Book Description
In this new edition of The Transpersonal, John Rowan takes account of the growing interest in spirituality, assessing the many new developments in the field and providing an essential overview of the multitude of guides now available on the subject.
By providing a clear and highly readable introduction to the realm of the transpersonal, this book eliminates many of the misunderstandings that plague this area. It relates the transpersonal to everyday life as well as to professional concerns and the various schools of therapy. Divided into three parts, Being, Doing and Knowing, it encourages the reader to explore the levels of consciousness, the techniques involved in transpersonal work and the underlying theory. The unique relationship between the therapist and client is examined in detail, as are the imagined and imaginal world, personal mythology and transcultural work. An entirely new section is included on the ways in which the transpersonal therapist can use the concept of subpersonalities.
This fully updated and revised version of John Rowan’s original pioneering text provides a highly practical guide which will be useful to anyone working with the growing number of people with spiritual concerns.
In this new edition of The Transpersonal, John Rowan takes account of the growing interest in spirituality, assessing the many new developments in the field and providing an essential overview of the multitude of guides now available on the subject.
By providing a clear and highly readable introduction to the realm of the transpersonal, this book eliminates many of the misunderstandings that plague this area. It relates the transpersonal to everyday life as well as to professional concerns and the various schools of therapy. Divided into three parts, Being, Doing and Knowing, it encourages the reader to explore the levels of consciousness, the techniques involved in transpersonal work and the underlying theory. The unique relationship between the therapist and client is examined in detail, as are the imagined and imaginal world, personal mythology and transcultural work. An entirely new section is included on the ways in which the transpersonal therapist can use the concept of subpersonalities.
This fully updated and revised version of John Rowan’s original pioneering text provides a highly practical guide which will be useful to anyone working with the growing number of people with spiritual concerns.
Transpersonal psychology, or spiritual psychology, is a sub-field or school of psychology that integrates the spiritual and transcendent aspects of the human experience with the framework of modern psychology. The transpersonal is defined as “experiences in which the sense of identity or self extends beyond (trans) the individual or personal to encompass wider aspects of humankind, life, psyche or cosmos”.[1] It has also been defined as “development beyond conventional, personal or individual levels”.[2]
Issues considered in transpersonal psychology include spiritual self-development, self beyond the ego, peak experiences, mystical experiences, systemic trance, spiritual crises, spiritual evolution, religious conversion, altered states of consciousness, spiritual practices, and other sublime and/or unusually expanded experiences of living. The discipline attempts to describe and integrate spiritual experience within modern psychological theory and to formulate new theory to encompass such experience. The Transpersonal Psychology Day is celebrated on February 27th.[3]
Definition
[
edit
]
Lajoie and Shapiro[4] reviewed forty definitions of transpersonal psychology that had appeared in academic literature over the period from 1968 to 1991. They found that five key themes in particular featured prominently in these definitions: states of consciousness; higher or ultimate potential; beyond the ego or personal self; transcendence; and the spiritual. Based upon this study the authors proposed the following definition of transpersonal psychology: “Transpersonal Psychology is concerned with the study of humanity’s highest potential, and with the recognition, understanding, and realization of unitive, spiritual, and transcendent states of consciousness.”
In a review of previous definitions Walsh and Vaughan[1] suggested that transpersonal psychology is an “area of psychology that focuses on the study of transpersonal experiences and related phenomena. These phenomena include the causes, effects and correlates of transpersonal experiences and development, as well as the disciplines and practices inspired by them.” They have also criticised many definitions of transpersonal psychology for carrying implicit assumptions, or presuppositions, that may not necessarily define the field as a whole.
Hartelius, Caplan and Rardin[5] conducted a retrospective analysis of definitions of transpersonal psychology. They found three dominant themes that define the field: beyond-ego psychology, integrative/holistic psychology, and psychology of transformation. Analysis suggested that the field has moved from the study of alternative states of consciousness to a more expanded view of human wholeness and transformation.
Caplan (2009: p. 231) conveys the genesis of the discipline, states its mandate and ventures a definition:
Although transpersonal psychology is relatively new as a formal discipline, beginning with the publication of The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology in 1969 and the founding of the Association for Transpersonal Psychology in 1971, it draws upon ancient mystical knowledge that comes from multiple traditions. Transpersonal psychologists attempt to integrate timeless wisdom with modern Western psychology and translate spiritual principles into scientifically grounded, contemporary language. Transpersonal psychology addresses the full spectrum of human psychospiritual development – from our deepest wounds and needs, to the existential crisis of the human being, to the most transcendent capacities of our consciousness.[6]
The perspectives of holism and unity are central to the worldview of transpersonal psychology.[7]
Development of the field
[
edit
]
Origins
[
edit
]
The thinkers who have set the stage for transpersonal studies are William James, Carl Jung, Roberto Assagioli, Abraham Maslow and Stanislav Grof.[8][7][9][10][11] More recent attention has brought to light transpersonal aspects of Jean Piaget’s untranslated French works, and argued that Piaget’s transpersonal experiences and theoretical interests were a major motivation for Piaget’s psychological research.[12] A review by Vich[13] suggests that the earliest usage of the term “transpersonal” can be found in lecture notes which William James had prepared for a semester at Harvard University in 1905–06. The meaning then, different from today’s usage, was in the context of James’ radical empiricism, in which there exists an intimate relation between a perceiving subject and a perceived object, recognizing that all objects are dependent on being perceived by someone.[14] Commentators[15] also mention the psychedelic movement, the psychological study of religion, parapsychology, and the interest in Eastern spiritual systems and practices, as influences that shaped the early field of transpersonal psychology.
Another important figure in the establishment of transpersonal psychology was Abraham Maslow, who had already published work regarding human peak experiences. Maslow is credited for having presented the outline of a fourth-force psychology, named transhumanistic psychology, in a lecture entitled “The Farther Reaches of Human Nature” in 1967.[16] In 1968 Maslow was among the people who announced transpersonal psychology as a “fourth force” in psychology,[17] in order to separate it from Humanistic psychology. Early use of the term “transpersonal” can also be credited to Stanislav Grof and Anthony Sutich. At this time, in 1967–68, Maslow was in close dialogue with both Grof and Sutich regarding the name and orientation of the new field.[13] According to Powers[18] the term “transpersonal” starts to show up in academic journals from 1970 and onwards.
