Sleeth’s synthesis is impressive, From psychoanalysis to trans- Sleeth integrates the Avatar
especially his sections on cendence! Sleeth has given us a Adi Da’s teaching on psych-
awareness and consciousness, penetrating analysis of the ego ology and spirituality into
identity and the “self system,” and the self. Along the way he this analysis, providing a
and that too-often-ignored has welded the two great camps compelling argument for the
aspect of psyche, will. Sleeth’s of transpersonal psychology: inclusion of spirituality into
book contains some especially Wilber’s developmental ladder psychological theory and a
penetrating insights into the and Grof’s holographic psyche. strong argument for the
writings of Freud, Jung, Grof, This book will stretch your mind truth of the Avatar Adi Da’s
Washburn, and Wilber. and challenge your spirit. teaching.
— Stanley Krippner, — Allan Combs, — iUniverse
The Mythic Path and The Radiance of Being Publishers
Dreamscaping
The basic premise of integral therapy is this: love is the healing principle.
All therapeutic orientations, whether explicitly acknowledging the relation-
ship or not, are based on this principle. Further, the efficacy of all thera-
peutic orientations result from a particular clinical equation: the more the
awareness, the more the love. As a result, positive outcomes from all ap-
proaches to clinical practice rely essentially on mindfulness, which derives
from nondualism—and especially “Radical” Non-Dualism. To find out
more, read the following:
In recent years, mental health service providers have recognized that their therapeutic paradigms are not adequate to assist them with all the mental disorders encountered in clinical practice (Norcross & Goldfried, 1992; Okun, 1990). In fact, an onslaught of criticisms has rocked the mental health field: consumer groups and insurance companies have pressured providers to demonstrate efficacy in their clinical methods, biologically and behaviorally based providers have questioned the psychosocial paradigm of therapy, and research findings have failed to demonstrate superiority of one therapeutic orientation over another (Carkhuff, 1971; Lambert, 1992; Patterson, 1984). Consequently, psychotherapy integration is emerging as a formal movement, characterized by dissatisfaction with single-school approaches to complex clinical issues, and looks beyond the confining boundaries of these approaches to a unified system of therapy. Norcross and Goldfried put the situation this way: “Whether considered a paradigm shift or a metamorphosis in mental health, psychotherapy integration will be a therapeutic mainstay of the 21st century” (1992, p. x).
However, for therapy to be considered truly integral, clinical practice must be based on an understanding of the whole person. Conceiving of people in holistic terms has significant implications not only for understanding human beings generally, but also the effective delivery of mental health services (Bohart et al., 2003; Schneider et al., 2002). Yet, no comprehensive account of the whole person currently exists, undermining the potential for a viable integral therapy. More to the point, theories of psychology generally avoid describing the psyche in terms of spiritual doctrine. Although this helps keep psychological theory from becoming embroiled in the seemingly endless turmoil of religious controversy, it also prevents any ultimate understanding of the dynamics underlying human nature. Nowhere is this the case more than the tenets of nondualism, without which it is impossible to make sense of the paradox that is human existence.
Perhaps the most ardent, not to say prolific, advocate of nondualism in the fields of psychology and philosophy has been Ken Wilber (2000a, b), although other notable scholars also espouse nondual tenets (e.g., Chopra, 2000; Loy, 1998; McEvilley, 2002). Yet, such accounts are not unprecedented. Adi Da Samraj (2004, 2006a, b, c) has written extensively, lucidly, and beautifully about nondual reality. Indeed, nowhere has nondualism received a more insightful treatment than his spiritual revelation. Many scholars, including myself, consider Adi Da to be an unsurpassed enlightened master in the nondual spiritual tradition (see Kripal, 2005; Lee, 2003; Steinberg, 1990).
