New York, NY: Viking.

Grof, S. (1985). Beyond the brain: Birth, death, and transcendence in

psychotherapy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Grof, S., & Bennet, H. Z. (1993). The holotropic mind. Three levels of human
consciousness and how they shape our minds. New York, NY: HarperOne.

299
Grof, S., & Grof, C. (1980). Beyond death. London, United Kingdom: Thames
and Hudson.

Grof, S., & Grof, C. (Eds.). (1989). Spiritual emergency: When personal
transformation becomes a crisis. Los Angeles, CA: J. P. Tarcher.

Guba, E. G. (Ed.). (1990). The paradigm dialog. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Habermas, J. (1979). Communication and the evolution of society. Boston, MA:

Beacon Press.

Halstead, R. W. (2000). From tragedy to triumph: Counselor as companion on the

hero's journey. Counseling and Values, 44(2), 100–106. Retrieved from
10.1002/j.2161-007X.2000.tb00159.x

Hamilton, D. M., & Jackson, M. H. (1998). Spiritual development: Paths and

processes. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 25(4), 262–270. Retrieved
from http://resources.ciis.edu:2048/
login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/619368497?accountid=252
60

Haraldsson, E. (2003). Children who speak of past‐life experiences: Is there a

psychological explanation? Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory,
Research and Practice, 76(1), 55–67.

Harding, S. G. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell

University Press.

Harman, J. (2012). Clinical happiness (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. (Order No. 3521000)

Harman, W. W. (1993). Towards an adequate epistemology for the scientific

exploration of consciousness. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 7, 133–
143. Retrieved from http://resources.ciis.edu:2048/
login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/618915799?accountid=252
60

Hartelius, G., & Ferrer, J. N. (2013). Transpersonal philosophy: The participatory

turn. In H. L. Friedman & G. Hartelius (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell
handbook of transpersonal psychology (pp. 187–202). Malden, MA: John
Wiley & Sons.

Hawkins, D. R. (2003). I: Reality and subjectivity. Sedona, AZ: Veritas.

Hawkins, D. R. (2006). Transcending the levels of consciousness: The stairway of

enlightenment. Sedona, AZ: Veritas.

300
Heaton, D. (2011). Transcendent experience and development of the
postrepresentational self. In A. Pfaffenberger, P. W. Marko, & A. Combs
(Eds.), The postconventional personality: Assessing, researching, and
theorizing higher development (pp. 175–188). Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.

Heidegger, M. (1981). Varat och tiden [Being and time] (Vol. 1–2, R. Matz,
Trans.). Lund, Sweden: Doxa. (Original work published 1927)

Helson, R., Mitchell, V., & Hart, B. (1985). Lives of women who became
autonomous. Journal of Personality, 53(2), 258–285. Retrieved from
http://resources.ciis.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docvie
w/61047298?accountid=25260

Helson, R., & Roberts, B. W. (1994). Ego development and personality change in
adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5), 911–920.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.5.911

Helson, R., & Srivastava, S. (2001). Three paths of adult development:

Conservers, seekers, and achievers. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 80(6), 995–1010. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.995

Hemsell, R. (2002). Ken Wilber and Sri Aurobindo: A critical perspective.

Retreived from http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/
i_es/i_es_hemse_wilber.htm

Henderson, J. (1967). Thresholds of initiation. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan

University Press.

Henderson, J., & Oakes, M. (1990). The wisdom of the serpent: The myths of
death, rebirth, and resurrection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.

Heritage, J. (1984). A change of state token and aspects of its sequential

placement. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of
social action (pp. 299–345). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University
Press.

Heron, J. (2007). A way out for Wilberians. Retrieved from

www.integralworld.net/WilbErrs.htm

Hewlett, D. C. (2004). A qualitative study of Postautonomous ego development:

The bridge between postconventional and transcendent ways of being
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Dissertation Abstracts
International. (Order No. AAI3120900)

301
Hillman, J. (1992). Re-visioning psychology. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
(Original work published 1976)

Hoffman, E., & Ortiz, F. A. (2008). Youthful peak experiences in cross-cultural

perspective: Implications for educators and counselors. In L. Frances & D.
Scott (Eds.), The international handbook of education for spirituality, care
and well being (Vol. 1, pp. 469–489). New York, NY: Springer.

Hoffman, L., Stewart, S., Warren, D., & Meek, L. (2009). Toward a sustainable
myth of self: An existential response to the postmodern condition. Journal
of Humanistic Psychology, 49(2), 135–173.

Hoffman, L., Stewart, S., Warren, D. M., & Meek, L. (2015). Toward a
sustainable myth of self: An existential response to the postmodern
condition. In K. J. Schneider, J. F. Pierson, & J. F. T. Bugental (Eds.).
(2014). The handbook of humanistic psychology: Theory, research, and
practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hoyer, W. J., & Touron, D. R. (2003). Learning in adulthood. In J. Demick & C.

Andreoletti (Eds.), Handbook of adult development (pp. 23–41). New
York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Husserl, E. (1970). Logical investigations (Vol. 2, J. N. Findlay, Trans.). London,

United Kingdom: Routledge and Kegan Paul. (Original work published
1900–1901)

Hy, L. X., & Loevinger, J. (1996). Measuring ego development (2nd ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Inhelder. B., & Piaget, J., (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood
to adolescence (A. Parsons & S. Milgram, Trans.). London, United
Kingdom: Routledge & Kegan Paul. (Original work published 1955)

Irwin, R. R. (2002). Human development and the spiritual life: How

consciousness grows toward transformation. New York, NY: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum.

Iverson, R. L. (2008). Moved to tears by divine presence: Sacred experiencing,

transference, and self-development (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
PsycINFO. (Order No. AAI3447666)

Jacobi, J. S. (1967). The way of individuation. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace &
World.

Jacobi, J. S. (1973). The psychology of C. G. Jung. New Haven, CT: Yale

University Press.

302
James, W. (1985). The varieties of religious experience: A study in human nature.
London, United Kingdom: Penguin Classics. (Original work published
1902)

Jaques, E., Gibson R. O. & Isaac D. J. (1978). Levels of abstraction in logic and
human actions. London, United Kingdom: Heinemann Educational Books.

Jarvis, A. N. (1997). Taking a break: Preliminary investigations into the

psychology of epiphanies as discontinuous change experiences (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from PsycINFO. (Order No. AAM9709611)

Joshi, K., & Cornelissen, M. (Eds.). (2004). Consciousness, Indian psychology

and yoga. New Delhi, India: Centre for Studies in Civilizations.

Johnson, E. L. (1998). Whatever happened to the human soul? A brief Christian

genealogy of a psychological term. Journal of Psychology and Theology,
26, 16-78.

Julich, S. (2013). Death and transformation in the yoga of Mirra Alfassa (1878–
1973), the Mother of the Sri Aurobindo ashram: A Jungian hermeneutic.
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses. (Order No. 3557738)

Jung, C. G. (1944). Psychological types or the psychology of individuation (H. G.

Baynes, Trans.). London, United Kingdom: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner.
(Original work published 1923)

Jung, C. G. (1953). New paths in psychology. Two essays on analytical

psychology (R. F. C. Hull, Trans.). In Collected works (Vol. 7, revised 2nd
ed., pp. 63–78). London, United Kingdom: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
(Original work published 1916)

Jung, C. G. (1958). Psychology and religion (The Terry lectures). In H. Read, M.

Fordham, & G. Adler (Eds.), The collected works of C. G. Jung (R. F. C.
Hull, Trans., Vol. 11, pp. 3–105). Princeton, NJ Princeton. (Original work
published 1938)

Jung, C. G. (1961). The theory of psychoanalysis. In H. Read, M. Fordham, & G.

Adler (Eds.), Freud and psychoanalysis: Collected works (Vol. 3).
London, United Kingdom: Routledge & Kegan Paul. (Original work
published 1913)

Jung, C. G. (1968). Aion: Researches into the phenomenology of the self. In H.

Read, M. Fordham, G, Adler, & W. McGuire (Eds.), The collected works
of C. G. Jung (R. F. C. Hull, Trans., Vol. 9, 2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1959)

303
Jung, C. G. (1969). A study in the process of individuation (R. F. C. Hull Trans).
In Part 1: The archetypes and the collective unconscious (Vol. 9, pp. 290–
349). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published
1939)

Jung, C. G. (1973). Answer to Job. (R. F. C. Hull, Trans.). Princeton, NJ:

Princeton (Original work published 1958)

Jung, C. G. (2001). Modem man in search of a soul. London, United Kingdom:

Kegan Paul. (Original work published 1933)

Jung, C. G., & Shamdasani, S. (1996). The psychology of Kundalini yoga: Notes
of the seminar given in 1932 by C.G. Jung. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.

