Faculty Dialogues: Conversation 1
The following is an email thread initiated by Dr. Charley Tart among the ITP core faculty from June 21-25, 2007. We share this thread publicly to illustrate the ongoing conversation regarding the continuous-evolving nature of the field of Transpersonal Psychology.
The topic began as Dr. Tart's responses to a questions posed to him by a student living in Turkey. He and Dr. Robert Frager both weighed in on the seven questions.
Following the initial conversation are responses from ITP's Dr. Shani Robins, Dr. Christopher Dryer, and Dr. William Braud and Dr. Tart's responses to them.
The conversation has been cross-linked for the reader's convenience.
Dear Colleagues:
I have been involved in a number of interesting and stimulating discussions recently about spirituality versus religion and the nature and mission of Transpersonal Psychology (TP). This email inquiry from a foreign student touches on a number of the issues, so I am sharing it with you colleagues as a contribution to our discussions.
Here is the student's email. I'll call him Mohammed and delete a few details to protect his privacy.
Dear Dr. Tart:
My name is Mohammed and I am a Masters Program student of Religious Psychology at a University (in Turkey). I have been studying Transpersonal Psychology and Religion. I am contacting you with the hope that you will assist me in my study as soon as possible, although I can imagine how busy you are. But also I think that you have always time to enlighten people who really want to learn.
Could you please answer my questions (or some of them) and write about the issues?
- What is the view of Transpersonal Psychology about religion, and how does it treat religion?
Dr. Frager's and Dr. Tart's dialog - What is the Transpersonal Psychologists' view on the relationship between Transpersonal Psychology and Religion?
Dr. Frager's and Dr. Tart's dialog - What is your own view about the relation of Transpersonal Psychology and Religion?
Dr. Frager's and Dr. Tart's dialog - What are the main points which differ Transpersonal Psychology from other schools of Psychology?
Dr. Frager's and Dr. Tart's dialog - What do you think about Sufism and its relation with Transpersonal Psychology?
Dr. Frager's and Dr. Tart's dialog
- What are the reflections of Transpersonal Psychology today (including religion and therapy)?
Dr. Frager's and Dr. Tart's dialog
- What are the problems of Transpersonal Psychology? What are its successes and failures? What is its future?
Dr. Frager's and Dr. Tart's dialog
Dr. Shani Robins' response
Dr. Christopher Dryer's response
Dr. William Braud's response
Dr. Tart's response to Dr. Robins
Dr. Tart's response to Dr. Dryer
Dr. Tart's response to Dr. Braud
Thank you in advance for your support
Dr. Tart:
Dear Mohammed,
As your questions touch on a number of ongoing discussions with colleagues and are also relevant to a book I have been working on for several years, let me try to answer them, even if only briefly.
1. What is the view of Transpersonal Psychology about religion, and how does it treat religion?
Dr. Frager: First of all there is no such thing as 'transpersonal psychology. ' there is no single theory or a single approach. I am personally much more interested in religion, as a Muslim and a Sufi, than most transpersonal psychologists.
Dr. Tart: Three important distinctions must be made right away between spirituality, religion, and Transpersonal Psychology (TP).
Spirituality refers mainly here to actual experiences and their subsequent effects on people's lives that open them to and/or convince them of the reality of a higher, non-material order of reality that gives deeper meaning and purpose to life. Spirituality is opposed to the dominant belief system/philosophy of materialism, so prominent in the more developed nations, that says nothing is real but what is material - matter and energy - and that spiritual experiences represent illusions and hallucinations. See my TASTE site for examples of spiritual experiences.
Dr. Frager: A standard distinction made in psychology of religion is that religion is a codified set of rituals and practices, that is, it has a strong social dimension, and spirituality refers to personal experience. That is, spirituality is more psychological and religion more sociological. The two terms are distinct. Simply put, spirituality is about a person's beliefs, values and behavior. Religion is about the person's involvement with a religious tradition and institution.
Dr. Tart: In general, psychologists approve of the benefits of spirituality but often do not want religion. It is a topic worthy of serious debate whether one can be 'truly' spiritual without being religious. One position is that this is 'easy religion' or 'cheap grace'. The other position is that focus on spirituality helps separate the valuable from the superstitious. Proponents often feel strongly about their chosen position.
Dr. Frager: In Sufism I think it is much more clear. Religion is the Zahir, the outer, and Sufism is the Batin, the inner. And you need both. The outer without the inner is an empty shell. The inner without the outer is generally filled with ego (nafs), and has no real foundation. Obviously this is a very complex issue and I have only touched the surface here.
I do believe that transpersonal psychologists have not thought this through fully, but I'm sure many would not disagree. However, I have known a number of transpersonal psychologists who have rejected religion, who look only at the errors and excesses we can easily find in religion and fail to look at what I might call sincere and functional religious life. (It's a little like rejecting the family as a social institution because there are so many divorces.) And some have substituted TP for religion, which I feel is a bad mistake, because it make for a kind of rigidity, and also because you can't really substitute a scientific approach for a religious one. An excellent discussion of this distinction between religion/mysticism and science can be found in Huston Smith's book, Forgotten Truth.