However, nondualism as an approach to understanding the fundamental nature of human beings has not been without controversy. For example, not only has the particular formulation of nondualism presented by Wilber been criticized (see Rothberg & Kelly, 1998; Schneider, 1987, 1989), but the entire tradition of nondualism and Perennial Philosophy as well (Ferrer, 2002). Nonetheless, whether it is possible for nondualism to form the basis of a viable clinical practice can be answered this way:
First, we may ask whether we are witnessing the emergence of a new
school of psychotherapy—one that is “nondual”…. While the concept
of nondual awareness has already been incorporated horizontally into
Transpersonal and Integral frameworks, its main effects occur vertically
as practitioners deepen in their intimacy with their true nature…. Awak-
ening nondual awareness adds a depth dimension to any of the existing
schools of psychology… (Prendergast, 2003, pp. 4-5)
If this is true, it becomes imperative for clinicians of every therapeutic orientation to become familiar with the tenets of nondualism—and especially the “Radical” Non-Dualism of Adi Da. The tenets of “Radical” Non-Dualism provide the framework within which not only the various traditions of nondualism can be understood, but also explains why the various techniques of clinical practice are effective.
“Radical” Non-Dualism
Nondualism is an extremely difficult doctrine to understand, especially for anyone who has not had a direct experience of the nondual reality it represents. This difficulty is exacerbated by a lack of consensus relative to its defining feature, the complete absence of separation between self and other. Nondualism is typically defined this way: “Nondual wisdom refers to the understanding and direct experience of a fundamental consciousness that underlies the apparent distinction between perceiver and perceived” (Prendergast, 2003, p. 2). The literal translation of the Sanskrit term advaita, from the ancient Indian spiritual tradition of Vedanta, is not-two, but more commonly referred to simply as Oneness (e.g., Greven, 2005; Katz, 2007). However, the water gets particularly murky at this point, for two very different types of Oneness are mentioned in the literature:
1. Holism: one feels they are in some way connected to or intimately part of a larger
spiritual reality, all the while retaining their own unique identity; and
2. Nondualism: they literally are this larger reality—so much so that their ordinary sense
of being a separate self disappears completely.
As can be seen, one is more inclusive than the other. Humanistic and existential accounts especially favor holism, at least as it is expressed in terms of the whole person (see Bohart et al., 2003). Transpersonal accounts also generally align with holism, although understood in a far larger scope: “an individual’s sense of identity appears to extend beyond its ordinary limits to encompass wider, broader, or deeper aspects of life or the cosmos—including divine elements of creation” (Krippner, 1998, p. ix). Maslow (1964) speaks of this state in terms of peak experiences, in which one’s awareness of reality is suddenly heightened and ecstatic encounters with reality begin to appear, perhaps even including mystical states. Rogers feels that, at such moments, a transcendent intuition is awakened, whereby the capacity for healing is increased: “my presence is releasing and helpful to the other…it seems that my inner spirit has reached out and touched the inner spirit of the other. Our relationship transcends itself and becomes a part of something larger” (1980, p. 129).
However, the nondual position goes beyond even these extraordinary levels of experience. Indeed, it perhaps makes sense to augment transpersonal psychology with another field entirely: transcendental psychology. The difference between the two could be described this way:
This does not mean that the mystic lost all sense of separation from ulti-
mate reality or was so united with ultimate reality as to feel dissolved
into it. Some mystics have spoken in this way, claiming that all difference
vanished; but other mystics have not… (Carmody & Carmody, 1996, p. 12)
In the case of nondualism, no sense of separation exists whatsoever between the person and every other part of reality. This has to be contrasted with the sense of connecting or uniting with some larger reality, which is to say, holism as opposed to nondualism. In the case of holism, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts—requiring at least some compilation of parts. Nondualism, on the other hand, is the sense of literally being reality—without any separate parts at all. This is precisely why this spiritual realization is called nondualism, because reality is no longer experienced as being split up, or consisting of a duality of different pieces—such as self and other. There is only one single reality in nondualism, and this reality is literally who we are.
Unfortunately, the literature on Oneness is ambiguous on this point, often moving back and forth between holism and nondualism without knowing it. Although the same language of Oneness is employed by both, something very different is meant in either case, making it extremely easy to confuse the two. More to the point, defining nondualism in terms of this more restricted and esoteric sense has a significant liability for therapy: even if such states exist, which has been questioned, they would be too remote and abstract for any practical clinical application. Consequently, whereas holism is often adopted as a base for therapeutic intervention, nondualism usually is not.
But the standard boiler-plate definition that merely states that nondualism is not-two overlooks an essential feature: “Ultimate reality can be said to be comprised of certain discernable attributes: ‘This is the term saccidananda…. The ultimate reality, the ultimate truth, is ‘sat’—being, ‘cit’—consciousness, and ‘ananda’—bliss…’” (Griffiths, 1973, pp. 10-12). In other words, existing in the state of Oneness is not really an end in itself, but involves auxiliary features: love-bliss awareness. It is precisely this benevolent set of attributes that has clinical application.
Adi Da speaks ecstatically about this aspect of nondual spiritual reality:
To perceive the conditionally arising world Is To perceive Divine Energy
(or Conscious Light)…. Conscious Light Is (Itself) The Perfectly Sub-
jective (and Tacit) Self-Apprehension Of Love-Bliss (Itself)—and Love-
Bliss (Itself) Is The Heart Of Consciousness (Itself).
When the Total psycho-physical ego-“I” Is Most Perfectly Trans-
cended In Consciousness (Itself), the Total world Is (Inherently, and Nec-
essarily) Divinely Self-Recognized In and As Consciousness (Itself), and
(Inherently, and Necessarily) Transcended (and, At Last, Divinely Out-
shined) In and As The Self-Radiance (or Inherent Spiritual Energy, or
Divine True Light) Of Consciousness (Itself), Which Is Conscious Light
(or Happiness, or Love-Bliss) Itself. (2006a, pp. 489-490)
As can be seen, nondual reality is not rightly thought of as an abstract or impersonal state, some arid expanse of Oneness. Better said, it is simply unfamiliar to most people, even despite being our own deepest nature. Indeed, it is a sentient, living precess, involving the most personal and deeply intimate state in which one could possibly participate: love and happiness. And it is precisely this attribute of nondualism that defines its healing properties, for the fundamental operative of clinical practice could be said to come down to this: “Psychoanalysis, Freud once said, is a cure through love…. The individual I is, in his essence, a response to love” (Lear, 1990, pp. 27, 219). Put somewhat differently, love can be thought of as the specific tool of therapy: “After all research on psychotherapy is accounted for, psychotherapy still resolves itself into a relationship best subsumed by the word love” (Burton, 1967, pp. 102-103). Gordon Allport drew similar conclusions nearly sixty years ago: “Love is incomparably the greatest psychotherapeutic agent” (1950, p. 80).
Integral Love
If the proposition is accepted that love is, indeed, the healing principle, than all that remains is to show how nondual love-bliss awareness relates to the more ordinary sense of love that one typically experiences. To accomplish this, it is necessary to show how the love generally experienced by people derives from its nondual base. Doing so provides the fundamental equation of all clinical practice: the greater the awareness, the greater the love. A host of therapeutic interventions build on this conception. Examples include the following: unconditional positive regard and accurate empathy (Rogers, 1961); mirroring and empathic immersion (Kohut, 1971, 1977); focusing (Genlin, 1978); communicative attunement (Orlinsky et al., 1994); the intersubjective field (Atwood & Stolorow, 1984); empathic resonance (Bohart & Greenberg, 1997); gestalt awareness (Rosenblatt, 1975; Yontef, 1993); validation and mindfulness (Hayes et al., 2004).
Indeed, mindfulness could be thought of as the appropriate rubric for all of these clinical approaches to developing awareness:
For clinical purposes, mindfulness can be considered a distinct state of
consciousness distinguished from the ordinary consciousness of everyday
living (Johanson & Kurtz, 1991). In general, a mindful state of conscious-
ness is characterized by awareness turned inward toward the present felt
experience. It is passive, alert, open, curious, and exploratory. It seeks to
simply be aware of what is, as opposed to attempting to do or confirm
anything. (Johanson, 2006, p. 2)
Mindfulness is increasingly becoming an accepted intervention in clinical practice. However, mindfulness has been welcomed into psychotherapy with certain delimitations involving its relationship to nondualism and love. For example, it is sometimes overlooked that mindfulness emerged historically as a spiritual practice developed by certain spiritual traditions specifically as a means whereby one might encounter nondual reality, not as a therapeutic intervention (Cortright, 1997; Watson, 1998). Further, there are two main forms of mindfulness overall, which affiliate with holism and nondualism, respectively:
1. attention: the focusing of awareness on some object of interest or intent, or
2. awareness: the simple presence of awareness itself.
In tradition accounts of psychology, consciousness is thought to serve a particular function: “every act of consciousness we perform, every experience that we have, is intentional: it is essentially ‘consciousness of’ or an “experience of’ something or other. All our awareness is directed toward objects” (Sokolowski, 2000, p. 8). But consciousness can be understood in radically different terms. In other words, in its essence, consciousness is not actually aware of anything. It is more primal than that. It simply is awareness—whether the objects of mind arise within its field or not: “Consciousness is not attention, it’s not the mind. Those are objects of Consciousness, merely Witnessed. Consciousness is just That, Consciousness…. Finally you Realize that attention is object to you as well, where you’re merely in the Witness-Position” (Adi Da, 1996, pp. 35-36).
Even more to the point, the crucial adjunct to awareness attenuating mindfulness is rarely acknowledged in the literature: love. The types of intervention that might be subsumed within the rubric of mindfulness represent an essential feature of the therapeutic encounter—precisely because they are the means by which one engages in love in the therapy session. Although therapeutic techniques are important and assist the client to better adjust and adapt to their circumstances, it is this encounter whereby healing occurs. It is for this reason that children universally implore their parents, “Look at me!” as they relentlessly seek attention: the more the awareness, the more the love. Indeed, the quality of this love can be seen to not only influence the therapeutic process, but underlie the etiology of psychopathology when it is lacking. Simply put, because awareness is love, awareness activates love. Further, the awareness and love equation has an auxiliary benefit: to the extent that the client is made the focus of attention, others are not the focus. This not only allows the client to relax and drop into their own native state of love and awareness, but spares them the imposition of another’s agenda.
Yet, an important corollary to love states that one size does not fit all. In other words, there are two fundamental kinds of love: ego love and self love. Taken together, they can be referred to this way: integral love. Ego love is essentially a self-oriented approach to love, consisting of two main objectives:
1. Object Love: to get what you want (or love).
2. Other Love: having things your way—i.e., getting others to help you get what you
want (or love):
a. to be loved: the ways in which others interact with you, such that you get what you
want—and, thereby, feel loved;
b. to be loveable: the ways in which you understand these interactions, such that you
can expect others to help you—and, thereby, feel loveable; and
c. to be loving: the ways in which you act according to these expectations, such that
you behave in ways that others want (or love).
As can be seen, these orientations to love dominate the individual early in life, such that love is engaged in a self-serving manner, which is to say, purposed toward the acquisition and consumption of one’s desires. To a child (or immature ego), getting what one wants is to be loved, and the only reason to be loving, despite the presence of any empathetic or altruistic tendencies beginning to emerge. Indeed, even as the objective to be loving does emerge, it is intended primarily to serve the interests of the individual, in the way of barter or as an exchange.
The fundamental dynamic of ego love could be put this way: the conditions under which one experienced love growing up (e.g., antecedent and consequent conditions, narrative scripts or schemas, conditions of worth, Oedipal complex) are those that allow them to experience love now, as they are reproduced. As a result, love and happiness are thought to be contingent upon these same conditions—and therapy, therefore, a matter of most effectively manipulating these conditions. Examples include the following: reinforcement, desensitization, reframes, challenging nonproductive thoughts, interpretations, visualization, role playing, and empty or two-chair interventions.
But the premise underlying these kinds of interventions considerably overstates the case. Although it is true that replicating, indeed, even improving on certain conditions is a legitimate means by which to enact love, nonetheless, doing so operates as a kind of middleman, or what could perhaps be called the lesser of two loves. Simply put, it is not what you love, or even how you love, that is the greatest source of clinical efficacy, but a far more effulgent gesture: that you love—regardless of what happens as a result. In this way, one is put into a position to learn the essential lesson of life—it is not enough merely to be loved or even to be loving, as in the case of ego, but a far more profound state: to be love. This is the position of self love.