Both Humanistic and Transpersonal psychology have been associated with the Human Potential Movement, a growth center for alternative therapies and philosophies that grew out of the counter-culture of the 1960s at places like Esalen, California.[19][20][21][22][23]
Formative period
[
edit
]
Gradually, during the 1960s, the term “transpersonal” was associated with a distinct school of psychology within the humanistic psychology movement.[17] In 1969, Abraham Maslow, Stanislav Grof and Anthony Sutich were among the initiators behind the publication of the first issue of the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, the leading academic journal in the field.[16][17][24] During the next decade significant establishments took place under the banner of transpersonal psychology. The Association for Transpersonal Psychology was established in 1972.[19] An international initiative, The International Transpersonal Psychology Association, was founded by Stanislav Grof, and held its first conference in Iceland in 1973.[24] This was soon to be followed by the founding of the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology, a graduate training center, in 1975 .[19][25] The institute was founded by Robert Frager and James Fadiman[25][26] in response to the academic climate of the 1970s, and included transpersonal and spiritual approaches to psychology.[25] Soon other institutions, with transpersonal psychology programs, followed. Among these were Saybrook Graduate School, the California Institute of Asian Studies (now California Institute of Integral Studies), JFK University, and Naropa.[27]
The period of the 1960’s and 1970s introduced the collective of individuals known as the founders of the field of Transpersonal psychology. Among the founders we find: Ram Dass, James Fadiman, Robert Frager, Stanislav Grof, Stanley Krippner, Ralph Metzner, Claudio Naranjo, Huston Smith, Charles Tart, Frances Vaughan, Miles Vich, Roger Walsh, Michael Washburn, John Welwood and Ken Wilber. In this period the field developed through the contributions of these profiles, and other names such as, Alyce Green, Elmer Green and Daniel Goleman.[28][24][29]
The new profiles gradually emerged at the center of activity. Frances Vaughan and John Wellwood had their background in psychotherapy, Roger Walsh was a physician, Huston Smith and Charles Tart had their background in the university system, Daniel Goleman was a science writer for the New York Times, Ram Dass was a popular Guru, and Elmer and Alyce Green were affiliated with the Menninger Foundation.[24] Another early profile, Ken Wilber, surfaced as a leading figure and a major theoretician of the field.[24][30][8] A different contributor to the field, Michael Washburn, was drawing on the insights of Jungian depth psychology.[31] According to Smith,[32] Wilber and Washburn delivered the main transpersonal models of development of this period, Wilber in 1977 and Washburn in 1988. An early preoccupation of the field was with the study of meditation. Among the authors that brought attention to this topic was Ram Dass, Daniel Goleman and Roger Walsh.[33] Another early interest for Transpersonal psychology was the topic of altered states of consciousness. Among the authors who brought attention to this topic was Charles Tart.[34]
The 1980s were characterized by the work of Stanislav and Christina Grof, and their concept of spiritual emergence and spiritual emergencies.[35][36][37] The period also reflected initiatives at the organizational level. In the early 1980s a group within APA division 32 (Humanistic Psychology) argued in favor of establishing transpersonal psychology as a separate division within the framework of the American Psychological Association. A petition was presented to the APA Council in 1984, but was turned down. A new initiative was made in 1985, but it failed to win the majority of votes in the council. In 1986 the petition was presented for a third and final time, but was withdrawn by the executive board of Division 32.[5][19] The interest group later re-formed as the Transpersonal Psychology Interest Group (TPIG), and continued to promote transpersonal issues in collaboration with Division 32.[19]
The 1990s introduced new profiles who contributed insights to the field. Among these authors we find Brant Cortright, Stuart Sovatsky, David Lukoff, Robert P. Turner and Francis Lu. Cortright[38] and Sovatsky[39] made contributions to transpersonal psychotherapy. Both authors published their primary work as part of the SUNY-series. Lukoff, Turner and Lu, writers in the clinical field, were the authors behind the proposal for a new diagnostic category to be included in the DSM-manual of the American Psychiatric Association. The category was called “Psychoreligious or psychospiritual problem” and was approved by the Task Force on DSM-IV in 1993, after changing its name to Religious or spiritual problem.[35][40][17][33]
While Wilber has been considered an influential writer and theoretician in the field of transpersonal psychology, his departure from the field was becoming more obvious during the decade of the 1990s. Although the date of his departure is unclear,[5] Freeman[34] notes that Wilber had been distancing himself from the label of “transpersonal”, in favour of the label of “integral”, since the mid-1990s. In 1998 he formed Integral Institute.[41]
On the organizational side the decade was marked by a steady increase in membership for the Association for Transpersonal Psychology, stabilizing at approximately 3000 members in the early nineties.[17] In 1996 the British Psychological Society (the UK professional body equivalent to the APA) established a Transpersonal Psychology Section. It was co-founded by David Fontana, Ingrid Slack and Martin Treacy and was, according to Fontana, “the first Section of its kind in a Western scientific society”.[42][43] In the second half of the decade commentators remarked that the field of transpersonal psychology had grown steadily[17] and rapidly.[8]
Later developments
[
edit
]
The beginning of the 2000s was marked by the revisionary project of Jorge Ferrer, which is considered to be an important contribution to the field.[44] His main publication from this era, Revisioning Transpersonal Theory – A Participatory Vision of Human Spirituality (2001),[45] was part of the SUNY Series in Transpersonal and Humanistic Psychology.
In 2007 the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology and the International Journal of Transpersonal Studies were accepted for indexing in PsycINFO, the journal database of the American Psychological Association. However, that same year, Ruzek,[28] who conducted interviews with founders of Transpersonal Psychology, as well as historians of American psychology, noted that the “American Psychological Association (APA) and most academic institutions have not yet recognized transpersonal psychology as an approved area of study; transpersonal psychology is rarely mentioned in mainstream academic journals or textbooks; and relatively few American academicians identify themselves as practitioners of transpersonal psychology. Furthermore, transpersonal psychology is scarcely mentioned, if at all, in history or introductory psychology texts”.
In 2012 the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology announced that it was changing its name to Sofia University, a change that included a new profile in the academic landscape, with an expanded graduate program featuring computer science and business.[46] In 2016, the California Institute of Integral Studies launched an online PhD degree in Integral and Transpersonal Psychology, founded and chaired by Glenn Hartelius, including Jorge Ferrer on its faculty, and sponsoring publication of the International Journal of Transpersonal Studies.
[
edit
]
Several psychological schools, or branches, have influenced the field of transpersonal psychology. Among these schools we find the Analytical psychology of Carl Jung,[8][9][38] the psychosynthesis of Roberto Assagioli,[8][10] and the humanistic psychology of Abraham Maslow.[8][10] There is a strong connection between the transpersonal and the humanistic approaches to psychology, as indicated by the sourcebook of Donald Moss.[47][48] Although transpersonal psychology is considered to have started off within,[19] or developed from humanistic psychology, many of its interests, such as spirituality and modes of consciousness, extend beyond the areas of interest discussed by humanistic theory.[15] According to writers in the field[15] transpersonal psychology advocates for an expanded, spiritual, view of physical and mental health that is not necessarily addressed by humanistic psychology.