Dr. Tart: Religions are the socially organized and conditioned outcomes of spiritual experiences, adaptations to prevailing social conditions, political realities, power relationships, tribal customs, and the like. Religions may serve valuable social functions as well as have superstitious and psychopathological aspects, and may encourage or discourage people from having actual spiritual experiences. When we speak of things like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or Hinduism, for example, we are speaking of social systems that may have changed enormously from what the originators of those religions directly experienced. Religions have core beliefs, for example, that followers are required to accept, and they often discourage primary spiritual experiences unless the content of such experiences can be shown to be consistent with accepted doctrine.
TP is not a religion or a spiritual system, it is a young, developing field of scholarship and science. Except for (1) a generalized and loosely defined belief that there is something real and important about spiritual experiences, rather than their being nothing but hallucinations and delusions, and (2) a generalized belief that application of the methods of scholarship and science and/or the development of more advanced methods along those lines will enable (a) a better understanding of spiritual experiences, (b) better stimulation of primary spiritual experiences, and (c) a healthier application of spiritual insights to everyday life, there are no "doctrines" or "beliefs." These are the kind of beliefs that any scientific field has, that it's subject matter has some importance and reality and studying it can lead to better understanding and application.
As to how TP treats religion, I would say with both respect - a source of insights, hypotheses, and practices - and caution about the ways it may have distorted primary spiritual experiences in the service of social adaptation.
Because TP is a science there is no "doctrine" or unquestionable sacred about the way things really are. Like any field of science, there are current theories and practices that have more support than others, but all are subject to further investigation and, hopefully, better understanding in the future.
Dr. Frager: In the related field of religious studies there is excellent research on the effects of religious practice, showing that it leads to greater health, less stress, less alcohol and substance abuse, better relationships etc. Collaboration between both fields would, I believe, be extremely fruitful.
Dr. Tart: Because TP is a young (hardly four decades) and small field, we are rather humble about what we know. These answers are mine, as one of the founders of the field, but not a "rule" or a consensus answer.
2. What is the Transpersonal Psychologists' view on the relationship between Transpersonal Psychology and Religion?
Dr. Frager: Unfortunately there is no serious dialog between psychologists of religion and transpersonal psychologists. Perhaps because in the United States, most psychology of religion is strongly Christian, and most transpersonal psychologists tend toward Buddhism, yoga, etc. And have tended to have left their roots as Christians or Jews.
Dr. Tart: See above.
3. What is your own view about the relation of Transpersonal Psychology and Religion?
Dr. Tart: See above.
4. What are the main points which differ Transpersonal Psychology from other schools of Psychology?
Dr. Tart: The other major schools of psychology are, in my opinion, Behavioristic, Psychoanalytic and Psychopathological, Humanistic, Cognitive and Psychophysiological. All of these generally operate (with some exceptions in Humanistic) within a materialist philosophy, nothing is real but what is physical and progress will ultimately come from a better and better understanding of the physical world. To put it another way, TP takes ideas like "mind," "soul," "spirit" as probably representing important realities which need to be studied in their own right, rather than waiting for them to all be explained away in terms of brain functioning.
Dr. Frager: Another way to put this is that in TP, we are willing to explore what Maslow called 'the further reaches of human nature' that includes states of consciousness, mystical experience, concepts like soul, etc. Further, realizing that human development not only continues into adult life but may have literally infinite potential makes for a very different context for TP research and theory. Most psychologists ignore Maslow's later work on transcendence and transcendent self-actualization (in his last book, Farther Reaches of Human Nature). Certainly these topics have important implications for your questions.
5. What do you think about Sufism and its relation with Transpersonal Psychology?
Dr. Tart: Sufism (or at least the few branches of it I have a little familiarity with) is one of the rarer aspects of religion which tries to induce more direct spiritual experiences, rather than just supporting religious doctrine. Buddhism would be another example, with the Buddha having enjoined his followers to not believe anything (including his own lectures) on the basis of authority or tradition but to subject everything to the test of experience and to accept only what actually makes sense from direct experience.
Dr. Frager: As I understand it, the vast majority of Sufi teachers stress that Sufism is built on the foundation of Shariat, or religious and ethical principles and practices. As the great Sufi sage Ibn Arabi wrote, the foundation is Shariat, after Shariat comes Tariqat (Sufism, or spiritual practice) and next is Haqiqat (or truth, which might be understood as direct and conscious experience as opposed to second or third hand learning). Finally there is Marifet (or gnosis, the direct knowing spoken of by the great saints) each stage is the foundation for the next stage.
6. What are the reflections of Transpersonal Psychology today (including religion and therapy)?
Dr. Tart: Too big a question.
Dr. Frager: Read the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology and recent books in the field. It is too complex to even begin to go into here.