Freeing awareness from any attachments or moorings is precisely what allows self love to be unconditional. Yet, clearly, unconditional love is not easy to do. The primary reason is that it requires a profound confrontation with the very gesture underlying one’s suffering, regardless of different symptomology. Adi Da speaks about the difference between these two orientations to love this way:
Love Does Not Fail For You When You Are Rejected or Betrayed or
Apparently Not Loved. Love Fails For You When You Reject, Betray,
and Do Not Love. Therefore…Do Not Stand Off From Relationship.
Be Vulnerable. Be Wounded, When Necessary—and Endure That
Wound (or Hurt). Do Not Punish the other In Love…. Realize That
each one Wants To Love and To Be Loved By the other In Love.
Therefore, Love. Do This Rather Than Make Any Effort To Get Rid
Of The Feeling Of Being Rejected…. Be Vulnerable and (Thus) Not
Insulted. If You Are Merely Hurt, You Will Still Know The Necessity
(or The Heart’s Requirement) Of Love, and You Will Still Know The
Necessity (or The Heart’s Requirement) To Love. (Adi Da, 2004, p. 763)
When present risk factors (e.g., poverty, drug use, recidivism, illiteracy) are compounded by little support or resiliency (e.g., domestic violence, physical and sexual abuse, poor attachment), clients inevitably wonder: “What do you have in your bag of tricks for me?” In such cases, it quickly becomes apparent how incidental manipulating the conditions of life really is. Although some measure of relief and comfort does certainly occur as a result of these kinds of interventions, they are all based on ego love.
Yet, ego love is an important component of clinical practice, if for no other reason than that is precisely where most clients live out their lives. But without self love, this orientation is constrained and delimited. Without self love, there is no ultimate closure, no final reckoning with the source of love. Integral therapy can be thought of as the means whereby a connection with the different ways of love can be made. And in so doing, all orientations to clinical practice can operate within a shared framework of understanding: engage in therapeutic interventions as indicated by the clinical situation—whether ego love or self love—ever working toward a deeper and more profound embrace of the whole person.
The Sense of “Us”
Ultimately, the whole person is one person, a single living presence shared by all—which is the very nature of nondual reality. But nondual reality is typically thought of as something very remote from ordinary experience, indeed, perhaps even an abstract or alien concept. Yet, it can also be thought of in much more ordinary terms that are familiar to everyone: the sense of us. Anyone who has ever been involved in a close relationship has had the experience of us. Indeed, the sense of us is really nothing more than love and intimacy, an experience not only common to all, but welcome by all.
One way to describe nondual reality is by paraphrasing the old story of Robinson Crusoe, who found himself shipwrecked on a deserted island in the middle of nowhere. Over time, Robinson Crusoe learned how to survive in this strange new land, setting up shelter and managing to grow and catch food to eat. However, one day he noticed footsteps in the sand on the beach and became aware that he was not alone on the island. Soon, he began to notice further signs of another presence on the island, and he kept a close eye out for the impending encounter. Robinson Crusoe finally meeting the other person, whom he named Friday, is analogous to the holistic position mentioned earlier—feeling part of some larger reality.
In a very real sense, all intimate relationships can be understood as an instance of not-two, where me and you are transcended in a larger relationship involving us. Indeed, it is precisely for this reason that one experiences love in intimate relationships—as a result of overcoming the sense of separation between me and you. Buber emphasizes the I and Thou relationship, which is actually a way of saying us: “The concentration and fusion into a whole being can never be accomplished by me, can never be accomplished without me. I require a You to become; becoming I, I say You” (1970, p. 11). As can be seen, this passage understands us in the manner of holism, where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, in fact, even transforming its parts into intimacy in the process.