Kampman, R. (1976). Hypnotically induced multiple personality: An

experimental study. The International Journal of Clinical and
Experimental Hypnosis, 24(3–4), 215–227.
doi:10.1080/00207147608416203

Kampman, R., & Hirvenoja, D. (1978). Dynamic relation of the secondary

personality induced by hypnosis to the present personality. In F. H.
Frankel & H. S. Zamansky (Eds.), Hypnosis at its bicentennial (pp. 183–
188). New York, NY: Plenum.

Kant, I. (1999). Critique of pure reason. New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press. (Original work published 1787)

Karier, C. J. (1972). Liberalism and the quest for orderly change. History of
Education Quarterly, 12(1), 57–80. Retrieved from
http://resources.ciis.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docvie
w/64283798?accountid=25260

Kasper, A. S. (1994). A feminist, qualitative methodology: A study of women

with breast cancer. Qualitative Sociology, 17(3), 263–281.
doi:10.1007/BF02422255

Kazlev, A. (1999). Varieties of monism. Retreived from

www.kheper.net/topics/worldviews/Monism.htm

Kazlev, A. (2005). A critique of Ken Wilber's “AQAL” philosophy. Retrieved

from www.kheper.net/topics/Wilber/AQAL_critique.html

Kazlev, A. (2006, October). Integral esotericism: Part four. Retrieved from

www.integralworld.net/kazlev8.html

304
Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problems and process in human
development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kelly, E. F. (2007). Introduction. In E. F. Kelly, E. W. Kelly, A. Crabtree, A.

Gauld, M. Grosso, & B. Greyson (Eds.), Irreducible mind: Toward a
psychology for the 21st century (pp. xvii–xxxi). Lanham, MA: Rowman &
Littlefield.

Kelly, E. F., & Kelly, E. W. (2010). Empirical challenges to conventional mind-

brain theory. Retrieved from https://med.virginia.edu/
perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploads/sites/267/2015/11/
Ramachandran-EHB-article-FINAL.pdf

Kelly, E. W. (2007). F. W. H. Myers and the empirical study of the mind-body

problem. In E. F. Kelly, E. W. Kelly, A. Crabtree, A. Gauld, M. Grosso, &
B. Greyson (Eds.), Irreducible mind: Toward a psychology for the 21st
century (pp. 47–114). Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield.

Kilduff, M. (1993). Deconstructing organizations. Academy of Management

Review, 18(1), 13–31. doi:10.5465/AMR.1993.3997505

King, L. A. (2011). The challenge of ego development: Intentional versus active

development. In A. H. Pfaffenberger, P. W. Marko, & A. Combs (Eds.),
The postconventional personality: Assessing, researching, and theorizing
higher development (pp. 163–174). Albany, NY: State University of New
York Press.

King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment:

Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in
adolescents and adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.

Kitchener, K. S., & King, P. M. (1981). Reflective judgment: Concepts of

justification and their relationship to age and education. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 2(2), 89–116.
doi:10.1016/0193-3973(81)90032-0

Koestler, A. (1967). The ghost in the machine. New York, NY: Random House.

Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive developmental approach

to socialization. In D. A. Goslin & J. Aldous (Eds.), Handbook of
socialization theory and research (pp. 348–480). Chicago, IL: Rand
McNally.

305
Kohlberg, L. (1971). Stages of moral development as a basis for moral education.
In C. M. Beck, B. S. Crittenden, & E. Sullivan (Eds.), Moral education:
Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 23–92). Toronto, Canada: University of
Toronto Press.

Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays on moral development: The philosophy of moral

development: Moral stages and the idea of justice. San Francisco, CA:
Harper & Row.

Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development. San Francisco, CA:

Harper & Row.

Kohlberg, L., Levine, C., & Hewer, A. (1984). The current formulation of the
theory. In L. Kohlberg (Ed.), Essays in moral development (Vol. II): The
psychology of moral development (pp. 212–319). San Francisco, CA:
Harper & Row.

Kohlberg, L., & Nisan, M. (1984). Cultural universality of moral judgment

stages: A longitudinal study in Turkey. In L. Kohlberg (Ed.), The
psychology of moral development. Essays on moral development (Vol. 2,
pp. 582–593). San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.

Kohlberg, L., & Ryncarz, R. A. (1990). Beyond justice reasoning: Moral

development and consideration of a seventh stage. In C. N. Alexander &
E. J. Langer (Eds.), Higher stages of human development: Perspectives on
adult growth (pp. 191–207). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Koplowitz, H. (1984). A projection beyond Piaget’s formal-operations stage: A

general system stage and a unitary stage. In M. L. Commons, F. A.
Richards, & C. Armon (Eds.), Beyond formal operations: Late adolescent
and adult cognitive development (Vol. 1, pp. 272–295). New York, NY:
Praeger Publisher.

Korzybski, A. (1933). Science and sanity: An introduction to non-Aristotelian

systems and general semantics (4th ed.). Englewood, NJ: Institute of
General Semantics. Retrieved from http://semantiquegenerale.free.fr/
Articles/S%26SIntro.pdf

Kramer, D. A. (1983). Post-formal operations? A need for further

conceptualization. Human Development, 26(2), 91–105.
doi:10.1159/000272873

Kramer, D. A. (1990). Conceptualizing wisdom: The primacy of affect-cognition.

In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Wisdom: Its nature, origins, and development (pp.
279–316). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

306
Kramer, D. A. (2000). Wisdom as a classical source of human strength:
Conceptualization and empirical inquiry. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 19, 83–101. Retrieved from http://resources.ciis.edu:2048/
login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/224858718?accountid=252
60

Kramer, D. A., & Woodruff, D. S. (1986). Relativistic and dialectical thought in

three adult age-groups. Human Development, 29(5), 280–290.
doi:10.1159/000273064

Kramer, N. (2011). The path of one. Retrieved from http://neilkramer.com/ the-

path-of-one.html

Kramer, N. (2015). Neil Kramer: Philosophy for living [transcript of audio file].
Retrieved from http://aetherforce.com/the-tip-of-the-light-saber-by-neil-
kramer/

Kremer, J. W. (1997). Recovering indigenous mind. ReVision, 19(4), 32–46.

Retrieved from www.sonic.net/~jkremer/Reading7.html

Krettenauer, T. (2011). The issue of highest stages in structural-developmental

theories. In A. H. Pfaffenberger, P. W. Marko, & A. Combs (Eds.), The
postconventional personality: Assessing, researching, and theorizing
higher development (pp. 75–86). Albany, NY: State University of New
York Press.

Kristeva, J. (1995). New maladies of the soul. New York, NY. Columbia
University Press.

Kroth, J. (2010). Psyche's exile: An empirical odyssey in search of the soul

[Kindle Edition]. Genotype.

Lal, K. B. (2010). Contemporary Indian philosophy (2nd ed.). Delhi, India:

Motilal Banarsidass. (Original work published 1973)

Kvale, S. (2002). The social construction of reality. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.

Lincoln (Eds.), The qualitative inquiry reader (pp. 299–326). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2007). Epistemological issues of interviewing. In

Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (pp.
47–60). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Labouvie-Vief, G. (1980). Beyond formal operations: Uses and limits of pure

logic in lifespan development. Human Development, 23(3), 141–161.
doi:10.1159/000272546

307
Labouvie-Vief, G. (1982). Dynamic development and mature autonomy: A
theoretical prologue. Human Development, 25(3), 161–191.
doi:10.1159/000272795

Labouvie-Vief, G. (1992). A neo-Piagetian perspective on adult cognitive

development. In R. J. Sternberg & C. A. Berg (Eds.), Intellectual
development (pp. 197–228). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Labouvie-Vief, G. (1997). Cognitive-emotional integration in adulthood. In K. W.

Schaie & M. P. Lawton (Eds.), Annual review of gerontology and
geriatrics: Focus on emotion and adult development (Vol. 17, pp. 206–
237). New York, NY: Springer.

Labouvie-Vief, G. (2000). Affect complexity and views of the transcendent. In M.

Miller & P. Young-Eisendrath (Eds.), The psychology of mature
spirituality: Integrity, wisdom, transcendence (pp. 103–119). New York,
NY: Routledge.

Labouvie-Vief, G. (2006). Emerging structures of adult thought. In J. J. Arnett &

J. L. Tanner (Eds.), Emerging adults in America: Coming of age in the
21st century (pp. 193–217). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.

Lapointe, F. H. (1970). Origin and evolution of the term “psychology.” American

Psychologist, 25, 640–645. doi:10.1037/h0029766

Lapointe, F. H. (1972). Who originated the term “psychology”? Journal of the

History of the Behavioral Sciences, 8, 328–335. doi:10.1002/1520-
6696(197207)8:3<328::AID-JHBS2300080306>3.0.CO;2-Z

Lasker, H. M. (1974a). Self-reported change manual. In Formative research in

ego stage change: Study no. 4. Willemstad, Curacao: Humanas
Foundation.

Lasker, H. M. (1974b). Stage specific reactions to ego development training. In

Formative research in ego stage change: Study no. 3. Willemstad,
Curacao: Humanas Foundation.

Lasker, H. M. (1977). Interim summative evaluation report: An initial assessment

of the Shell/Humanas OD program. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

Lasker, H. M. (1978). Ego development and motivation: A cross-cultural

cognitive developmental analysis of achievement (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. (Order No. T-
26888)

308
Leahey, T. H. (1992). The mythical revolutions of American psychology.
American Psychologist, 47(2), 308–318.

Lee, L., & Snarey, J. (1988). The relationship between ego and moral
development: A theoretical review and empirical analysis. In D. Lapsley
& C. Power (Eds.), Self, ego, and identity: Integrative approaches (pp.
151–178). New York, NY: Springer.

Leibniz, G. W. (1898). The monadology (R. Latta, Trans.). Oxford, United

Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

Leicht, M. (2008). Evolutionary, spiritual conceptions of life Sri Aurobindo,

Teilhard de Chardin, and Ken Wilber in comparison. Munich, Germany:
GRIN Verlag.

Lerner, R. M. (1985). Adolescent maturational changes and psychosocial

development: A dynamic interactional perspective. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 14(4), 355–372. doi:10.1007/BF02089239

Lerner, R. M., & Tubman, J. G. (1989). Conceptual issues in studying continuity

and discontinuity in personality development across life. Journal of
Personality, 57(2), 343–373. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1989.tb00486.x

Levin, D. M. (1985). The body's recollection of being: Phenomenological

psychology and the deconstruction of nihilism. London, United Kingdom:
Routledge and Kegan-Paul.

Levy, P. (2005). Spiritual emergence. Retrieved from

www.awakeninthedream.com/spiritual-emergence/

Lewis, M. D. (2000). The promise of dynamic systems approaches for an

integrated account of human development. Child Development, 71(1), 36–
43. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00116

Linn, M. C., & Siegel, H. (1984). Post-formal reasoning: A philosophical model.

In M. Commons, F. A. Richards, & C. Armon (Eds.), Beyond formal
operations: Late adolescent and adult cognitive development (pp. 239–
257). New York, NY: Praeger.

Loevinger, J. (1976). Ego development: Conceptions and theories. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey–Bass.

Loevinger, J. (Ed.). (1998). Technical foundations for measuring ego

development: The Washington University sentence completion test.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

309
Loevinger, J., & Wessler, R. (1970). Measuring ego development: Construction
and use of a sentence completion test. San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.

Lovejoy, A. (1964). The great chain of being. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Lucas, W. B. (1993). Regression therapy: A handbook for professionals (Vol. 1).

Crest Park, CA: Deep Forest.

Lyotard, J. F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge (Vol.

10). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

MacLean, P. D. (1990). The triune brain in evolution: Role in paleocerebral

functions. New York, NY: Plenum.

Macmurray, J. (1993). The self as agent. New York, NY: Humanity Books.
(Original work published 1957)

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (Mahesh Prasad Varma). (1969). On the Bhagavad-Gita.

A new translation and commentary with Sanskrit text: Chapters 1–6.
Baltimore, MD: Penguin/Arkana.

Malone-France, D. (2007). Deep empiricism: Kant, Whitehead, and the necessity

of philosophical theism. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Manners, J., & Durkin, K. (2000). Processes involved in adult ego development:
A conceptual framework. Developmental Review, 20, 475–513.
doi:10.1006/drev.2000.0508

Manners, J., & Durkin, K. (2001). A critical review of the validity of ego
development theory and its measurement. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 77(3), 541–567. doi:10.1207/S15327752JPA7703_12

Manners, J., Durkin, K., & Nesdale, A. (2004). Promoting advanced ego
development among adults. Journal of Adult Development, 11(1), 19–28.
doi:10.1023/B:JADE.0000012524.32002.8d

Manning, D. J. (1976). Liberalism. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.

Marchand, H. (2001). Some reflections on post-formal thought. The Genetic

Epistemologist, 29(3), 2–9. Retreived from www.dareassociation.org/
Papers/Some%20Reflections%20on%20Postformal%20Thought.html

310
Marko, P. W. (2006). Exploring facilitative agents that allow ego development to
occur (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses Database. (AAT 3217527)

Marko, P. W. (2011). The postconventional self. In A. Pfaffenberger, P. W.

Marko, & A. Combs (Eds.), The postconventional personality: Assessing,
researching, and theorizing higher development (pp. 87–100). Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press.

Marriott, J. (1984). Hypnotic regression and past lives therapy: Fantasy or reality?
Australian Journal of Hypnotherapy and Hypnosis, 5(2), 65–72. Retrieved
from http://resources.ciis.edu:2048/
login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/617027854?accountid=252
60

Marsh, W. E. (2009). Nothingness, metanarrative, and possibility. Bloomington,

IN: AuthorHouse.

Marshall, P. (2012). The meeting of two integrative metatheories. Journal of

Critical Realism, 11(2), 188–214. Retrieved from https://metaintegral.org/
sites/default/files/Paul%20Marshall,%20Two%20Integrative%20Metatheo
ries%202012_pubd.pdf

Maslow, A. H. (2011). Hierarchy of needs: A theory of human motivation (Kindle

ed.). (Original work published 1943)

Maslow, A. H. (1964). Religions, values, and peak-experiences. New York, NY:

Penguin Books.

Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. New York, NY: Van

Nostrand.

Maslow, A. H. (1969). The farther reaches of human nature. The Journal of

Transpersonal Psychology, 1, 1–9. Retrieved from
http://resources.ciis.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/
docview/615678034?accountid=25260

Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper &
Row.

Maslow, A. H. (1971). The farther reaches of human nature. New York, NY:
Viking Press.

311
Matlock, J. G. (1990). Past life memory case studies. Advances in
parapsychological research, 6, 187–267. Retrieved from
http://jamesgmatlock.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Past-Life-Memory-
Case-Studies.pdf

May, R. (1975). Values, myths and symbols. American Journal of Psychiatry,

132, 703–706. Retrieved from http://resources.ciis.edu:2048/
login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/616020520?accountid=252
60

May, R. (1991). The cry for myth. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.

McAdams, D. P. (2007). Personal narratives and the life story. In O. P. John, R.

W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and
research (3rd ed., pp. 242–262). New York, NY: Guilford.

McCarthy, C. (2010). The crossing. New York, NY: Pan Macmillan.

McIntosh, S. (2007). Integral consciousness and the future of evolution. St. Paul,
MN: Paragon House.

Mead, G. H. (2009). Mind, self and society: From the standpoint of a social
behaviorist. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Original work
published 1934)

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception (C. Smith, Trans.).

London, United Kingdom: Routledge & Kegan Paul. (Original work
published 1945)

Merriam, S. B. (1988) Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative

Approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and

implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design

and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.

Mertens, D. (2005). Research and evaluation in education and psychology:

Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Metzner, R. (1980). Ten classical metaphors of self-transformation. The Journal

of Transpersonal Psychology, 12(1), 47–64. Retrieved from
www.atpweb.org/jtparchive/trps-12-80-01-047.pdf

312
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal
structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 340–363.
Retrieved from www.masil.org/pdf/
Meyer_Rowan_1977_Institutionalized_Organizations.pdf

Meyersburg, C. A., Bogdan, R., Gallo, D. A., & McNally, R. J. (2009). False
memory propensity in people reporting recovered memories of past lives.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 118(2), 399–404. Retrieved from
www.researchgate.net/profile/Ryan_Bogdan/publication/24399786_False_
Memory_Propensity_in_People_Reporting_Recovered_Memories_of_Pas
t_Lives/links/02bfe510ff381c964c000000.pdf

Miller, M. E., & Cook-Greuter, S. R. (1994). From postconventional development

to transcendence: Visions and theories. In M. E. Miller & S. Cook-Greuter
(Eds.), Transcendence and mature thought in adulthood: The further
reaches of adult development (pp. xv–xxxii). Latham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield.