Other transpersonal disciplines, such as transpersonal anthropology and transpersonal business studies, are listed as transpersonal disciplines. Transpersonal art is one of the disciplines considered by Boucovolas,[49] in listing how transpersonal psychology may relate to other areas of transpersonal study. In writing about transpersonal art, Boucovolas begins by noting how, according to Breccia and also to the definitions employed by the International Transpersonal Association in 1971, transpersonal art may be understood as art work which draws upon important themes beyond the individual self, such as the transpersonal consciousness. This makes transpersonal art criticism germane to mystical approaches to creativity. Transpersonal art criticism, as Boucovolas notes, can be considered that which claims conventional art criticism has been too committed to stressing rational dimensions of art and has subsequently said little on art’s spiritual dimensions, or as that which holds art work has a meaning beyond the individual person. Certain aspects of the psychology of Carl Jung, as well as movements such as music therapy and art therapy, may also relate to the field. Boucovolas’ paper cites Breccia (1971) as an early example of transpersonal art, and claims that at the time his article appeared, integral theorist Ken Wilber had made recent contributions to the field. More recently, the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, in 2005, Volume 37, launched a special edition devoted to the media, which contained articles on film criticism that can be related to this field.
Other fields of study, that are related to transpersonal psychology, include near-death studies and parapsychology. The major findings of near-death studies are represented in the Textbook of Transpersonal Psychiatry and Psychology,[50] and in The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Transpersonal Psychology.[51] The near-death experience is also discussed in relation to other transpersonal and spiritual categories.[35] The major findings of parapsychology are also represented in the Textbook of Transpersonal Psychiatry and Psychology,[50] and in The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Transpersonal Psychology.[51]
Dr. William J. Barry established transpersonal psychology as a valid action research method in the field of education through his Ph.D. thesis and development of Transformational Quality (TQ) Theory.[52] Applications to the areas of business studies and management have been developed.
A few commentators[17][53][54] have suggested that there is a difference between transpersonal psychology and a broader category of transpersonal theories, sometimes called transpersonal studies. According to Friedman[54] this category might include several approaches to the transpersonal that lie outside the frames of science. However, according to Ferrer[55] the field of transpersonal psychology is “situated within the wider umbrella of transpersonal studies”.
Transpersonal psychology may also be associated with New Age beliefs and pop psychology.[53][56][57][24] However, leading authors in the field, among those Sovatsky,[39] Rowan,[58] and Hartelius[59] have criticized the nature of “New Age”-philosophy and discourse. Rowan[58] even states that “The Transpersonal is not the New Age”.[60] Other commentators, such as Wade,[61]notes that the field remains part of the New Age, despite the fact that transpersonal psychologists may want no such association.
Although some consider that the distinction between transpersonal psychology and the psychology of religion, is fading (e.g. The Oxford Handbook of Psychology and Spirituality), there is still generally considered to be a clear distinction between the two.[62] Much of the focus of psychology of religion is concerned with issues that would not be considered ‘transcendent’ within transpersonal psychology, so the two disciplines do have quite a distinct focus.[63]
Research, theory and clinical aspects
[
edit
]
Research interests and methodology
[
edit
]
The transpersonal perspective spans many research interests. The following list is adapted from the Textbook of Transpersonal Psychiatry and Psychology[50] and includes: the contributions of spiritual traditions such as Taoism, Hinduism (Yoga), Buddhism, Kabbalah, Christian mysticism, Shamanism, and Native American healing to psychiatry and psychology; meditation research and clinical aspects of meditation; psychedelics; parapsychology; anthropology; diagnosis of religious and spiritual problem; offensive spirituality and spiritual defenses; phenomenology and treatment of Kundalini; psychotherapy; near-death experience; religious cults; psychopharmacology; guided imagery; breathwork; past life therapy; ecological survival and social change; aging and adult spiritual development.
The research of transpersonal psychology is based upon both quantitative and qualitative methods,[7] but some commentators have suggested that the main contribution of transpersonal psychology has been to provide alternatives to the quantitative methods of mainstream psychology.[7] Although the field has not been a significant contributor of empirical knowledge on clinical issues,[15] it has contributed important quantitative research to areas such as the study of meditation.[7]
Theories on human development
[
edit
]
One of the demarcations in transpersonal theory is between authors who are associated with hierarchical/holarchical, sequential, or stage-like models of human development, such as Ken Wilber and John Battista, and authors who are associated with Jungian perspectives, or models that include the principle of regression, such as Michael Washburn and Stanislav Grof.[citation needed]
Ken Wilber and John Battista
[
edit
]
The transpersonal psychology of Ken Wilber is often mentioned as an influential theoretical framework for the field.[8][5][15][34] Wilber is often regarded as a leading theorist[5] and pioneer of the transpersonal movement,[8] but he has not been actively associated with the label for quite some time. Several commentators[5][34][64] note that he has distanced himself from the transpersonal field in favour of a new model that he calls integral. However, his psychological model still remains influential to the practice and development of transpersonal psychology,[15] and transpersonal themes remain a central part of his own work. Central to his theory of consciousness is a synthesis of eastern and western psychologies and models of human development.[65]
Wilber’s model of consciousness consists of three broad developmental categories: the prepersonal or pre-egoic, the personal or egoic, and the transpersonal or trans-egoic.[8] A more detailed version of this model includes nine different levels of human development, in which levels 1–3 are pre-personal levels, levels 4–6 are personal levels and levels 7–9 are transpersonal levels.[66] Later versions also include a tenth level.[67] The transpersonal stages, or the upper levels of the model, are the home of spiritual events and developments.[30][15][31] The framework proposed by Wilber suggests that human development is a progressive movement through these stages of consciousness.[68][66] The theory implies that different schools of psychology are associated with different levels of the model,[69][65] and that each level of organization, or self-development, includes a vulnerability to certain pathologies associated with that particular level.[15][68][66] Each level also represents developmental challenges that must be worked through, or they might lead to developmental arrest.[31] A basic tenet of Wilber’s transpersonal psychology is a concept called the “pre/trans fallacy”. That is, a confusion of transpersonal progression with prepersonal regression.[65] According to writers in the field[69] western schools of psychology have had a tendency to regard transpersonal levels as pathological, equating them with regressive pathological conditions belonging to a lower level on the model. The pre/trans fallacy describes a lack of differentiation between these two categories.