Put somewhat differently, whereas ego love is conditional, and all about me; self love is unconditional, or all about us—nevermind the state of either me or you. In this way, us is transcendent to me and you, existing as a higher order holism. Yet, even so, us still relies on me and you as constituent parts, the two sides of which operating in the manner of figure and ground. That is, me and you are required for us, indeed, serve as the context for us. But, at the same time, the reverse is just as true; us serves as the context for me and you. This latter situation is precisely its transcendent value. With us as context, me and you have to be understood in an entirely different manner—one that values you as much as me.
However, nondualism goes beyond even this transcendent state. That is, us becomes so extensive and inclusive that me and you drop out of the picture altogether. Perhaps better said, the realization is made that you literally are me. In this case, a slightly different outcome occurs in our paraphrase of the old story of Robinson Crusoe, by which a startling discovery is made during his fateful meeting with Friday: looking out on the other presence standing on the beach, he finds that it is actually himself! And so too is the island, and the ocean, and even the entire universe! And, more to the point, all of it is awash in the delight of love-bliss!
These positions can be contrasted this way:
1. Holism: a larger sense of us, or ever greater love and intimacy:
a. ego love: all about me—over against and in opposition to you; and
b. self love: all about us—up against and in embrace of you.
2. Nondualism: only us, or love and intimacy and nothing else:
a. self love: all about us—without any me or you.
As can be seen, holism only approximates nondualism. Yet, the two are intimately related. Indeed, the reason holism and nondualism are easy to confuse is because there is a real connection between them: the sense of us. In other words, holism and nondualism share a common process: the elimination of separation between me and you. They simply each do so in their own way—holism locally and partial (however immense), and nondualism ultimately and complete. It is just a matter of which us is meant in either case.
However, it must be remembered that speaking of nondualism in this way, “us” must be placed in quotes, for the word us is plural and, therefore, technically a misnomer for nondualism. Only if the special meaning of “us” is meant—devoid of me and you—can nondualism be applied. Interestingly, it is often observed that the sovereignty of ultimate reality is claimed by virtually every spiritual tradition. But the relationship between holism and nondualism provides a convenient equation whereby the awkwardness of this situation can be sorted out: although there is an infinite array of holisms possible, even ever more inclusive of each other, there can only be one only “us.”
In a sense, holism could be thought of as the front-end to nondualism, a preliminary or transitional state to nondualism, perhaps even nascent nondualism. Yet, not because holism leads to nondualism, but arises within nondualism as its underlying substrate, something like the tip of an iceberg. In other words, because all levels of being emerge from the very same consciousness, they all have immediate and direct access to this nondual ground. As a consequence, this arrangement provides context for the various aspects of integral love: whereas ego love is saturated with duality (me and you), self love is based on nondualism, and the sense of “us.” Indeed, this is why people who fall in love feel love—while being us, their native state of nondual love-bliss is allowed into awareness, even if partially and conditionally based. But when us is unfettered from the underlying moorings of me and you entirely, it can reside in its natural state, where the rapture of love-bliss is felt undiluted.
An important implication comes from this: so long as there is still me and you, there will be us and them. In other words, unmooring us from me and you, at the same time, unmoors us from them. Without this crucial act of transcendence, not only is the ordinary sense of us a diluted version of nondualism, it is also in a very real sense deluded. Consequently, the “us” of nondualism has an influence on not only discrete clinical issues, but larger social and economic imperatives involving budgeting priorities and funding; not to mention political imperatives, such as policy decisions and international relations. Simply put, duality is the root of all suffering, which can be seen manifest in war, violence, racism, prejudice, and greed. Although ego love offers some level of safety and satiety, it always remains unsatisfied—indeed, even upset over the fact. No matter how lofty or noble the aspirations, in the absence of nonduality, one’s objectives only lead to egoic outcomes:
The differentiation of existence into ego-possessed units yields, in the
case of each “one”, the craving for entirely pleasurized and unthreat-
ened existence. This craving (or obsessive motive of self-preservation
and self-glorification) in turn yields inevitable conflict, fear, sorrow, an-
ger, and all kinds of destructive acts in relation to “others” as well as to
“self” (because the extreme exercise of self-preservation is, ultimately,
an aggressive and self-defeating motivation that destroys “self” in the
final effort to dominate “not-self”)…. The search for the independent
preservation and ultimate enhancement of the separate self is the univer-
sal model of un-En-Light-ened egoity. Therefore, suffering, power strug-
gle, and war are inevitable in egoic society. (Adi Da, 2006b, p. 46)
Clearly, the distinction between duality and nonduality is essential for the ultimate welfare of the individual, not to say, any society comprised of such individuals. The only question is how to ensure that such a state is an on-going reality for the individual, making it an important issue for clinical practice. And this brings the consideration full-circle in the following way: whereas nondual “us” manifests in the individual as love and intimacy, nondual “us” manifests in society as compassion, tolerance, and kindness. It is only by virtue of the connection between nondual reality and ordinary human love that the therapeutic encounter is capable of healing. In other words, nondualism can be thought of this way: love and intimacy carried to their ultimate conclusion. As a result, a trenchant clinical formula can be offered: you are me is love and intimacy. Further, all therapeutic interventions that rely on love and intimacy, likewise, rely on nondualism in turn.