Miller, M. E., & Cook-Greuter, S. R. (Eds.). (2000). Creativity, spirituality, and

transcendence: Paths to integrity and wisdom in the mature self. Westport,
CT: Ablex/Greenwood.

Miller, P. A., & Armstrong, R. H. (2007). Classical memories, modern identities.

Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.

Miovic, M. (2001). Towards a spiritual psychology: Bridging psychodynamic

psychotherapy with integral yoga. In M. Cornelissen (Ed.), Consciousness
and its transformation (pp. 98–119). Pondicherry, India: Sri Aurobindo
International Centre of Education.

Miovic, M. (2004). Sri Aurobindo and transpersonal psychology. Journal of

Transpersonal Psychology, 36(2), 111–133. Retrieved from
www.ipi.org.in/texts/others/michealmiovic-
sa%26transpersonalpsychology.pdf

Miovic, M. (2007). Sri Aurobindo and transpersonal psychology. In A. S. Dalal

(Ed.). Sri Aurobindo and the future of psychology: Supplement to a
greater psychology. (pp. 10–49). Pondicherry, India: Sri Aurobindo
International Centre of Education.

Miśra, R. S. (1998). The integral Advaitism of Sri Aurobindo. Delhi, India:

Motilal Banarsidass.

Moore, T. (1992). Care of the soul. A guide for cultivating depth and sacredness
in everyday life. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

313
Moshman, D. (1998). Cognitive development beyond childhood. In W. Damon
(Series Ed.), D. Kuhn, & R. Siegler (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of childhood
psychology: Cognition perception, and language (Vol. 2, 5th ed., pp. 947–
978). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Moshman, D. (2003). Developmental change in adulthood. In J. Demick & C.

Andreoletti (Eds.), Handbook of adult development (pp. 43–61). New
York, NY: Springer.

Murphy, M. (1998). On evolution and transformative practice: In appreciation of

Ken Wilber. In D. Rothberg & S. Kelly (Eds.), Ken Wilber in dialogue:
Conversations with leading transpersonal thinkers (pp. 53–60). Wheaton,
IL: Quest Books.

Murray, T. (2008, August). Exploring epistemic wisdom: Ethical and practical

implications of integral theory and methodological pluralism for
collaboration and knowledge-building. Paper presented at the First
Biannual Integral Theory Conference, John F. Kennedy University,
Pleasant Hill, CA. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/
download?doi=10.1.1.321.5854&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Nagy, M. (1991). Philosophical issues in the psychology of C. G. Jung. Albany,

NY: State University of New York Press.

Neimark, E. D. (1985). Moderators of competence: Challenges to the universality

of Piagetian theory. In E. D. Neimark, R., De Lisi, & J. L. Newman (Eds.),
Moderators of competence (pp. 1–14). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Newton, I. (1999). The principia: Mathematical principles of natural philosophy

(Vols. 1–3, I. B. Cohen & A. Whitman, Trans.). Berkeley, CA: University
of California Press. (Original work published 1687)

O'Brien, D. P., & Overton, W. F. (1982). Conditional reasoning and the

competence-performance issue: A developmental analysis of a training
task. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 34(2), 274–290.
Retrieved from www.researchgate.net/profile/Willis_Overton/publication/
222968232_Conditional_reasoning_and_the_competence-
performance_issue_A_developmental_analysis_of_a_training_task/links/5
5c4ea8408aeca747d61829f.pdf

Orwoll, L., & Perlmutter, M. (1990). The study of wise persons: Integrating a
personality perspective. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Wisdom: Its nature,
origins, and development (pp. 160–177). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.

314
Page, H. (2005). The impact of ego development on spiritual construct among
Hindu, Buddhist, and Christian renunciates (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from Dissertation Abstracts International. (Pub. No. AAT
3174545)

Page, H. (2011). Postconventional ego development and self-transcendence in

religious renunciates. In A. Pfaffenberger, P. W. Marko, & A. Combs
(Eds.), The postconventional personality: Assessing, researching, and
theorizing higher development (pp. 119–131). Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.

Palmer, R. E. (1969). Hermeneutics: Interpretation theory in Schleiermacher,

Dilthey, Heidegger, and Gadamer. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University
Press.

Pandit, M. P. (2008). Yoga of transformation. Wilmot, WI: Lotus Light

Publications.

Pascual-Leone, J. (1970). A mathematical model for the transition rule in Piaget's

developmental stages. Acta Psychologica, 63, 301–345. Retrieved from
http://resources.ciis.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docvie
w/615716228?accountid=25260

Pascual-Leone, J. A. (1976). A view of cognition from a formalist's perspective.

In K. F. Riegel & J. A. Meacham (Eds.), The developing individual in a
changing world (pp. 89–100). The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton.

Pascual-Leone, J. (1980). Constructive problems for constructive theories: The

current relevance of Piaget's work and a critique of information-processing
simulation psychology. In R. H. Kluwe & H. Spada (Eds.), Developmental
models of thinking (pp. 263–296). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Pascual-Leone, J. (1983). Growing into human maturity: Towards a

metasubjective theory of adulthood stages. In P. Baltes & O. Brim (Eds.),
Life-span development and behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 117–156). New York,
NY: Academic Press.

Pascual-Leone, J. (1984). Attentional, dialectic, and mental effort: Toward an

organismic theory of life stages. In M. L. Commons, E. A. Richards, & C.
Armon (Eds.), Beyond formal operations: Late adolescent and adult
cognitive development (Vol. 1, pp. 182–215). New York, NY: Praeger
Publisher.

315
Pascual-Leone, J. (1990). An essay on wisdom: Towards organismic processes
that make it possible. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.). Wisdom: Its nature, origin
and development (pp. 244–278). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.

Pascual-Leone, J., & Smith, J. (1969). The encoding and decoding of symbols by
children: A new experimental paradigm and a neo-Piagetian model.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 8(2), 328–355.
doi:10.1016/0022-0965(69)90107-6

Paterson, B. L., Thorne, S. E., Canam, C., & Jillings, C. (2001). Meta-study of
qualitative health research: A practical guide to meta-analysis and meta-
synthesis (Vol. 3). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Pederson, W. (2011). The embodied hero: A heuristic study of actualizing

masculinity (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses. (Order No. AAI3444935)

Perovich, A. N., Jr. (1990). Does the philosophy of mysticism rest on a mistake?
In R. K. C. Forman (Eds.), The problem of pure consciousness: Mysticism
and philosophy (pp. 237–253). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Perry, C. W., Laurence, J. R., D'Eon, J., & Tallant, B. (1988). Hypnotic age
regression techniques in the elicitation of memories: Applied uses and
abuses. In H. M. Pettinati (Ed.), Hypnosis and memory (pp. 128–154).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Perry, W. G. (1968). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college

years: A scheme. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Perry, W. G. (Ed.). (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the

college years. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Pfaffenberger, A. H. (2003). An inquiry into optimal adult development (Master’s

thesis). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. (Order
No. 1414499)

Pfaffenberger, A. H. (2007a). Different conceptualizations of optimum

development. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 47(4), 501–523.
doi:10.1177/0022167806296858

Pfaffenberger, A. H. (2007b). Exploring the pathways to postconventional

personality development (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest.
(Order No. AAI3246553)

316
Pfaffenberger, A. H. (2011). Assessing postconventional personality: How valid
and reliable is the sentence completion test? In A. H. Pfaffenberger, P. W.
Marko, & A. Combs (Eds.), The postconventional personality: Assessing,
researching, and theorizing higher development (pp. 9–22). Albany, NY,
US: State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.

Piaget, J. (1999). The child’s conception of physical causality (M. Gabain,

Trans.). London, United Kingdom: Routledge. (Original work published
1930)

Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children (M. Cook, Trans). New
York, NY: International Universities Press. (Original work published
1936)

Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York, NY: Basic
Books. (Original work published 1937)

Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child. New York, NY: The Free
Press. (Original work published 1932)

Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology (E. Duckworth, Trans.). New York, NY:
Columbia University Press. (Original work published 1950)

Piaget, J. (1972a). Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood. Human

Development, 15, 1–12. (Original work published 1970)

Piaget, J. (1972b). Psychology and epistemology (A. Rosin, Trans.). New York,
NY: Viking. (Original work published 1970)

Piaget, J. (1976). Biology and cognition. In B. Inhelder & H. Chipman (Eds.),

Piaget and his school (pp. 45–62). New York, NY: Springer Verlag.
(Original work published 1966)

Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought (A. Rosin, Trans.). New York, NY:
Viking. (Original work published 1975)

Piaget, J. (1978). Success and understanding (A. J. Pomerans, Trans.).

