14 Spirituality Studies 10-2 Fall 2024 The following passage provides a good example of how a profound spiritual symbol can be flattened to a more restricted psychological level: “The [note: Enneagram of personality types] teaching can help us to recognize our own type and how to cope with our issues, understand our work associates, lovers, friends, and to appreciate the predisposition that each type has for higher human capacities such as empathy, omniscience, and love” (Palmer 1991, 3). Just as the human microcosm is tripartite in nature – consisting of Spirit, soul, and body – so too is the universe – as macrocosm – mirrored by way of the formless, subtle, and gross planes of existence. We must therefore be cautious when statements are made that emphasize the importance of psychological inquiry over spiritual practice, for it is the latter alone that effects a metaphysical integration of the human psyche, and not vice versa as we read here: “The way we get to our essential nature is not primarily through spiritual exercises but through psychological work to penetrate parts of the personality that are connected to underlying essential aspects of ourselves. Psychological inquiry leads to spiritual realization. Meditation supports this inquiry and sharpens it, but the psychological work is inseparable from the spiritual practice” (Hameed Ali quoted in Schwartz 1996, 406). While many contemporary approaches appear to embrace the psychology found at the heart of all spiritualties, they operate on several false assumptions which, when viewed more rigorously, are found to be antagonistic to the very mystical dimensions with which they seek to align themselves. The inner (or esoteric) aspect cannot exist without the outer (or exoteric); to only acknowledge the former is erroneous, and that is precisely what New Age pseudo-spirituality seeks to do – to strip religions of religion itself – so that it can then declare as true whatever conforms to its biases. Hujwīrī (d. 1071) explains the complementary facets of the “inner” (Ar. bāṭin) and “outer” (Ar. ẓāhir) dimensions of the Islamic tradition (in a manner applicable to all religions) as follows: “The exoteric aspect of Truth without the esoteric is hypocrisy, and the esoteric without the exoteric is heresy. So, with regard to the Law, mere formality is defective, while mere spirituality is vain” (1911, 14). Furthermore, to say that the esoteric presents itself as a spectrum of “psychologies” is very misleading, because the spiritual domain surpasses that of psychology. This is to commit the same error made by Carl Jung (1875–1961), when he reduced spirituality in this way – which is the very hallmark of psychologism. So-called “traditional esoteric psychologies” (Ornstein 1972, 95–179) are none other than New Age aberrations. They are neither “traditional” nor “esoteric” but, rather, attempts to “spiritualize” a profane psychology in a way that undermines bona fide spiritual paths. The fact that many in the humanistic and transpersonal psychology movement attribute a valid form of Súfism to a deeply problematic figure such as Idries Shah speaks volumes in itself. While Shah popularized Súfism in the West, he is not considered a valid source of traditional Súfism by respected authorities (see Wilson 1997, 179–209). We can see here how Shah cannibalizes authentic Sufi insights to cater to a secular mindset. No matter how subtle his approach may appear at first, the end result is always the same: undermining the integrity of a genuine tradition, in order to satisfy New Age inclinations. 8 The Horizontal and Vertical Dimensions of Personality Modern psychology is also confused as to what comprises our real personality. Because of the difficulty it has in discerning levels of reality – and its corresponding modes of knowing – it tends to view the conditioned personality or empirical ego as a fixed form of ultimate identity, rather than acknowledging the true source of our personality in the Divine. This disorientation can be summarized as follows: confusion of the Absolute with the relative, the vertical with the horizontal, the Spirit with the psychic, the Intellect with reason, the Self with ego, and personality with individuality. The sacred psychology informed by the spiritual traditions of humanity recognizes two forms of human identity v one relative and one Absolute – without ever blurring this distinction. Most, if not all approaches, to contemporary understandings of the Enneagram fail to delineate the distinction between personality and “Essence” (Ar. dhāt). In singling out only the relative dimension of personality, its transcendent archetype is ignored. In addressing solely the Absolute dimension of Essence, the relative aspect of an individual essence is neglected. Although this might appear as unnecessary semantic nitpicking, the precise meaning of these terms as understood in their traditional context is of the utmost importance. Modern psychology is largely confined to the relative order of reality, as its understanding of identity is entirely confined to the psychic realm: “[I]dentity comes about through the projection of an unconscious association by analogy with the object” (Jung 1976, 131). By contrast, we recall the following, which speaks to the fullness of human identity: “‘Inwardly’ every religion is the doctrine of the one Self and its earthly manifestation, as also the way leading
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTUwMDU5Ng==