Wilber’s understanding of the levels of consciousness, or reality, ranging from matter to body to mind to soul to spirit,[34] or from prepersonal to personal to transpersonal,[70][71] is often referred to as the “Great Chain of Being”. This overarching framework, that is adapted from the “perennial philosophy” of the worlds great spiritual traditions, is later reformulated by Wilber as the “Great Nest of Being”.[34] That is, not just a simple linear hierarchy, but a kind of nested hierarchy, or holarchy.[69][70] Human development, and evolution, is considered to move up this holarchy.[69]
The 1990s marked a move into the world of integral ideas for Wilber. According to commentators he stopped referring to his work as transpersonal, in favor of the term integral, by the mid-1990s.[34] Literature now confirms that he has moved on from transpersonal psychology to integral psychology.[5] According to Brys & Bokor Wilber presented major parts of his integral approach in the years 1997–2000.[72] The integral theory included a four quadrant model of consciousness and its development, whose dimensions were said to unfold in a sequence of stages or levels. The combination of quadrants and levels resulting in an all-quadrant, all-level approach. The theory also included the concept of holon, “a whole that is simultaneously part of some other whole”, and holarchy, “hierarchical holons within holons”.[73] According to reviewers,[74][75] the spiritual dimension was central to Wilber’s integral vision.
Similar to the model presented by Wilber is the information theory of consciousness presented by John Battista. Battista suggests that the development of the self-system, and of human psychology, consists of a series of transitions in the direction of enhanced maturity and psychological stability, and in the direction of transpersonal and spiritual categories. His model presents a series of developmental tasks with corresponding levels of consciousness and psychopathology, and discusses therapeutic interventions in relation to the different levels and transitions.[76]
Michael Washburn and Stanislav Grof
[
edit
]
Michael Washburn presents a model of human development that is informed by psychoanalysis, object-relations theory, and the depth psychology of the Jungian perspective.[31][77] In the context of transpersonal psychotherapy Washburn’s approach has been described as a «revision of Jung’s analytical psychology».[78]
According to Washburn transpersonal development follows the principles of a spiraling path.[77] Central to his model is the understanding of a dynamic ground; a deep aspect of the unconscious,[77] with spiritual qualities,[79] that the person is in contact with in the prepersonal stage of development.[77] According to commentators Washburn describes three stages of human development; the pre-personal, the personal and the transpersonal,[77] also described as; pre-egoic, egoic and trans-egoic.[79] In the pre-stage (up to age 5) the child is integrated with the dynamic ground. Later in life this contact is weakened, and the prepersonal stage is followed by a new stage of development where the ego is dissociated from the dynamic ground.[77][79] This happens through the process of repression,[80][79] and marks the stage of adulthood,[77] and of the mental ego (egoic stage).[80][79]
However, later in life there is the possibility of a re-integration with the dynamic ground, a trans-egoic stage.[77][80][79] According to Washburn this transpersonal development requires a kind of U-turn, or a return to the dynamic ground, in order for the ego to become integrated with its unconscious dynamics.[31][77][80][81] This aspect of Wasburn’s model is described by commentators[81] as «a going back before a higher going forth». A regression that paves the way for transcendence,[31] and a fully embodied life.[77] Washburn’s approach to transpersonal development is often summed up as «regression in the service of transcendence»[31][77][80][79] which, according to Lev,[80] is a “twist of the phrase, regression in the service of the ego”. Washburn has contrasted his own perspective, which he calls spiral-dynamic, to the developmental theory of Ken Wilber, which he calls structural-hierarchical.[79][82] The differing views of Washburn and Wilber are mentioned by several commentators.[77][79][81]
Stanislav Grof, on the other hand, operates with a cartography consisting of three kinds of territories: the realm of the sensory barrier and the personal unconscious (described by psychoanalysis), the perinatal or birth-related realm (organizing principles for the psyche), and the transpersonal realm.[83][34][31][84] According to this view proper engagement with the first two realms sets the stage for an ascent to the third, transpersonal, realm.[31] His early therapy, and research, was carried out with the aid of psychedelic substances.[85][86] According to commentators[87][88] Grof’s LSD-therapy was controversial. Later, when LSD was prohibited,[89] Grof developed other methods of therapy, such as holotropic breathwork,[86][90] which also attracted some controversy.[91]
His early findings,[92] which were based on observations from LSD research, uncovered four major types of experiences that, according to Grof, correspond to levels in the human unconscious: (1) Abstract and aesthetic experiences; (2) Psychodynamic experiences; (3) Perinatal experiences; (4) Transpersonal experiences. Psychodynamic levels, which correspond to the theory of Sigmund Freud, is the area of biographical memories, emotional problems, unresolved conflicts and fantasies. Perinatal levels, which correspond to the theories of Otto Rank, is the area of physical pain and agony, dying and death, biological birth, aging, disease and decrepitude. Transpersonal levels, corresponding to the theories of C.G. Jung, is the area of a number of spiritual, paranormal and transcendental experiences, including ESP phenomena, ego transcendence and other states of expanded consciousness. In order to bring structure to the psychodynamic and perinatal levels Grof introduces two governing systems, or organizing principles: The COEX-system, which is the governing system for the psychodynamic level, and the Basic Perinatal Matrices, which represent the birthing stages and is the governing system for the perinatal level.[92][93][86]
Grof applies regressional modes of therapy (originally with the use of psychedelic substances, later with other methods) in order to seek greater psychological integration. This has led to the confrontation of constructive and deconstructive models of the process leading to genuine mental health: what Wilber sees as a pre/trans fallacy does not exist for Washburn and Grof, for pre-rational states may be genuinely transpersonal, and re-living them may be essential in the process of achieving genuine sanity.[94]
Stuart Sovatsky
[
edit
]
The idea of development is also featured in the spiritual psychotherapy and psychology of Stuart Sovatsky. His understanding of human development, which is largely informed by east/west psychology and the tradition and hermeneutics of Yoga, places the human being in the midst of spiritual energies and processes outlined in yogic philosophy. According to Sovatsky these are maturational processes, affecting body and soul.[39][95] Sovatsky adapts the concept of Kundalini as the maturational force of human development. According to his model a number of advanced yogic processes are said to assist in “maturation of the ensouled body”.[96]
Transpersonal theory of Jorge Ferrer
[
edit
]
The scholarship of Jorge Ferrer introduces a more pluralistic and participatory perspective on spiritual and ontological dimensions. In his revision of transpersonal theory Ferrer questions three major presuppositions, or frameworks for interpretation, that have been dominant in transpersonal studies. These are the frameworks of Experientalism (the transpersonal understood as an inner individual experience); Inner empiricism (the study of transpersonal phenomena according to the criteria of empiricist science); and perennialism (the legacy of the perennial philosophy in transpersonal studies).[21][34][45][64][97][98] Although representing important frames of reference for the initial study of transpersonal phenomena, Ferrer believes that these assumptions have become limiting and problematic for the development of the field.[98]
As an alternative to these major epistemological and philosophical trends Ferrer focuses upon the great variety, or pluralism, of spiritual insights and spiritual worlds that can be disclosed by transpersonal inquiry. In contrast to the transpersonal models that are informed by the “perennial philosophy” he introduces the idea of a “dynamic and indeterminate spiritual power”.[45][98] Along these lines he also introduces the metaphor of the “ocean of emancipation”. According to Ferrer “the ocean of emancipation has many shores”. That is, different spiritual truths can be reached by arriving at different spiritual shores.[45]
The second aspect of his revision, “the participatory turn”, introduces the idea that transpersonal phenomena are participatory and co-creative events. He defines these events as “emergences of transpersonal being that can occur not only in the locus of an individual, but also in a relationship, a community, a collective identity or a place.” This “participatory knowing” is multidimensional, and includes all the capacities of the human being (body/heart/soul), as understood from a transpersonal framework.[45][64][82][97] According to Jaenke[98] Ferrer’s vision includes a spiritual reality that is “plural and multiple”, and a spiritual power that may produce a wide range of revelations, insights which in turn may be overlapping, or even incompatible.
Ferrer’s approach to participatory thinking has been taken-up in the context of psychoanalysis. Drawing from Ferrer’s criticisms of perennialism, Robin S. Brown[99][100] adopts the participatory paradigm as a means to fostering clinical pluralism.
Transpersonal psychotherapy
[
edit
]
The major transpersonal models of psychotherapy, as reviewed by Cortright,[38] are the models of Ken Wilber, C.G Jung, Michael Washburn, Stanislav Grof, and Hameed Ali. Early contributions to the field of transpersonal psychotherapy includes the approach of Walsh & Vaughan. In their outline of transpersonal therapy they emphasize that the goals of therapy includes both regular results, such as symptom relief and behaviour change, as well as work at the transpersonal level, which may go beyond the level of psychotherapy. Both Karma Yoga and altered states of consciousness are part of the transpersonal approach to therapy. According to Walsh & Vaughan the context of karma yoga, and service, should also facilitate a process whereby the psychological growth of the therapist could provide a supporting framework for the growth of the client.[101]
Several authors in the field have presented an integration of western psychotherapy with spiritual psychology, among these Stuart Sovatsky and Brant Cortright. In his reformulation of western psychotherapy Sovatsky addresses the questions of time, temporality and soteriology from the perspectives of east/west psychology and spirituality. Besides drawing on the insights of post-freudians, such as D.W. Winnicott, Sovatsky integrates his approach to psychotherapy with an expanded understanding of body and mind, informed by the philosophy of Yoga.[39][95]
Cortright, on the other hand, has reviewed the field of transpersonal psychotherapy and the major transpersonal models of psychotherapy, including Wilber, Jung, Washburn, Grof and Ali, as well as existential, psychoanalytic, and body-centered approaches. He presents a unifying theoretical framework for the field of transpersonal psychotherapy, and places the concept of human consciousness at the center of the transpersonal domain. He also addresses clinical matters related to meditation, spiritual emergency, and altered states of consciousness. He also addresses clinical issues related to meditation, spiritual emergency, and altered states of consciousness.[78][38] According to commentators[78] Cortright does not agree with the conventional view of transpersonal psychology that a working through of psychological issues is necessary for spiritual development. Instead he suggests that these two lines of development intersect, and that they come to the foreground with shifting emphasis.
A transpersonal approach to clinical practice has been outlined by psychoanalyst Robin S. Brown[100] who draws from relational psychoanalysis, analytical psychology, and participatory theory. Within contemporary psychoanalysis it has been suggested that, from a clinical point of view, postulating a transcendent dimension to human experience is theoretically necessary in promoting non-reductive approaches to therapy.[102]
The first book to survey the field of spiritually oriented psychotherapy, published by the American Psychological Association in 2005, included a chapter on the Transpersonal–Integrative Approach to therapy.[103]
Clinical and diagnostic issues
[
edit
]
Transpersonal psychology has also brought clinical attention to the topic of spiritual crisis, or spiritual emergency, a category that is not ordinarily recognized by mainstream psychology.[citation needed] The terms “spiritual emergence” and “spiritual emergency” were coined by Stanislav and Christina Grof[36][104] in order to describe the appearance of spiritual phenomena, and spiritual processes, in a persons life. Among the clinical problems associated with this category, according to transpersonal theory, are: psychiatric complications related to mystical experience; near-death experience; Kundalini awakening; shamanic crisis (also called shamanic illness); psychic opening; intensive meditation; separation from a spiritual teacher; medical or terminal illness; addiction.[35][105][15][106] According to writers in the field the term “spiritual emergence” describes a “gradual unfoldment of spiritual potential with no disruption in psychological, social and occupational functioning”.[35][105] In cases where the emergence of spiritual phenomena is intensified beyond the control of the individual it may lead to a state of “spiritual emergency”. A spiritual emergency may cause “significant disruption in psychological, social and occupational functioning”.[35][105][31][107]
At the beginning of the 1990s a group of psychologists and psychiatrists, affiliated with the field of transpersonal psychology, saw the need for a new psychiatric category involving religious and spiritual problems.[17][27][108][33] Their concern was the possibility of misdiagnosis of these problems.[35][27][40][104] Based on an extensive literature review, and networking with the American Psychiatric Association Committee on Religion and Psychiatry, the group made a proposal for a new diagnostic category entitled “Psychoreligious or Psychospiritual Problem”.[35][40] The proposal was submitted to the Task Force on DSM-IV in 1991. The category was approved by the Task Force in 1993, after changing the title to “Religious or Spiritual Problem”.[35][109][110] It is included in the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), as a minor category. [8][107][111][112] The text of the new category did not mention the particular spiritual problems, or psychiatric complications, listed above.