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published
1974)

Piechowski, M. (1975). A theoretical and empirical approach to the study of

development. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 92, 231–297. Retrieved
from http://resources.ciis.edu:2048/
login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/616026941?accountid=252
60

317
Piechowski, M. (1978). Self-actualization as a developmental structure: A profile
of Antoine de Saint Exupéry. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 97, 181–
242. Retrieved from http://resources.ciis.edu:2048/
login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/616323211?accountid=252
60

Polkinghorne, D. E. (1989). Phenomenological research methods. In R. S. Valle

& S. Halling (Eds.), Existential-phenomenological perspectives in
psychology (pp. 41–60). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Potter, B. (2015). Elements of reparation: Truth, faith, and transformation in the

works of Heidegger, Bion, and beyond. London, United Kingdom. Karnac
Books.

Potter, J. & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond

attitudes and behaviour. London, United Kingdom: Sage.

Powell, P. M. (1980). Advanced social role-taking and cognitive development in

gifted adults. The International Journal of Aging and Human
Development, 11(3), 177–192. doi:10.2190/TUM9-DM8A-QE29-BUBF

Prigogine, I. (1980). From being to becoming: Time and complexity in the

physical sciences. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.

Rachel, A. T. (2012). Ecologies of the soul: A study of the relationships between

the human psyche and nonphysical entities (Doctoral dissertation).
Retreived from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. (Order No.
3548077)

Riccardi, L. (2011). Soul studies in a pluralistic age: A study of the soul in the
western tradition (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses Global. (Order No. 3467343)

Richards, F. A., & Commons, M. L. (1984). Systematic, metasystemic, and cross-

paradigmatic reasoning: A case for stages of reasoning beyond formal
operations. In M. L. Commons, F. A. Richards & C. Armon (Eds.),
Beyond formal operations: Late adolescent and adult cognitive
development (Vol. 1, pp. 92–119). New York, NY: Praeger.

Richards, F. A., & Commons, M. L. (1990). Postformal cognitive-developmental

theory and research: A review of its current status. Higher stages of human
development: Perspectives on adult growth. In C. Alexander & E. Langer
(Eds.), Higher stages of human development (pp. 139–161). New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.

318
Riegel, K. F. (1973). Dialectic operations: The final period of cognitive
development. Human Development, 16(5), 346–370. Retreived from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.2333-
8504.1973.tb00199.x/pdf

Riegel, K. F. (1975). Toward a dialectical theory of development. Human

Development, 18(1–2), 50–64. doi:10.1159/000271475

Riegel, K. F. (1976). The dialectics of human development. American

Psychologist, 31(10), 689. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.31.10.689

Riegel, K. F. (1978). Psychology mon amour: A countertext. Boston, MA:

Houghton Mifflin.

Rogers, C. R. (1963). The actualizing tendency in relation to “motives” and to

consciousness. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation
(Vol. 1, pp. 1–24). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Romanyshyn, R. D. (2007). The wounded researcher: Research with soul in mind.

South Burlington, VT: Spring Journal Books.

Romanyshyn, R. (2012). Complex education: Depth psychology as a mode of

ethical pedagogy. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44(1), 96–116.
doi:10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00658.x

Rose, L. T., & Fischer, K. W. (2009). Dynamic development: A neo-Piagetian

approach. In L. T. Rose & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), The Cambridge
companion to Piaget (pp. 400–421). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.

Rothberg, D., & Kelly, S. (Eds.). (1998). Ken Wilber in dialogue: Conversations
with leading transpersonal thinkers. Wheaton, IL: Theosophical
Publishing House.

Rowan, J., Daniels, M., Fontana, D., & Walley, M. (2009). A dialogue on Ken
Wilber’s contribution to transpersonal psychology. Transpersonal
Psychology Review, 13(2), 5–41. Retrieved from www.researchgate.net/
profile/John_Rowan2/publication/228750704_A_dialogue_on_Ken_Wilbe
r's_contribution_to_transpersonal_psychology/links/545f233e0cf2c1a63bf
c297e.pdf

Ryle, G. (2009). The concept of mind (60th anniversary ed.). New York, NY:
Routledge. (Original work published 1949)

319
Salaverry, M. L. M. (2008). Love unrequited: Imaginal and post-modern
reflections (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses Global. (Order No. 3417873)

Samraj, Adi Da. (1995). The method of the Siddhas: Talks on the spiritual
technique of the saviors of mankind (3rd ed.). Middletown, CA: Dawn
Horse Press.

Sandberg, J., & Alvesson, M. (2011). Ways of constructing research questions:

gap-spotting or problematization? Organization, 18(1), 23–44.
doi:10.1177/1350508410372151

Satprem. (1970). Sri Aurobindo on the adventure of consciousness. Retreived

from www.aurobindo.ru/workings/satprem/
adventure_of_consciousness_e.htm#013

Schiller, F. C. S. (1905). The definition of “pragmatism” and “humanism.” Mind,

14(2), 235–240. Retrieved from http://mind.oxfordjournals.org/
content/XIV/2/235.full.pdf+html

Schutz, A. (1945). On multiple realities. Philosophy and Phenomenological

Research: A Quarterly Journal, 5, 533–575. doi:10.1007/978-94-010-
2851-6_9

Schutz, A. (1953). Common-sense and scientific interpretation of human action.

Philosophy and Phenomenological Research: A Quarterly Journal, 14, 1–
37. doi:10.1007/978-94-010-2851-6_1

Schutz, A. (1967). The phenomenology of the social world. Evanston, IL:

Northwestern University. (Original work published 1932)

Schwandt, T.A. (1993). Theory for the moral sciences: Crisis in identity and
purpose. In D. J. Flinders & G. E. Mills (Eds.), Theory and concepts in
qualitative research: Perspectives from the field (pp. 5–23). New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.

Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York, NY: Free
Press.

Seeman, G. W. (2001). Individuation and subtle body: A commentary on Jung's

kundalini seminar (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from PsycINFO.
(Order No. AAI3035189)

Shayer, M., Demetriou, A., & Pervez, M. (1988). The structure and scaling of
concrete operational thought: Three studies in four countries. Genetic,
Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 114(3), 307–375. Retrieved

320
 from http://resources.ciis.edu:2048/
login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/617544259?accountid=252
60

Sheldrake, R. (1981). A new science of life: The hypothesis of formative

causation. London, United Kingdom: Blond & Briggs.

Sheldrake, R. (1988). The presence of the past: Morphic resonance and the habits
of nature. Rochester, VT: Park Street.

Sheldrake, R. (2009). Morphic resonance: The nature of formative causation.

Rochester, VT: Park Street.

Sheldrake, R. (2012). The science delusion. London, United Kingdom: Coronet.

Shirazi, B. A. K. (1994). Self in integral psychology. (Doctoral dissertation).

Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (304144061)

Shirazi, B. A. K. (2001). Integral psychology: Metaphors and processes of

integral transformation. In M. Cornelissen (Ed.), Consciousness and its
transformation (pp. 29–53). Pondicherry, India: Sri Aurobindo
International Centre of Education.

Shirazi, B. A. K. (2010). Wholeness, integration of personality, and conscious

evolution in integral psychology. Revision 32(1), 7–12. Retrieved from
www.revisionpublishing.org/

Shirazi, B. A. K. (2015). Integrative research: Integral epistemology and

integrative methodology. Integral Review: A Transdisciplinary &
Transcultural Journal for New Thought, Research, & Praxis, 11(1).
Retrieved from www.integral-review.org/
documents/Shirazi,%20Vol.%2011,%20No.%201,%20CIIS%20Special%
20Issue.pdf

Shostrom, E. L. (1968). Personal orientation inventory: An inventory for the

measurement of self-actualization. San Diego, CA: Educational and
Industrial Testing Service.

Singh, K. (2001). Beyond postmodernism: Towards a future psychology. In M.

Cornelissen (Ed.), Consciousness and its transformation. Pondicherry,
India: Sri Aurobindo Ashram.

Singh, K. (2014). Beyond mind: The future of psychology as a science. In M.

Cornelissen, G., Miśra, & S. Varma (Eds.), Foundations and applications
of Indian psychology (pp. 40–52). Delhi, India: Pearson.

