4 S p i r i t ua l i t y S t u d i e s 2 - 2 Fa l l 2 0 1 6 students. The breathwork sessions have been conducted in the context of a long-term training program of professionals and of experiential workshops with a broad cross-section of the general population. In addition to material from psychedelic and holotropic breathwork sessions, I am also drawing in this paper on my observations from work with individuals undergoing spontaneous mystical experiences and episodes of psychospiritual crises (“spiritual emergencies”) (Grof and Grof 1990). Over the years, Ken and I have exchanged some ideas, which involved both compliments and critical comments about our respective theories. During this time, the thinking of both of us has undergone certain changes and developments, as can be expected in an area as rich and complex as mapping the human psyche and exploring the dimensions of consciousness. I first addressed the similarities and differences between Ken’s spectrum psychology and my own observations and theoretical constructs more than a decade ago. In my book, Beyond the Brain: Birth, Death, and Transcendence in Psychotherapy (Grof 1985), I dedicated a special section to Ken’s spectrum psychology, where I briefly described where my own findings agreed and disagreed with Ken’s theories. In my critical comments, I addressed what I saw as logical inconsistencies in Ken’s conceptual system (omission of the pre- and perinatal period and misrepresentation of the problem of death) and the lack of correspondence between his conjectures and the facts of clinical observation (concerning the dynamics of spiritual development, the nature of psychopathology, and the strategy of psychotherapy). In what follows, I will elaborate on the comments I made at the time and focus on a few additional areas. I will also reflect on Ken’s extensive written reply to my criticism that has appeared in the notes to his recent bookSex, Ecology, Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution (Wilber 1995). 2 Omission of the Pre- and Perinatal Domain in Spectrum Psychology My main reservation about Ken’s comprehensive and detailed theoretical system concerns what I perceive as his surprising conceptual blind spot in relation to the role and significance of prenatal existence and biological birth for the theory and practice of psychiatry, psychology, and psychotherapy. The discovery of the psychological and psychospiritual importance of these two periods of human development belongs to the most important contributions of experiential psychotherapy and modern consciousness research to psychology. The observations in this area have been so impressive and consistent that they have inspired the development of pre- and perinatal psychology, including regular international meetings and rapidly growing body of literature. These observations have been so convincing that they have profoundly influenced the actual birthing practices and postnatal care of many open-minded obstetricians and pediatricians. In view of these facts, I found it very surprising that Ken, with his meticulous and comprehensive approach, has completely ignored the vast amount of data from both modern and ancient sources suggesting the paramount psychological significance of prenatal experiences and of the trauma of birth, as well as their relationship to spirituality. This bias is evident in his writings focusing on cosmology, human evolution, developmental psychology, psychopathology, and psychotherapy. Ken’s description of the evolution of consciousness of an individual begins with the pleromatic stage (the undifferentiated consciousness of the newborn), and continues through the uroboric, typhonic, verbal-membership, and mental-egoic levels to the centauric stage. He refers to this progression, from the newborn infant to the adult with fully integrated functioning of the ego, persona, shadow, and body, as the outward arc. According to Ken, at the evolutionary stage of centaur begins the truly spiritual development, or the inward arc, that takes the individual to the lower and higher regions of the subtle and causal realms and finally to the boundless radiance of Formless Consciousness and the ultimate unity with the Absolute (Wilber 1980). In his account of cosmogenesis or consciousness involution, Ken closely follows the highly culture-specific archetypal map from the Tibetan Book of the Dead, Bardo Thödol (Evans-Wentz 1960), rather than creating a more general and universal description that would be applicable in any cultural and historical context. His account of cosmogenesis thus begins with the ultimate consciousness, the immaculate and luminous Dharmakaya, proceeds through the specific visions of the Tibetan bardo realms, and ends-like the Bardo Thödol – with the moment of conception when the individual who has missed all chances for spiritual liberation is facing another incarnation. This is perfectly logical and understandable for the Tibetan text, which describes the experiences in the intermediate state between death and the next incarnation. However, it results in a major logical gap in Ken’s system that allegedly portrays the entire cosmic cycle of involution and evolution of consciousness. By ending the process of the involution of consciousness at the moment of conception and beginning the account of
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzgxMzI=