Participation and the Mystery

Abstract

HOW DO WE creatively participate in the mystery of spirituality? The participatory approach holds that human spirituality emerges from human co-creative participation in an undetermined mystery, generative power of life, the cosmos, or reality. My understanding of the mystery is aligned with Rabbi Michael Lerner’s account (in his book Spirit Matters) of Spirit as the “energizing Force” behind the Big Bang and the ongoing evolutionary process.Spiritual participatory events can engage the entire range of human epistemic faculties (e.g., rational, imaginal, somatic, vital, aesthetic) with both the creative unfolding of the mystery and the subtle entities or energies in the enactment — or “bringing forth” — of ontologically rich religious worlds. In other words, the participatory approach presents an enactive understanding of the sacred that conceives spiritual phenomena, experiences, and insights as co-created events. The emergence of spiritual knowing can be located amidst the connections of human multidimensional cognition, cultural context, subtle worlds, and the deep generativity of life or the cosmos. Importantly, this account avoids both the secular postmodernist reduction of religion to cultural-linguistic artifact and, as discussed below, the dogmatic privileging of a single religious tradition as superior or paradigmatic.The rest of this essay introduces nine distinctive features of the participatory approach: spiritual cocreation, creative spirituality, spiritual individuation, participatory pluralism, relaxed spiritual universalism, participatory epistemology, the integral bodhisattva vow, participatory spiritual practice, and social engagement.Spiritual co-creation has three interrelated dimensions — intrapersonal, interpersonal, and transpersonal. These dimensions respectively establish participatory spirituality as embodied (spirit within), relational (spirit in-between), and enactive (spirit beyond).Intrapersonal co-creation consists of the collaborative participation of all human attributes — body, vital energy, heart, mind, and consciousness — in the enactment of spiritual phenomena. This dimension is grounded in the equi-primacy principle, according to which no human attribute is intrinsically superior or more evolved than any other. To be sure, the mind-centered character of Western culture hinders the maturation of non-mental attributes, normally making it necessary to engage in intentional practices to bring these attributes up to the same developmental level the mind achieves through mainstream education. In principle, however, all human attributes can participate as equal partners in the creative unfolding of the spiritual path, are equally capable of sharing freely in the life of the mystery here on Earth, and can also be equally alienated from it. The main challenges to intrapersonal co-creation are cognicentrism, lopsided development, mental pride, and disembodied attitudes to spiritual growth. Possible antidotes to those challenges are the integral bodhisattva vow (discussed below), integral practices, the cultivation of mental humility, and embodied approaches to spiritual growth. Intrapersonal co-creation affirms the importance of being rooted in spirit within (i.e., the immanent dimension of the mystery) and renders participatory spirituality essentially embodied and integrative.Interpersonal co-creation emerges from cooperative relationships among human beings growing as peers in the spirit of solidarity, mutual respect, and constructive confrontation. It is grounded in the equipotentiality principle, according to which “we are all teachers and students” insofar as we are superior and inferior to others in different regards. This principle does not entail that there is no value in working with spiritual teachers or mentors; it simply means that human beings cannot be ranked in their totality or according to a single developmental criterion, such as brainpower, emotional intelligence, or contemplative realization. Although peer-to-peer human relationships are vital for spiritual growth, interpersonal co-creation can include contact with perceived nonhuman intelligences, such as subtle entities, natural powers, or archetypal forces that might be embedded in psyche, nature, or the cosmos. The main challenges to interpersonal co-creation are spiritual pride, psychospiritual inflation, circumstantial or self-imposed isolation, and adherence to rigidly hierarchical spiritualities. Remedies to those challenges include collaborative spiritual practice and inquiry, intellectual and spiritual humility, deep dialogue, and relational and pluralistic approaches to spiritual growth. Interpersonal co-creation affirms the importance of communion with spirit in-between (i.e., the situational dimension of the mystery) and makes participatory spirituality intrinsically relational and eco-socio-politically engaged.Transpersonal co-creation refers to dynamic interaction between embodied human beings and the mystery in the bringing forth of spiritual insights, practices, states, and worlds. This dimension is grounded in the equiplurality principle, according to which there can potentially be multiple spiritual enactions that are nonetheless equally holistic and emancipatory. For example, a fully embodied liberation could be equally achieved through Christian incarnation or Yogic integration of purusa (consciousness) and prakriti (nature); likewise, freedom from self-centeredness at the service of others can be attained through the cultivation of Mahayana Buddhist karuna (compassion) or Christian agape (selfless love) in the context of radically different ontologies. This principle frees participatory spirituality from allegiance to any single spiritual system and paves the way for a genuine, ontologically and pragmatically grounded, spiritual pluralism. The main challenges to transpersonal co-creation are spiritual disempowerment, indoctrination, spiritual narcissism, and adherence to naive objectivist or universalist spiritualities. Antidotes include: the development of one’s inner spiritual authority and the affirmation of the right to inquire, heretical courage, and enactive and creative spiritualities. Transpersonal co-creation affirms the importance of being open to spirit beyond (i.e., the subtle dimensions of the mystery) and makes participatory spirituality fundamentally inquiry-driven and enactive.Although all three dimensions interact in multifaceted ways in the enactment of spiritual events, the creative link between intrapersonal and transpersonal co-creation deserves special mention. Whereas the mind and consciousness arguably serve as a natural bridge to subtle spiritual forms already enacted in history that display more fixed forms and dynamics such as cosmological motifs, archetypal configurations, and mystical visions and states, greater access to the more generative power of life or the mystery can be found through attention to the body and its vital energies. From this approach, it follows, the greater the participation of embodied dimensions in religious inquiry, the more creative one’s spiritual life may become and a larger number of creative spiritual developments may emerge.In the infancy of participatory spirituality in the 1990s, spiritual inquiry operated within certain constraints arguably inherited from traditional religion. As the historian of religion, Mircea Eliade famously argued, many established religious practices and rituals are “re-enactive” in their attempt to replicate cosmogonic actions and events. Expanding this account, I have suggested that most religious traditions can be seen as “reproductive” insofar as their practices aim to not only ritually reenact mythical motives, but also replicate the enlightenment of their founder or attain the state of salvation or freedom described in allegedly revealed scriptures. Although disagreements about the exact nature of such states and the most effective methods to attain them abound in the historical development of religious ideas and practices — naturally leading to rich creative developments within the traditions — spiritual inquiry was regulated (and arguably constrained) by such pre-given unequivocal goals.Participatory enaction entails a model of spiritual engagement that does not simply reproduce certain tropes according to a given historical a priori, but rather embarks upon the adventure of openness to the novelty and creativity of life or the mystery. Grounded on current moral intuitions and cognitive competences, for instance, participatory spiritual inquiry can not only undertake the critical revision and actualization of prior religious forms, but also the co-creation of novel spiritual understandings, practices, and even expanded states of freedom.This emphasis in creativity is central to spiritual individuation, that is, the process through which a person gradually develops and embodies her or his unique spiritual identity and wholeness. Religious traditions tend to promote the homogenization of central features of the inner and outer lives of their practitioners, for example, encouraging them to seek the same spiritual states and liberation, to become like Christ or the Buddha, or to wear the same clothes (in the case of monks). These aspirations may have been historically legitimate, but after the emergence of the modern self, our current predicament (at least in the West) arguably calls for an integration of spiritual maturation and psychological individuation that will likely lead to a richer diversity of spiritual expressions. In other words, the participatory approach aims at the emergence of a human community formed by spiritually differentiated individuals.It is important to sharply distinguish between the modern hyper-individualistic mental ego and the participatory selfhood forged in the sacred fire of spiritual individuation. Whereas the disembodied modern self is plagued by alienation, dissociation, and narcissism, a spiritually individuated person has an embodied, integrated, connected, and permeable identity whose high degree of differentiation, far from being isolating, actually allows him or her to enter into a deeply conscious communion with others, nature, and the multidimensional cosmos. A key difference between modern individualism and spiritual individuation is thus the integration of radical relatedness in the latter.The participatory approach embraces a pluralistic vision of spirituality that accepts the formative role of cultural and linguistic factors in religious phenomena. This simultaneously recognizes the importance of nonlinguistic variables (e.g., somatic, imaginal, energetic, subtle, archetypal) in shaping religious experiences and meanings while also affirming the ontological value and creative impact of spiritual worlds.Participatory pluralism allows the conception of a multiplicity of not only spiritual paths, but also spiritual liberations, worlds, and even ultimates. On the one hand, besides affirming the historical existence of multiple spiritual goals, the increased embodied openness to immanent spiritual life and the spirit-in-between fostered by the participatory approach may naturally engender a number of novel holistic spiritual realizations that cannot be reduced to traditional states of enlightenment or liberation. If human beings were regarded as unique embodiments of the mystery or the cosmos, would it not be plausible to consider that as they spiritually individuate, their spiritual realizations might also be distinct even if potentially overlapping and aligned with each other?On the other hand, participatory pluralism proposes that different spiritual ultimates can be enacted through intentional or spontaneous participation in an undetermined mystery, spiritual power, or generative force of life or reality. Whereas I take these enactions to be ultimate in their respective spiritual universes, this consideration in no way relativizes the various traditions’ ultimates — nor does it posit a supra-ultimate spiritual referent beyond them. In contrast, I hold that participatory enaction allows one to not only move away from representational and objectivist accounts of spiritual cognition, but also avoid the problematic dualism of the mystery and its enactions. Building on both the enactive paradigm’s account of cognition as embodied action, I maintain that in the same way an individual is her actions (whether perceptual, cognitive, emotional, or subtle), the mystery is its enactions. In this understanding, emptiness (sunyata), the Tao, and God (in their many inflexions) can be seen as creative gestures of the mystery enacted through participating human (and perhaps nonhuman) individuals and collectives.Hence, the participatory perspective does not contend that there are two, three, or any limited quantity of pre-given spiritual ultimates, but rather that the radical openness, interrelatedness, and creativity of the mystery or the cosmos allows for the participatory co-creation of an indefinite number of ultimate self-disclosures of reality and corresponding religious worlds. Participatory approaches seek to enact with body, mind, heart, and consciousness a creative spirituality that lets a thousand spiritual flowers bloom. Although this may at first sound like a rather “anything goes” approach to religious claims, I hold to the contrary: namely, that recognizing a diversity of co-created religious worlds in fact asks both scholars and practitioners to be more perspicuous in discerning their differences and merits. Because such worlds are not simply given but involve human beings as agents and co-creators, individuals are not off the ethical hook where religion is concerned but instead inevitably make cosmo-political and moral choices in all their religious actions. As discussed below, ethical considerations are crucial, especially in light of the demonstrably pernicious ecological, political, and social impact many religions historically had — and continue to have today.The pluralistic spirit of the participatory approach should not eclipse its “more relaxed” spiritual universalism — although eschewing dubious equations among spiritual ultimates (e.g., the Tao is God or Buddhist emptiness is structurally equivalent to the Hindu Brahman), the participatory approach affirms an underlying undetermined mystery or creative spiritual power as the generative source of all spiritual enactions. This shared spiritual dynamism should be distinguished from any Kantian-like noumenon or “thing-in-itself” endowed with inscrutable qualities and from which all spiritual ultimates are always derived as incomplete, culturally conditioned, or cognitively constrained phenomenal manifestations. In contrast, the enactive epistemology of the participatory approach does away with the Kantian two-worlds dualism by refusing to conceive of the mystery as having objectifiable pre-given attributes (such as personal, impersonal, dual, or nondual) and by affirming the radical identity of the manifold spiritual ultimates and the mystery, even if the former do not exhaust the ontological possibilities of the latter. Put simply, the mystery co-creatively unfolds in multiple ontological directions.Moreover, the relationship between pluralism and universalism cannot be consistently characterized in a hierarchical fashion. Whereas there surely are “lower” and “higher” forms of both universalism and pluralism (e.g., more or the between universalism and pluralism, between the and the it may be the dynamics of the of the mystery. The affirmation of a between the and the in spiritual unfolding renders any or hierarchical between universalism and pluralism cannot be that participatory pluralism does not entail the or of or religious or forms of Put the participatory of an objectifiable pre-given spiritual ultimate referent does not in spiritual To be sure, like of traditions cannot be ranked according to their in or this account does not cannot be more or the participatory renders the of among traditions according to a or a of spiritual insights, these can be in a of (e.g., cognitive, emotional, I have suggested the which the to which spiritual and practices practitioners from and subtle forms of and and the which the to which the same the of all dimensions of the the many and in the of religion, it may be to an which the to which spiritual social and religious and and and other human light of these differences among traditions can be and this is important — from both and In a for example, traditions may have contemplative more than the same could be about emotional intelligence, social or and practices a relationship with In a traditions may be more than others to dissociation, and religious and or among The fact that different traditions have different human is of makes and arguably for the development of more integral spiritual and important be spiritual and may be more for different psychological and cultural as for the same individual at distinct developmental but this does not make them superior or The of action, and to mind in this as do other spiritual that can be found in other the participatory emphasis on and although arguably central to most spiritual may not be shared by more most