321
Sinnott, J. D. (1981). The theory of relativity: A metatheory for development.
Human Development, 24, 293–311. doi:10.1159/000272708

Sinnott, J. D. (1984). Postformal reasoning: The relativistic stage. In M. L.

Commons, F. A. Richards, & C. Armon (Eds.), Beyond formal operations:
Late adolescent and adult cognitive development (pp. 298–325). New
York, NY: Praeger.

Sinnott, J. D. (1987). Models of physiology/cognition relations: Their prevalence

in the literature and their utility in examining the effects of blood pressure
on vocabulary and memory for designs. Paper presented at the American
Psychological Association Convention. New York, NY.

Sinnott, J. D. (1991). Limits to problem-solving: Emotion, intention, goal clarity,

health, and other factors in postformal thought. In J. D. Sinnott & J.
Cavanaugh (Eds.), Bridging paradigms: Positive development in
adulthood and cognitive aging. New York, NY: Praeger.

Sinnott, J, D. (1993). Yes, it's worth the trouble! Unique contributions from
everyday cognitive studies. In J. M. Puckett & H. W. Reese (Eds.),
Mechanisms of everyday cognition (pp. 73–94). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sinnott, J. D. (1994). The relationship of postformal thought, adult learning, and

lifespan development. In J. D. Sinnott (Ed.), Interdisciplinary handbook of
adult lifespan learning (pp. 105–119). Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Sinnott, J. D., & Guttmann, D. (1978). Dialectics of decision making in older

adults. Human Development, 21(3), 190–200. doi:10.1159/000271582

Skrbina, D. (2005). Panpsychism in the West. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Smith, C. M. (1997). Jung and shamanism in dialogue: Retrieving the soul:

Retrieving the sacred. New York, NY: Paulist Press.

Snarey, J. R. (1982). The social and moral development of Kibbutz founders and
sabras: A cross-sectional and longitudinal cross-cultural study (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
(Order No. 8302435)

Snarey, J. (1986). The relationship of social-moral development with cognitive

and ego development: A cross-cultural study. Cross-Cultural Research,
20(1–4), 132–146. doi:10.1177/106939718602000106

322
Snarey, J. R. & Blasi, J. R. (1980). Ego development among adult kibbutzniks: A
cross-cultural application of Loevinger's theory. Genetic Psychology
Monographs, 102, 117–157. Retrieved from http://resources.ciis.edu:2048/
login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/616450137?accountid=252
60

Snarey, J., & Keljo, K. (1991). In a Gemeinschaft voice: The cross-cultural

expansion of moral development theory. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L.
Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development (Vol. 1, pp.
395–424). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaun Associates.

Snarey, J., Kohlberg, L., & Noam, G. (1983). Ego development in perspective:
Structural stage, functional phase, and cultural age-period models.
Developmental Review, 3(3), 303–338. Retrieved from
www.researchgate.net/profile/John_Snarey/publication/223176992_Ego_d
evelopment_in_perspective_Structural_stage_functional_phase_and_cultu
ral_age-period_models/links/551b174c0cf2fdce8438668e.pdf

Spanos, N. P., Menary, E., Gabora, N. J., DuBreuil, S. C., & Dewhirst, B. (1991).
Secondary identity enactments during hypnotic past-life regression: A
sociocognitive perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
61(2), 308–320. Retrieved from http://construct.haifa.ac.il/
~ofram/spanos_et_al.pdf

Sri Aurobindo (Aurobindo Ghose). (1954). Letters on Savitri. Pondicherry, India:

Sri Aurobindo Ashram Press. Retrieved from
www.sriaurobindoashram.org/ashram/sriauro/downloadpdf.php?id=43

Sri Aurobindo (Aurobindo Ghose). (1959). A practical guide to integral yoga (3rd
ed.). Pondicherry, India: Sri Aurobindo Ashram Press. Retrieved from
https://archive.org/stream/practicalguideto032223mbp/practicalguideto032
223mbp_djvu.txt

Sri Aurobindo (Aurobindo Ghose). (1970). Sri Aurobindo: The hour of God and
other writings: Pondicherry, India: Sri Aurobindo Birth Centenary
Library. Retrieved from www.sriaurobindoashram.org/
ashram/sriauro/downloadpdf.php?id=27

Sri Aurobindo (Aurobindo Ghose). (1982). Sri Aurobindo: Archives and research
(Vol. 6). Pondicherry, India: Sri Aurobindo Ashram Press.

Sri Aurobindo (Aurobindo Ghose). (1997a). Essays Divine and human: Writings
from manuscripts 1910–1950. In Complete works of Sri Aurobindo (Vol.
12). Pondicherry, India: Sri Aurobindo Ashram Press. Retrieved from
www.sriaurobindoashram.org/ashram/sriauro/downloadpdf.php?id=27

323
Sri Aurobindo (Aurobindo Ghose). (1997b). Savitri: A legend and a symbol. In
Complete works of Sri Aurobindo (Vols. 33–24). Pondicherry, India: Sri
Aurobindo Ashram Press. (Original work published 1950) Retrieved from
www.sriaurobindoashram.org/ashram/sriauro/downloadpdf.php?id=43

Sri Aurobindo (Aurobindo Ghose). (1997c). The human cycle: The ideal of
human unity, war and, self-determination. In Complete works of Sri
Aurobindo (Vol. 25). Pondicherry, India: Sri Aurobindo Ashram Press.
Retrieved from www.sriaurobindoashram.org/ashram/sriauro/
downloadpdf.php?id=38

Sri Aurobindo (Aurobindo Ghose). (1998). Essays in philosophy and yoga:

Shorter works 1910–1950. In Complete works of Sri Aurobindo (Vol. 13).
Pondicherry, India: Sri Aurobindo Ashram Press. Retrieved from
www.sriaurobindoashram.org/ashram/sriauro/downloadpdf.php?id=28

Sri Aurobindo (Aurobindo Ghose). (1999). The synthesis of yoga. In Complete

works of Sri Aurobindo (Vols. 23–24). Pondicherry, India: Sri Aurobindo
Ashram Press. (Original work published 1955) Retrieved from
www.sriaurobindoashram.org/ashram/sriauro/downloadpdf.php?id=37

Sri Aurobindo (Aurobindo Ghose). (2003). Early cultural writings. In Complete

works of Sri Aurobindo (Vol. 1). Pondicherry, India: Sri Aurobindo
Ashram Press. Retrieved from www.sriaurobindoashram.org/ashram/
sriauro/downloadpdf.php?id=19

Sri Aurobindo (Aurobindo Ghose). (2005). The life Divine. In Complete works of
Sri Aurobindo (Vols. 21–22). Pondicherry, India: Sri Aurobindo Ashram
Press. (Original work published 1940) Retrieved from
www.sriaurobindoashram.org/ashram/sriauro/downloadpdf.php?id=36

Sri Aurobindo (Aurobindo Ghose). (2008). Essays in philosophy and yoga:

Shorter Works. 1910–1950.  In Complete works of Sri Aurobindo (Vol.
13). Pondicherry, India: Sri Aurobindo Ashram Press. (Original work
published 1950) Retrieved from www.sriaurobindoashram.org/ashram/
sriauro/downloadpdf.php?id=28

Sri Aurobindo (Aurobindo Ghose). (2012). Letters on yoga – I: Foundations of

the integral yoga. In Complete works of Sri Aurobindo (Vol. 28).
Pondicherry, India: Sri Aurobindo Ashram Press. Retrieved from
www.sriaurobindoashram.org/ashram/sriauro/downloadpdf.php?id=41

Sri Aurobindo (Aurobindo Ghose). (2013). Letters on yoga – II. In Complete

works of Sri Aurobindo (Vol. 29). Pondicherry, India: Sri Aurobindo
Ashram Press. Retrieved from www.sriaurobindoashram.org/ashram/
sriauro/downloadpdf.php?id=68

324
Sri Aurobindo (Aurobindo Ghose). (2014a). Letters on yoga – III: Experiences
and realisations in the integral yoga. In Complete works of Sri Aurobindo
(Vol. 30). Pondicherry, India: Sri Aurobindo Ashram Press. Retrieved
from www.sriaurobindoashram.org/ashram/sriauro/
downloadpdf.php?id=69

Sri Aurobindo (Aurobindo Ghose). (2014b). Letters on yoga – IV: Transformation

of human nature in the integral yoga. In Complete works of Sri Aurobindo
(Vol. 31). Pondicherry, India: Sri Aurobindo Ashram Press. Retrieved
from www.sriaurobindoashram.org/ashram/sriauro/
downloadpdf.php?id=70