Conclusion
This paper claims that only the “Radical” Non-Dualism of Adi Da provides the necessary dynamics whereby it is possible to understand the relationship between awareness and love. That is, “Radical” Non-Dualism does not merely state that such a relationship exists, as is the case with traditional accounts of nondualism, but articulates the mechanisms by which it exists and, thereby, pertains to the lives of ordinary human beings. Consequently, the proposals of integral therapy are based on the “Radical” Non-Dualism of Adi Da, and identify the two fundamental principles pertaining to effective clinical practice: the Illusion of Relatedness and the Grid of Attention. With these two tenets, it is possible to understand the two aspects of integral love ordinarily experienced by human beings, which comprise the main elements of the therapeutic process: ego love and self love.
In sum, the fundamental nature of nondualism, and its relevancy for clinical practice, can be put as follows. Nondualism is both:
1. the absence of separation, which is the absence of suffering; and
2. the presence of love-bliss awareness, which is the healing principle.
Whereas love is the healing principle, nondualism is the very source of love. Although ego love can affect some measure of healing, only self love leads to this source. And further, only “Radical” Non-Dualism explains why this is so.
To see the full paper on integral love and “Radical” Non-Dualism, click here.
To see the story of my meeting with and miraculous healing by Adi Da Samraj, click here.
To see an Open Letter to the critics of Adi Da Samraj, click here.
Important links to mindfulness and nondualism: Adi Da & Adidam; Nonduality Salon; Advaita Vedanta; DharmaCafe; Beezone; Five Minute Life Changers; Tribal Botonical Medicince.
References:
Adi Da (1996). The torque of attention. The “Brightening” Way Talk Series. Middletown, CA:
The Dawn Horse Press.
------- (2004). The Dawn Horse Testament of the Ruchira Avatar. Middletown, CA: Dawn
Horse Press.
------- (2006a). Eleutherios (the only truth that sets the heart free). In The Five Books of the
Adidam Revelation (Book Five). Middletown, CA: Dawn Horse Press.
------- (2006b). Not-two is peace. Middletown, CA: Dawn Horse Press.
------- (2006c). Religion and reality. Middletown, CA: Dawn Horse Press.
Allport, G. (1950). The individual and his religion. New York: MacMillon.
Atwood, G. & Stolorow, R. (1984). Structures of subjectivity. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press. Bohart, A. C. & Greenberg, L. S. (1997). Empathy reconsidered. Washington, D.C.: American
Psychological Assoc.
Bohart, A. C., O’Hara, M. M., Leitner, L. M., Wertz, F., Stern, E. M., Schneider, K., Serlin, I.,
Elliott, R., & Greening, T. (2003). Recommended principles and practices for the
provision of humanistic psychosocial services. Retrieved Nov. 1, 2005,
http://www.apa.org/divisions/div32/pdfs/taskfrev.pdf.
Buber, M. (1970). I and thou. New York: Scribner’s.