religious traditions would likely not in of the or the For example, or subtle forms of or of the human body and its energies are the in most and contemplative one could and participation of the body in spiritual many religions have had a demonstrably and about of human even they have also vital to them. the and of the participatory is for the development of a participatory critical of these the of a which the of a fully is open to can as a principle The of is thus capable of for critical in spiritual that is, in spiritual might be From this principle, or to spiritual choices and practices can be In to self and one might consider the of such as the In the of other may the degree of integration of spiritual states, for of with of body and in this it will no be a practitioners a or account of the mystery, or their of spiritual cultivation is social conscious or communion with The spiritual in contrast, will be the degree to which each spiritual both an of self-centeredness and a fully embodied integration to make individuals not only more to the of others, nature, and the but also more effective agents of cultural and in their unique the conscious mind is the of most of an liberation of consciousness can be insofar as one can that one is fully in dimensions of the self are or in — as the of modern spiritual teachers Participatory spirituality to the engagement of all human attributes in the spiritual or his the spiritual of and the vital the was that the liberation of consciousness cannot be to an integral the spiritual of all human this in mind, I have an integral bodhisattva vow in which the conscious mind its liberation the body, the heart, and the can be as from that them from sharing freely in the unfolding life of the mystery here on to to an integral bodhisattva vow is not a to the spiritual aspirations of it entails a to the integral liberation of all rather than only of their conscious or of as the of the bodhisattva does not a to Buddhist accounts of liberation as of and and from the of vow is arguably to the of many religious such as Michael and for or and These and many others spiritual and of their traditions that seek not only to and but also to human dimensions that had been or even such as the of and body and or relationships and to many spiritual and of or participatory spiritual practice the embodied, and enactive (i.e., and dimensions of spiritual growth. This emphasis can be found in traditional practices, many of traditional practices, and a number of spiritual Whereas traditional practices (e.g., are participatory in many The Participatory in their modern one can more and of participatory I for example, Michael Lerner’s and and embodied of Buddhist and account of modern and Western approaches to and Christian of the body and in Christian among many the have the emergence of a of novel participatory spiritual practices, such as and embodied cooperative spiritual inquiry, and of embodied spiritual of practice with important participatory include and spirituality modern forms of integral relational approaches to spirituality, and modern of as spiritual path, among a are our relationships with both the human and nonhuman This is inevitably with a to social To be sure, this can take many different forms, from more social or in the (e.g., social spiritually grounded to more subtle of social or discussed by in his there is to about the of subtle embodied spirituality cannot be from a to political, and — this may arguably calls for the of a This however, cannot of moral religious and even mystical but to be in the of religious on human and cooperative spiritual In other words, it is likely that any will be grounded not only in human spiritual but also in the critical on such a history in the context of moral intuitions (e.g., about the of religious narcissism, and its for and the of — for with — to of the most of the such as the of and the of rich and the to cultural and and in although participatory spirituality arguably for critical in spiritual it is to consider the participatory or any participatory approach, a spiritual tradition that could be all In contrast, participatory spirituality might be as a spiritual (i.e., and creative that can be found in various within many that is in the ongoing of and that may also to spiritual and the emergence of novel religious or spiritual I that the participatory should be seen more as a of sharing a about the nature of spiritual the of and multidimensional cognition, or the of religious pluralism than as a of or through traditional The pluralistic character of a can greater diversity than a of which achieves its identity through to or a is not only with the pluralistic of the participatory but also in the of not a constraints to or the to into a the nature of a is with the of hierarchical and in and religion by many participatory as as with for peer-to-peer of and and of is an important of such might seek to not only sharing of but also to promote a of for and the and of a participatory approach the spiritual of not in any spiritual or but in the shared of communion with the generative dimension of the mystery. In other words, the spiritual of may not be found in the (i.e., in or even mystical but deep into the (i.e., in the embodied with our creative As the to and are among the for only in the The of such creative may to by in creative a of deep communion a may also engender a of to a spiritual to the spiritual individuation of its and the eco-socio-politically of the an to both scholars and practitioners to their and to the and to participatory in and into I with the that the participatory approach and to a more individuals in the embodied co-creation of their spiritual perhaps most participate more fully in the mystery of which