Staudinger, U. M., Maciel, A. G., Smith, J., & Baltes, P. B. (1998). What predicts
wisdom‐related performance? A first look at personality, intelligence, and
facilitative experiential contexts. European Journal of Personality, 12(1),
1–17. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0984(199801/02)12:1<1::AID-
PER285>3.0.CO;2-9

Sternberg, R. J. (1981). The evolution of theories of intelligence. Intelligence,

5(3), 209–230. doi:10.1016/S0160-2896(81)80009-8

Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (1990). Wisdom: Its nature, origins, and development. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (1998a). A balance theory of wisdom. Review of General

Psychology, 2, 347–365. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.4.347

Sternberg, R. J. (1998b). Abilities are forms of developing expertise. Educational

Researcher, 27, 11–20. doi:10.3102/0013189X027003011

Sternberg, R. J., & Downing, C. J. (1982). The development of higher-order

reasoning in adolescence. Child Development, 209–221.
doi:10.2307/1129655

Stevens-Long, J. (1979). Adult life: Developmental processes. Palo Alto, CA:

Mayfield. Retrieved from http://resources.ciis.edu:2048/
login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/618212708?accountid=252
60

Stevens-Long, J. (1990). Adult development: Theories past and future. In R. A.

Nemiroff & C. A. Colarusso (Eds.), New dimensions in adult development
(pp. 125–169). New York, NY. Basic Books.

325
Stevens-Long, J. (2011). The prism self revisited: The matter of integrity. In A.
Pfaffenberger, P. Marko, A. Combs (Eds.), The postconventional
personality: Assessing, researching, and theorizing higher development
(pp. 402–447). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Stevens-Long, J., & Commons, M. L. (1992). Adult life: Developmental

processes. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Stevenson, I. (1974a). Twenty cases suggestive of reincarnation (2nd rev. ed.).

Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia.

Stevenson, I. (1974b). Xenoglossy: A review and report of a case. Charlottesville,

VA: University Press of Virginia.

Stevenson, I. (1976). A preliminary report on a new case of responsive

xenoglossy: The case of Gretchen. Journal of the American Society for
Psychical Research, 70, 65–77. Retrieved from https://med.virginia.edu/
perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploads/sites/267/2015/11/STE6.pdf

Stevenson, I. (1977a). Research into the evidence of man's survival after death: A
historical and critical survey with a summary of recent developments. The
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 165(3), 152–170.
doi:10.1097/00005053-197709000-00002

Stevenson, I. (1977b). The explanatory value of the idea of reincarnation. The

Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 164(5), 305–326. Retrieved from
Retrieved from http://resources.ciis.edu:2048/
login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/616194142?accountid=252
60

Stevenson, I. (1982). Survival after death: Evidence and issues. In I. Grattan-

Guinness (Ed.), Psychical research: A guide to its history, principles and
practices (pp. 109–122). Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, England:
Aquarian Press.

Stevenson, I. (1983a). American children who claim to remember previous lives.

Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 171, 742–748. Retrieved from
http://journals.lww.com/jonmd/Abstract/1983/12000/American_Children_
Who_Claim_to_Remember_Previous.6.aspx

Stevenson, I. (1983b). Cryptomnesia and parapsychology. Journal of the Society

for Psychical Research, 52, 1–30. Retrieved from
http://resources.ciis.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docvie
w/616801437?accountid=25260

326
Stevenson, I. (1984). Unlearned language: New studies in xenoglossy.
Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia.

Stevenson, I. (1987). Children who remember past lives: A question of

reincarnation. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia.

Stevenson, I. (1990). Phobias in children who claim to remember previous lives.

Journal of Scientific Exploration, 4, 243–254. Retrieved from
https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-
content/uploads/sites/267/2015/11/STE34Stevenson-1.pdf

Stevenson, I. (1994). A case of the psychotherapist's fallacy: Hypnotic regression

to "previous lives." American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 36, 188–193.
Retrieved from www.medicine.virginia.edu/clinical/departments/
psychiatry/sections/cspp/dops/dr.-stevensons-publications/STE40.pdf

Stevenson, I. (1997a). Reincarnation and biology: A contribution to the etiology

of birthmarks and birth defects (Vols. 1–2). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Stevenson, I. (1997b). Where reincarnation and biology intersect. Westport, CT:

Praeger.

Stevenson, I., & Pasricha, S. (1980). A preliminary report on an unusual case of

the reincarnation type with xenoglossy. Journal of the American Society
for Psychical Research, 74, 331–348. Retrieved from
https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-
content/uploads/sites/267/2015/11/STE7.pdf

Sullivan, E. V., McCullough, G., & Stager, M. (1970). A developmental study of

the relationship between conceptual, ego, and moral development. Child
Development, 399–411. doi:10.2307/1127040

Sullivan, E. V., & Quarter, J. (1972). Psychological correlates of certain

postconventional moral types: A perspective on hybrid types. Journal of
personality, 40(2), 149–161. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1972.tb00995.x

Sumerlin, J. R., & Bunderick, C. M. (1996). Brief index of self-actualization: A

measure of Maslow’s model. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality,
11(2), 253–271. Retrieved from http://resources.ciis.edu:2048/
login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/618849541?accountid=252
60

Talbot, M. (1992). The holographic universe. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

327
Tarazi, L. (1990). An unusual case of hypnotic regression with some unexplained
contents. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 84,
309–344. Retrieved from http://resources.ciis.edu:2048/
login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/617929214?accountid=252
60

Tarnas, R. (1991). The passion of the Western mind: Understanding the ideas that
have shaped our world view. New York, NY: Ballantine.

Tarnas, R. (2002). Foreword. In J. N. Ferrer, Revisioning transpersonal theory: A

participatory vision of human spirituality (pp. vii–xvi). Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.

The Mother (Mirra Alfassa). (1981). Mother’s agenda–1961 (Vol. 2). Paris,
France: Institut de Recherche Évolutives.

The Mother (Mirra Alfassa). (1993). Mother’s agenda–1967 (Vol. 8). Paris,
France: Institut de Recherche Évolutives.

The Mother (Mirra Alfassa). (2001). On thoughts and aphorisms. In The collected
works of the Mother (Vol. 10, 2nd ed.). Pondicherry, India: Sri Aurobindo
Ashram Press. Retrieved from www.sriaurobindoashram.org/ashram/
mother/downloadpdf.php?id=10

The Mother (Mirra Alfassa). (2002). On education. In The collected works of the
Mother (Vol. 12, 2nd ed.). Pondicherry, India: Sri Aurobindo Ashram
Press. Retrieved from www.sriaurobindoashram.org/ashram/mother/
downloadpdf.php?id=12

The Mother (Mirra Alfassa). (2004a). More answers from the Mother. In The
collected works of the Mother (Vol. 17, 2nd ed.). Pondicherry, India: Sri
Aurobindo Ashram Press. Retrieved from www.sriaurobindoashram.org/
ashram/mother/downloadpdf.php?id=17

The Mother (Mirra Alfassa). (2004b). Questions and answers 1956. In The
collected works of the Mother (Vol. 8, 2nd ed.). Pondicherry, India: Sri
Aurobindo Ashram Press. Retrieved from www.sriaurobindoashram.org/
ashram/mother/downloadpdf.php?id=8

The Mother (Mirra Alfassa). (2004c). Questions and answers 1957–1958. In The
collected works of the Mother (Vol. 9). Pondicherry, India: Sri Aurobindo
Ashram Press. Retrieved from www.sriaurobindoashram.org/ashram/
mother/downloadpdf.php?id=9

328
The Mother (Mirra Alfassa). (2004d). Words of the Mother – II. In The collected
works of the Mother (Vol. 14, 2nd ed.). Pondicherry, India: Sri Aurobindo
Ashram Press. Retrieved from www.sriaurobindoashram.org/ashram/
mother/downloadpdf.php?id=14

The Mother (Mirra Alfassa). (2004e). Words of the Mother–III. In The collected
works of the Mother (Vol. 15, 2nd ed.). Pondicherry, India: Sri Aurobindo
Ashram Press. Retrieved from www.sriaurobindoashram.org/ashram/
mother/downloadpdf.php?id=15

Tolman, C. (1981). The metaphysic of relations in Klaus Riegel’s “Dialectics” of

human development. Human Development, 24(1), 33–51. Retrieved from
http://resources.ciis.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docvie
w/616483822?accountid=25260

Torbert, W. R. (1972). Learning from experience: Toward consciousness. New

York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Torbert, W. R. (2004). Action inquiry: The secret of timely and transforming

leadership. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Underhill, E. (1961). Mysticism: A study in the nature and development of man’s

spiritual consciousness. New York, NY: Dutton. (Original work published
1911)

Underhill, E. (1974). Mysticism. New York, NY: New American Library.