According to the authors of the proposal[35] the new category “addressed problems of a religious or spiritual nature that are the focus of clinical attention and not attributable to a mental disorder”. In their view there exist criteria for differentiating between spiritual problems and mental disorders such as psychosis.[107][113] This concern is also addressed in the DSM-IV Sourcebook.[110][114][115] According to Lukoff[104] and Lu,[116] co-authors of the category, religious or spiritual problems are not classified as mental disorders. Foulks[117] also notes that the new diagnosis is included in the DSM-IV-TR nonillness category (Other Conditions That May Be a Focus of Clinical Attention). The category Religious or Spiritual problem is maintained in the current DSM-5.[33]
Addition of the new category to the DSM-system was noticed by a few psychiatric publications,[8][117][116][115][118] and the New York Times.[109] Several commentators have also offered their viewpoints. Chinen[17] noted that the inclusion marks “increasing professional acceptance of transpersonal issues”, while Sovatsky[39] saw the addition as an admittance of “spiritually oriented narratives” into the mainstream clinical context. Smart and Smart[119] recognized the addition of the category, and similar improvements in the fourth version, as a step forward for the cultural sensitivity of the DSM manual. Greyson,[120] representing the field of Near-death studies, concluded that the diagnostic category of Religious or spiritual problem “permits differentiation of near-death experiences and similar experiences from mental disorders”. Gollnick[106] noted that the new category was an important signal to therapists and the general population, and observed that there “are crucial experiences and struggles involving religious and spiritual issues which are not in themselves pathological, but which must be dealt with in order to avoid their degenerating into pathology”. In a study from 2000 Milstein and colleagues[114] discussed the construct validity of the new DSM-IV category religious or spiritual problem (V62.89).
According to commentators[15] transpersonal psychology recognizes that spiritual development might have both negative and positive effects on human functioning. Health-promoting expressions of spirituality include development and growth, but there also exist “health-compromising expressions of spirituality”.
Organizations, publications and locations
[
edit
]
A leading institution within the field of transpersonal psychology is the Association for Transpersonal Psychology, which was founded in 1972.[121] Past presidents of the association include Alyce Green, James Fadiman, Frances Vaughan, Arthur Hastings, Daniel Goleman, Robert Frager, Ronald Jue, Jeanne Achterberg and Dwight Judy.[122][123] An international organization, The International Transpersonal Psychology Association, was founded in the 1970s,[24] and has more recently been revived by Harris Friedman.[124] Also, a European counterpart to the American institution, the European Transpersonal Psychology Association (ETPA), was founded much later.[15] The leading graduate school is Sofia University, formerly the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology.[25][125][126] According to sources[25] the university is private, non-sectarian, and accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges.
Leading academic publications within the field include the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology and the International Journal of Transpersonal Studies. Smaller publications include the Transpersonal Psychology Review, the journal of the Transpersonal Psychology Section of the British Psychological Society. In 1996 Basic Books published the Textbook of Transpersonal Psychiatry and Psychology, a standard text that included a thorough overview of the field. The book was edited by Bruce W. Scotton, Allan B. Chinen and John Battista.[8][50] In 1998 Sage Publications released Transpersonal research methods for the social sciences: Honouring human experience, by William Braud and Rosemarie Anderson.[127][128]
In 1999 Greenwood Press published a title called Humanistic and transpersonal psychology: A historical and biographical sourcebook,[129][130][131][48] which includes biographical and critical essays on central figures in humanistic and transpersonal psychology.[47] The book was edited by Donald Moss. A recent publication, The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Transpersonal Psychology,[121][132] is one of the latest and most updated introductions to the field of transpersonal psychology.[51][133] Editors were Harris Friedmann and Glenn Hartelius.
Although the perspectives of transpersonal psychology has spread to a number of interest groups across the US and Europe, its origins were in California, and the field has always been strongly associated with institutions on the west coast of the US.[5] Both the Association for Transpersonal Psychology and the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology were founded in the state of California, and a number of the fields leading theorists come from this area of the US.[5]
Reception, recognition and criticism
[
edit
]
Reception
[
edit
]
Reception of Transpersonal psychology, in the surrounding culture, reflects a wide range of views and opinions, including both recognition and skepticism. Several commentators have expressed their views on the field of transpersonal psychology and its contribution to the academic landscape. Hilgard,[134] representing the contemporary psychology of the early 1980s, regarded transpersonal psychology as a fringe-movement that attracted the more extreme followers of Humanistic psychology. He did however remark that such movements might enrich the topics that psychologists study, even though most psychologists choose not to join the movement. Adams[30] also regarded Transpersonal psychology as a fringe discipline. He also observed its status as a controversial field of study. Cowley and Derezotes,[66] representing the Social Work theory of the 1990s, regarded transpersonal psychology as relevant for the development of spiritual sensitivity in the helping disciplines. Bidwell,[71] representing the field of pastoral psychology, saw transpersonal psychology as a developing field that had largely been ignored by his own profession. He did however believe that transpersonal psychology could contribute to the areas of pastoral theology and pastoral counseling. Elkins,[135] writing for the field of spiritually oriented psychotherapy, considered that transpersonal psychology had grown away from its roots in the humanistic movement and that it had established its “own theories and perspectives”. Bowers,[136] representing the field of Counselling psychology, suggested that Transpersonal Psychology represented an expanded view of Psychotherapy in the direction of spiritual qualities and mature happiness.
Taylor,[24] representing the field of Humanistic Psychology, presented a balanced review of transpersonal psychology in the early nineties. On the negative side he mentioned transpersonal Psychology’s tendency toward being “philosophically naive, poorly financed, at times almost anti-intellectual, and frequently overrated as far as its influences”. On the positive side he noted the fields “integrated approach to understanding the phenomenology of scientific method”; the “centrality of qualitative research”; and the “importance of interdisciplinary communication”. In conclusion he suggested that the virtues of transpersonal psychology may, in the end, “outweigh its defects”. In a later article Taylor[22] regarded transpersonal psychology as a visionary American folk-psychology with little historical relation to American academic psychology, except through its association with Humanistic psychology and the categories of transcendence and consciousness.
Ruzek,[137] who interviewed founders of transpersonal psychology, as well as historians of American psychology, found that the field had made little impact on the larger field of psychology in America. Among the factors that contributed to this situation was mainstream psychology’s “resistance to spiritual and philosophical ideas”, and the tendency of Transpersonal psychologists to isolate themselves from the larger context.
Nardini‑Bubols and colleagues,[138] who reviewed 14 studies in the field of Transpersonal psychotherapy tecniques, noted that the field was controversial, and that there was a lack of scientific information within the field. The review found a few health benefits of, as well as contraindications for, transpersonal psychotherapy, but observed that future studies also should uncover risks associated with the techniques. In addition, future studies should «have rigorous experimental designs; define concepts clearly; detail the method used; present clear guidelines for the ethical boundaries». The researchers concluded by noting that Transpersonal psychology represents an opening towards altered states of consciousness and the spiritual dimension of the psyche.