Burton, A. (1967). Modern humanistic psychotherapy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Carkhuff, R. R. (1971). The development of human resources. New York: Holt, Rinehart,
Winston.
Carmody, D. L. & Carmody, J. T. (1996). Mysticism. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Chopra, D. (2000). How to know God. New York: Random House.
Cortright, B. (1997). Psychotherapy and spirit. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Ferrer, J. N. (2002). Revisioning transpersonal theory. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Gendlin, E. T. (1978). Focusing. New York: Everest House.
Greven, J. (2005). Oneness. Salisbury, United Kingdom: Non-Duality Press.
Griffiths, B. (1973). Vedanta and Christian faith. Clearlake, CA: Dawn Horse Press.
Hayes, S. C., Follette, V. M., & Linehan, M. M. (2004). Mindfulness and acceptance. New
York: Guilford Press.
Johanson, G. J. (2006). A survey of the use of mindfulness in psychotherapy.
www.americanpsychotherapy.com, summer annals.
Johanson, G. J. & Kurtz, R. (1991). Grace unfolding. New York: Bell Tower.
Katz, J. (Ed.) (2007). One. Boulder, CO: Sentient Publications.
Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis of self. New York: International Univ. Press.
------- (1977). The restoration of the self. New York: International Univ. Press.
Kripal, J. J. (2005). Riding the Dawn Horse: Adi Da and the eros of nonduality. In T. A.
Forsthoefel & C. A. Humes (Eds.), Gurus in America (pp. 193-218). Albany, NY: SUNY
Press.
Krippner, S. (1998). Foreword. In D. Rothberg & S. Kelly (Eds.), Ken Wilber in Dialogue (pp.
ix-xi). Wheaton, IL: Quest Books.
Lambert, M. J. (1992). Implications of outcome research for psychotherapy integration. In J. C.
Norcross & M. R. Goldfried (Eds.), Handbook of Psychotherapy Integration. New York:
Basic Books.
Lear, J. (1990). Love and its place in nature. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
Lee, C. (2003). Adi Da. Middletown, CA: Dawn Horse Press.
Loy, D. (1998). Nonduality. Amherst, NY: Humanity Books.
McEvilley, T. (2002). The shape of ancient thought. New York: Allworth Press.
Norcross, J. C. & Goldfried, M. R. (Eds.) (1992). Handbook of psychotherapy integration.
New York: Basic Books.
Okun, B. F. (1990). Seeking connection in psychotherapy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Orlinsky, D. E., Grawe, K., & Parks, B. K. (1994). Process and outcome in psychotherapy—
noch einmal. In A. E. Bergin & S. L. Garfield (Eds.), Handbook of Psychotherapy and
Behavior Change (4th ed., pp. 270-378). New York: Wiley.
Patterson, C. H. (1984). Empathy, warmth, and genuineness in psychotherapy: A review of
reviews. Psychotherapy, 21, 431-438.
Prendergast, J. J. (2003). Introduction. In J. J., Prendergast, P. Fenner, & S. Krystal (Eds.), The
Sacred Mirror: Nondual Wisdom and Psychotherapy (pp. 1-22). St. Paul, MN: Paragon
House.
Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
------- (1980). A way of being. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Rosenblatt, D. (1975). Opening doors. New York: Harper & Row.
Rothberg, D. & Kelly, S. (Eds.) (1998). Ken Wilber in dialogue. Wheaton, IL: Quest Books. Schneider, K. J. (1987). The defied self: A “centaur” response to Wilber and the transpersonal
movement. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 27(2), 196-216.
------- (1989). Infallibility is so damned appealing. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 29(4),
470-481.
Sokolowski, R. (2000). Introduction to phenomenology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ.
Press.
Steinberg, J. (1990). Love of the God-Man. Clearlake, CA: Dawn Horse Press.
Wilber, K. (2000a). Integral psychology. Boston: Shambhala.
------- (2000b). Sex, ecology, spirituality. Boston: Shambhala.
Yontef, G. (1993). Awareness, dialogue, and process. Highland, NY: Gestalt Journal Press.
Art by Jim Lampkin, courtesy of Metasphere.Org.
|