(Original work published 1955)

Vaillant, G. E. (1977). Adaptation to life. Boston, MA: Little Brown.

Vaille, R. S., King, M., & Haling. S. (1989). An introduction to existential

phenomenological thought in psychology. In R. S. Vaille & S. Halling
(Eds.), Existential phenomenological perspectives in psychology:
Exploring the breadth of human experience. New York, NY: Plenum.

van den Daele, L. D. (1975). Ego development in dialectical perspective. Human

Development, 18(3), 129–142. Retrieved from
http://resources.ciis.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docvie
w/64018785?accountid=25260

van der Post, L. (1957). Race prejudice as self-rejection: An inquiry into the
psychological and spiritual aspects of group conflicts. Retrieved from
www.ratical.com/many_worlds/LvdP/SelfReject.pdf

329
Vandewalle, K. M. (2012). Transformative power of kundalini yoga, meditation
& mantra: A dialogue between Kundalini yogic philosophy and the depth
psychological tradition (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses Global. (Order No. 3552262)

Velmans, M. (1998). Goodbye to reductionism. In S. Hameroff, A. Kaszniak, &

A. Scott (Eds.), Towards a science of consciousness II: The second Tucson
discussions and debates (pp. 45–52). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Venn, J. (1986). Hypnosis and the reincarnation hypothesis: A critical review and
intensive case study. Journal of the American Society for Psychical
Research, 80, 409–425. Retrieved from http://resources.ciis.edu:2048/
login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/617275310?accountid=252
60

von Franz, M. L. (1968). The process of individuation. In C. G. Jung & M. L. von

Franz (Eds.), Man and his symbols (pp. 157–254). New York, NY: Dell
Publishing–Random House.

Wade, J. (1996). Changes of mind: A holonomic theory of the evolution of

consciousness. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Walach, H. (2005). Higher self–spark of the mind–summit of the soul. Early

history of an important concept of transpersonal psychology in the West.
International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 24, 16–28. Retrieved
http://www.transpersonalstudies.org/ImagesRepository/ijts/Downloads/W
alach%202005%20Higher%20Self%20Spark%20of%20Mind.pdf

Walsh, R. (2001). Authenticity, conventionality, and angst: Existential and

transpersonal perspectives. In K. Schneider, J. Bugental. J. F. Pierson,
(Eds.), The handbook of humanistic psychology (pp. 609–620). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Walsh, R., & Vaughan, F. (1993). Introduction. In R. Walsh & F. Vaughan (Eds.),
Paths beyond ego: The transpersonal vision. Los Angeles, CA: Jeremy P.
Tarcher.

Walsh, R., & Vaughan, F. (1994). The worldview of Ken Wilber. Journal of
Humanistic Psychology, 34(2), 6–21. doi:10.1177/00221678940342002

Ward, K. (1992). Defending the soul. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oneworld.

330
Washburn, M. (1988). The ego and the dynamic ground: A transpersonal theory
of human development. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Washburn, M. (1994). Transpersonal psychology in psychoanalytic perspective.

Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Washburn, M. (1995). The ego and the dynamic ground: A transpersonal theory
of human development (2nd ed.). Albany, NY: State University of New
York Press.

Washburn, M. (1998). The pre/trans fallacy reconsidered. In D. Rothberg & S.

Kelly (Eds.), Ken Wilber in dialogue: Conversations with leading
transpersonal thinkers (pp. 62–83). Wheaton, IL: Quest Books.

Washburn, M. (1999). Embodied spirituality in a sacred world. The Humanistic

Psychologist, 27(2), 133–172. doi:10.1080/08873267.1999.9986902

Washburn, M. (2003). Embodied spirituality in a sacred world. Albany, NY:

State University of New York Press.

Weber, M. (1964). The theory of social and economic organization. New York,
NY: Free Press. (Original work published 1947)

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations (Vol. 3). London, United

Kingdom: Sage.

Weinreich, H. (1977). Some consequences of replicating Kohlberg's original

moral development study on a British sample. Journal of Moral
Education, 7(1), 32–39. doi:10.1080/0305724770070104

Weiss, E. M. (2003). The doctrine of the subtle worlds: Sri Aurobindo's

cosmology, modern science, and the metaphysics of Alfred North
Whitehead. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses. (Order No. 3078797)

Weiss, E. M. (2004). Embodiment: An explanatory framework for the exploration

of reincarnation and personality survival. Retrieved from
www.ericweiss.com/papers/pdf/EMBODIMENT.pdf

Weiss, E. M. (2012). The long trajectory: The metaphysics of reincarnation and

life after death. Bloomington, IN: iUniverse.

Werner, H. (1957). The concept of development from a comparative and

organismic point of view. In D. Harris (Ed.), The concept of development
(pp. 125–148). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

331
Wilber, K. (1980). The Atman project. Wheaton, IL: Quest Books.

Wilber, K. (1982). The pre/trans fallacy. Journal of Humanistic Psychology,

22(2), 5–43. doi:10.1177/0022167882222002

Wilber, K. (1984). The developmental spectrum and psychopathology: Part I.

Stages and types of pathology. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology,
16(1), 75. Retrieved from www.atpweb.org/jtparchive/trps-16-84-01-
075.pdf

Wilber, K. (1986). Up from Eden: A transpersonal view of human evolution.

Boston, MA: Shambhala.

Wilber, K. (1989). Two humanistic psychologies? A response. Journal of

Humanistic Psychology, 29(2), 230–243. doi:10.1177/0022167889292006

Wilber, K. (1993). The spectrum of consciousness. Wheaton, IL: Quest Books.

Wilber, K. (1995). Sex, ecology and spirituality: The spirit of evolution. Boston,
MA: Shambhala.

Wilber, K. (1998). The essential Ken Wilber: An introductory reader. Boston,

MA: Shambhala.

Wilber, K. (1999). Integral psychology: Transformations of consciousness:

Selected essays (Vol. 4). Boston, MA: Shambhala.

Wilber, K. (2000a). A theory of everything: An integral vision for business,

politics, science, and spirituality. Boston, MA: Shambhala.

Wilber, K. (2000b). Integral psychology: Consciousness, spirit, psychology,

therapy. Boston, MA: Shambhala.

Wilber, K. (2000c). Sex, ecology, spirituality: The spirit of evolution (2nd ed.).
Boston, MA: Shambhala.

Wilber, K. (2001). The eye of spirit: An integral vision for a world gone slightly
mad (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Shambhala.

Wilber, K. (2002). Boomeritis: A novel that will set you free. Boston, MA:
Shambhala.

Wilber, K. (2003). Kosmic consciousness [audio book]. Boulder, CO: Sounds

True.

332
Wilber, K. (2004). Integral psychology: Consciousness, spirit, psychology,
therapy. Nova Religio, 8(2), 125–127. doi:10.1525/nr.2004.8.2.125

Wilber, K. (2005). A sociable God. Boston, MA: Shambhala.

Wilber, K. (2006). Integral spirituality: A startling new role for religion in the
modern and postmodern world. Boston, MA: Shambhala Press.

Wilber, K. (2007). The Integral vision: A very short introduction to the

revolutionary approach to life, God, the universe, and everything. Boston,
MA: Shambhala.

Wilber, K. (2011). The marriage of sense and soul: Integrating science and
religion. New York, NY: Random House.

Wilber, K., & Cohen, A. (2012, Nov.). The resurrection of the soul [Audio mp3].
Retrieved from www.integrallife.com/ken-wilber-dialogues/resurrection-
soul

Wilber, K., Engler, J., & Brown, D. P. (1986). Transformations of consciousness:

Conventional and contemplative perspectives on development. Boston,
MA: Shambhala.

Wohlwill, J. F. (1963). Piaget's system as a source of empirical research. Merrill-

Palmer Quarterly of Behavior and Development, 9(4), 253–262. Retrieved
from http://resources.ciis.edu:2048/
login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/60609369?accountid=2526
0

Wohlwill, J. F. (1973). The environment is not in the head!. In W. F. E. Presier

(Ed.), Environmental design research (Vol. 2, pp. 166–181). Stroudsburg,
PA: Dowden, Hutchinson, & Ross.

333