A few small attempts have been made to introduce Transpersonal psychology to the classroom setting. Perspectives from transpersonal psychology are represented in a widely used college textbook on personality theories,[139][140] marking the entrance of transpersonal themes into mainstream academic settings. In this book author Barbara Engler[139] asks the question, “Is spirituality an appropriate topic for psychological study?” She offers a brief account of the history of transpersonal psychology and a peek into its possible future. The classroom dimension is also present in a book on personality theories by authors Robert Frager and James Fadiman.[141] In this publication they provide an account of the contributions of many of the key historic figures who have shaped and developed transpersonal psychology (in addition to discussing and explaining important concepts and theories germane to it), which serves to promote an understanding of the discipline in classroom settings.
Transpersonal issues are rarely represented in the academic programs of mainstream universities.[31] Nonetheless, graduate programs in humanistic and transpersonal psychology have been made available at a few North-American Universities.[5][17][66][142] Among these we find Sofia University (formerly Institute of Transpersonal Psychology), Saybrook Graduate School, Naropa University, California Institute of Integral Studies, State University of West Georgia, John F. Kennedy University and Burlington College[57][143][28]In 2012 Columbia University announced that they were integrating spiritual psychology, similar to the perspectives taught at Sofia University (California), into their clinical psychology program.[126]
However, although transpersonal psychology has experienced some minor recognition from the surrounding culture,[17] it has also faced a fair amount of skepticism and criticism from the same surroundings. Freeman[34] mentions that the early field of transpersonal psychology was aware of the possibility that it would be rejected by the scientific community. Its method of inner empiricism, “based on disciplined introspection”, was to be a target of skepticism from outsiders in the years to come. Several commentators have mentioned the controversial aspects of transpersonal psychology. Zdenek,[144] representing a moderate criticism from the 1980s, noted that the field was regarded as “controversial since its inception”. Other commentators, such as Friedman,[53] and Adams,[30] also mention the controversial status of the field. Adams[64] also remarked that the field has struggled for “recognition as a legitimate field of study” in academia. This aspect was also noticed by Parsons,[11] who observed that Transpersonal psychology’s “naive perennialism, misreading of religious texts, lack of methodological sophistication, weak epistemology, and, some would claim, promotion of narcissistic self-absorption” had not been well received by the majority of academics. Commenting on the state of the field in the mid-nineties Chinen[17] noted that professional publications, until then, had been hesitant to publish articles that dealt with transpersonal subjects.
In 1998 the San Francisco Chronicle reported on the holistic studies program at the John F. Kennedy University in Orinda, which included a transpersonal psychology department. The program was considered to be unique at the time, but also controversial. Commentators presented their skepticism towards the program.[143] Another contentious aspect concerns the topic of psychedelic substances. Commenting upon the controversial status of psychedelic and entheogenic substances in contemporary culture, authors Elmer, MacDonald & Friedman[15] observe that these drugs have been used for therapeutic effect in the transpersonal movement, but – the authors add – this is not the most “common form of transpersonal intervention” in contemporary therapy. However, Bravo and Grob[145] note that “the place of psychedelics in spiritual practice remains controversial”.
Criticism, skepticism and response
[
edit
]
Criticism and skepticism towards the field of transpersonal psychology has been presented by a wide assortment of commentators,[17] and includes both writers from within its own ranks, as well as writers representing other fields of psychology or philosophy.
Critical remarks from within the field include the observations of Lukoff and Lu, and the criticism of Walach. In their contribution to the field of spiritually oriented psychotherapy Lukoff and Lu[27] discuss the strengths and weaknesses of transpersonal psychotherapy and transpersonal psychology. Among the strengths is its “basis of theory and practice” that can establish communication and dialogue with other cultures, and native healers. Among the weaknesses is a lack of theoretical agreement, which has led to internal debates, and attention from critics who question the validity of the transpersonal approach. Another source, close to the field, is The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Transpersonal Psychology. In a chapter from this book[146] Walach brings attention to unsolved problems within the field. According to the editors of the book the criticism represents “the sort of self-criticism that is mandatory within a responsible discipline”.
Criticism from other profiles, close to the field, also include the observations of Ken Wilber and Jorge Ferrer. Wilber, one of the early profiles within the transpersonal field, has repeatedly announced the demise of transpersonal psychology.[147][148] However, the early transpersonal theory of Wilber was itself subject to criticism, most notably from humanistic psychologists Rollo May and Kirk Schneider.[149] Even though Wilber has distanced himself from transpersonal psychology in favour of integral philosophy,[5][34] his transpersonal model has continued to attract both recognition[66][150][71] and criticism.[30][71][150]
Among the critics of Wilber we also find Ferrer,[34][64] who in 2001 published a revision of transpersonal theory. In this revision[45] he criticized transpersonal psychology for being too loyal to the perennial philosophy, for introducing a subtle Cartesianism, and for being too preoccupied with intrasubjective spiritual states (inner empiricism). As an alternative to these trends he suggests a participatory vision of human spirituality that honors a wide assortment of spiritual insights, spiritual worlds and places.
Criticism from humanistic and existential psychology
[
edit
]
One of the earliest criticisms of the field was issued by the humanistic psychologist Rollo May, who “disputed the conceptual foundations of transpersonal psychology”.[19] According to commentators May also criticized the field for neglecting the personal dimension of the psyche by elevating the pursuit of the transcendental,[5] and for neglecting the “dark side of human nature”.[27][151] Commentators[5] note that these reservations, expressed by May, might reflect what later theorists have referred to as “spiritual bypassing”. Other commentators[27] have suggested that May only focused on “New Age popularizations of transpersonal approaches”.
However, criticism has also come from other profiles in the fields of humanistic psychology and existential psychology. Eugene Taylor and Kirk Schneider have raised objections to several aspects of transpersonal psychology.[17] Schneider, representing the field of existential psychology, got involved at the end of the 1980’s.[149][151] According to Schroll, Rowan and Robinson[149] Schneider presented 4 main points in his critique of Transpersonal psychology and Wilber’s transpersonal model. First of all he doubted that anyone could reach “true transpersonal awareness”, or “divine consciousness—a totally unrestricted, transcendent oneness with all time and space”. He also doubted that anyone who experienced the transpersonal would be able verify the “attainment of this state of consciousness in themselves or others”. He argued that this transpersonal development would be “irrelevant and unnecessary”. Finally, he added that a “society of transpersonally enlightened individuals would be boring”. Wilber[149] responded to Schneider’s critique by questioning if Schneider had “understood his definition of ultimate transpersonal consciousness”, and suggested that Schneider had a “outside looking in view of transpersonal experience”. In a later commentary Schneider[152] took issue with Wilbers description of transpersonal levels of consciousness and found it to have “some disturbing presumptions» that «go to the heart of what it means to be a human being».
Relationship to science and scientific criteria
[
edit
]
According to Lukoff and Lu[27] the American Psychological Association expressed some concerns about the “unscientific” nature of transpersonal psychology at the time of the petition to the APA (see above). Rowan[51] notes that the Association had serious reservations about opening up a Transpersonal Psychology Division. The petitions for divisional status failed to win the majority of votes in the APA council, and the division was never established.[19] Commentators also mention that transpersonal psychology’s association with the ideas of religion was one of the concerns that prohibited it from becoming a separate division of the APA at the time of the petition in 1984.[19]
The field of transpersonal psychology has been criticized for lacking conceptual, evidentiary, and scientific rigor. In a review of criticisms of the field, Cunningham writes, “philosophers have criticized transpersonal psychology because its metaphysics is naive and epistemology is undeveloped. Multiplicity of definitions and lack of operationalization of many of its concepts has led to a conceptual confusion about the nature of transpersonal psychology itself (i.e., the concept is used differently by different theorists and means different things to different people). Biologists have criticized transpersonal psychology for its lack of attention to biological foundations of behavior and experience. Physicists have criticized transpersonal psychology for inappropriately accommodating physic concepts as explanations of consciousness.”[153]
Others, such as Friedman,[53][54] has suggested that the field is underdeveloped as a field of science and that it has, consequently, not produced a good scientific understanding of transpersonal matters. In his proposal for a new division of labour within the transpersonal field he suggests a distinction between transpersonal studies, a broad category that might include non-scientific approaches, and transpersonal psychology, a more narrow discipline that should align itself more closely with the principles of scientific psychology. However, this criticism has been answered by Ferrer[154] who argues that Friedmans proposal attaches transpersonal psychology to a naturalistic metaphysical worldview that is unsuitable for the domain of spirituality.
Albert Ellis, a cognitive psychologist and humanist, has questioned the results of transpersonal psychotherapy,[155] the scientific status of transpersonal psychology, and its relationship to religion, mysticism and authoritarian belief systems.[156][157] This criticism has been answered by Wilber[158] who questioned Ellis’ understanding of the domain of religion, and the field of Transpersonal Psychology; and Walsh[159] who questioned Ellis’ critique of nonrational-emotive therapies.
Other commentators, such as Matthews,[78] are more supportive of the field, but remarks that a weakness of transpersonal psychology, and transpersonal psychotherapy, has been its reliance on anecdotal clinical experiences rather than research. Adams,[160] writing from the perspective of Consciousness Studies, has problematized the concept of introspective ‘data’ that appears to make up the “database” of transpersonal psychology. Walach and Runehov[161] have responded to this issue. O’Reilly[162] examined several key components of Transpersonal psychology and found that it had features of a faith-based belief system, removed from scientific evaluation. Transpersonal psychology has been noted for undervaluing quantitative methods as a tool for improving our knowledge of spiritual and transpersonal categories. This is, according to commentators,[15] a consequence of a general orientation within the field that regards spiritual and transpersonal experience to be categories that “defy conceptualization and quantification”, and are thereby not well suited for “conventional scientific inquiry”.
Other criticism
[
edit
]
In his criticism of Wilber’s transpersonal model Adams[30] identified an ambiguous and inconsistent definition of ‘God’; a flawed epistemology that privileged non-dualism; faulty and selective use of textual sources; contradictory positions regarding the presence of a personal element in the divine nature; de-valuation of the individual self; and inadequate emphasis on the moral component of spiritual development.
Commentators have also made observations about the work of Stanislav Grof. Both Strom[87]and Humphrey[88] described Grof’s early LSD-therapy as controversial. Other aspects of Grof’s therapies have also come under scrutiny. In 1992 The Guardian[91] was reporting from the activities of the Findhorn Foundation. One of the therapies offered by the foundation was Grof’s Holotropic Breathwork, which was causing concern and attracting considerable opposition.
From the standpoint of Dzogchen, the teachings from Tibetan Buddhism, and Buddhism generally, Elías Capriles has objected that transpersonal psychology fails to distinguish between the transpersonal condition of nirvana, which is inherently liberating, and those transpersonal conditions which are within samsara.[163] [164][165] In the process of elaborating what he calls a meta-transpersonal psychology, Capriles has carried out refutations of Wilber, Grof and Washburn.[166]
Although the ideas of William James are considered central to the transpersonal field, Gary Alexander suggested that transpersonal psychology did not have a clear understanding of the negative dimensions of consciousness (such as evil) expressed in James’ philosophy.[167] He argued that Transpersonal psychology lacked the philosophical dimension of William James which took into consideration the concept of once- and twice-born individuals. This criticism has been absorbed by later transpersonal theory, which has been more willing to reflect on these important dimensions of human existence.[168]
Skepticism towards the concept of spiritual emergencies, and the transpersonal dimension in psychiatry, has been expressed by Alison J. Gray,[169] who stated that “this is not an approach I personally find internally consistent, helpful or believable”.
According to Cunningham, transpersonal psychology has been criticized by some Christian authors for being “a mishmash of ‘New Age’ ideas that offer an alternative faith system to vulnerable youths who turn their backs on organized religion (Adeney, 1988)”.[153]
Transpersonal psychology has also been criticized for emphasizing oneness and holism at the expense of diversity.[7] According to John V. Davis “this criticism should be heard”.
See also
[
edit
]
Notes
[
edit
]
b.^State University of New York Press (Albany, NY) divides their publications into categories, or series, representing different academic fields. Among the fields represented as a category we find the SUNY Series in Transpersonal and Humanistic Psychology. Another category, the SUNY series in the philosophy of psychology, also includes work from Transpersonal writers. d.^[1][35][66] Commentators[15] note that religion, in a transpersonal context, has to do with the individuals involvement in a social institution and its doctrines, while spirituality has to do with the individuals experience of a transcendent dimension. The authors[35][105] of the DSM-proposal make the same differentiation: Religious problems may be caused by a change in denominational membership; conversion to a new religion; intensification of religious belief or practice; loss or questioning of faith; guilt; joining or leaving a new religious movement or cult. Spiritual problems may result from the variables mentioned above: mystical experience; near-death experience; Kundalini awakening; shamanic crisis; psychic opening; intensive meditation; separation from a spiritual teacher; medical or terminal illness; addiction.
References
[
edit
]
Further reading
[
edit
]