7. What are the problems of Transpersonal Psychology? What are its successes and failures? What is its future?
Dr. Tart: Again, too big a question. Get involved with the Association for Transpersonal Psychology, consider graduate work at some place like the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology (we have a distance PhD program now), read the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, etc. Not to get "The Answers," as it's a field of investigation, a process, not a religion, but to become involved in one of the world's most exciting projects - to help people have more direct spiritual experiences and, I believe, become better people because of that.
Dr. Frager: There have been critics of TP. One is Ken Wilber, who is worth reading although I think he is basically wrong about most of his criticism. One criticism I have myself is the lack of relationship between TP and psychology of religion, this includes a lack of understanding the relationships between religious and mystical experiences. It is too easy to dichotomize the two.
Also many transpersonal psychologists tend to define transpersonal psychology in terms of special states. I strongly prefer to define TP as the study of the full range of human experience, not just the interesting 'upper' levels.
Dr. Tart: I hope this is helpful and stimulating. Now back to working on my next book...
A response to the conversation from Dr. Shani Robins:
It really makes the distinctions clear...spirituality is mostly associated with direct experience, TP is the rigorous science to examine those experiences, and religions are associated with social goals and dogma.
It seems to me that these distinctions beg for 3 points to be made explicit, (1) open/closed systems, (2) developmental aspects, and (3) clinical issues/fear:
Spirituality and TP (science) involve: (1) Open systems, (2) explicit self evaluation in the hope of development of both the individuals and the system itself
Religion: (1) Closed systems, (2) faith is encouraged, self critical evaluation is discouraged which leads to much slower if any development of the system.
The closed rather than open system distinction may bring in something that may be important ------ the clinical distinctions between the two. Fear seems to have a much more important role in religion than it does in either spirituality or TP. Closed systems and dogma share notoriety in their embracing of fear - both in the practice itself ("God-fearing) as well as in political-social manipulation. Clinical Psychology has a well developed diagnostic system that lays out the implications of fear - anxiety disorders, narcissism (grandiose armor to self protect), emotion regulation, anger, aggression...all known to have strong fear component. It may not be surprising that particular closed systems, such as religion and cults, that have embraced fear as a method, share these other clinical correlates of fear on a global rather than personal level...Narcissism playing out on a world stage through history is not pretty.
A response from Dr. Christopher Dryer:
Overall, I agree wholeheartedly with Charlie's insightful comments.
However, I urge us to be careful with our definitions.
In my 2005 New Oxford American Dictionary, Second Edition, I find this listing for religion:
The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods • Details of belief as taught or discussed • A particular system of faith and worship • A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance
As I read it, this definition includes both personal and institutional beliefs and worship practices.
Charlie's description of religion seems to focus exclusively on religion as an institution, ignoring religion as an open, person system of belief and worship. From my perspective, I would substitute "major religious institutions" for "religions" in Charlie's essay.
This is significant to me because my own system of faith and worship is a crucial piece of my spirituality. My religion facilitates my spiritual experience and the application of those experiences to everyday life.
I think many people use "religion" to refer to "socio-political institutions promoting a particular dogma." I also think this misconception of religion has served as a scapegoat; many people use "spirituality" to refer to something "good" and "religion" to refer to something "evil." Doing so robs us of the value that belief and worship can add when combined with spiritual experience.
A response from Dr. William Braud:
I would add to Charley's and Christopher's comments that:
• Spirituality--as well as religion--can have (some might say "should have") a social action component (as in "involved spirituality" or "engaged spirituality")
• Not only religion, but also spirituality and science (and any and all human enterprises) may include doctrines and beliefs--perhaps not imposed but held or assumed (and often not recognized or sufficiently
questioned) nonetheless
• It would seem possible to be "spiritual" in one sense of that term and still believe that everything might be eventually be understood as involving various types of "material" processes.
"Spiritual" can have a nonmaterial meaning, but it also can have another meaning of having to do with one's greatest values and realities--whatever those might be. Dichotomizing "spirit" and "matter"
seems to be a more Western and more "masculine" approach. Such a view is less common in more earth-based, "embodied", and "feminine" forms of spirituality.
A follow-up response from Dr. Charley Tart to Dr. Robins' email above:
"I seems to me that these distinctions beg for 3 points to be made explicit, (1) open/closed systems, (2) developmental aspects, and (3) clinical issues/fear:"
And you go on to develop things further nicely. Keep going!
Perhaps one of our most important jobs in TP, unique to us as psychologists, is to see how spiritual experience can be pathologized and/or used in the service of neurosis rather than growth. I hope this is emphasized in your teaching of clinical students, all well as all our students?
A follow-up response from Dr. Charley Tart to Dr. Dryer's email above:
"I urge us to be careful with our definitions"
Yes! Indeed this injunction to be careful could be seen as a part of our academic and scientific "religion." ;-)
The reality is that these terms, spirituality, religion and Transpersonal Psychology (TP), are not defined rigorously.
By contrast, e.g., many scientific terms are very precisely defined. "Hydrogen" is not a poetic concept used in many ways but a name for a specific element with quite specific and demonstrable qualities, such as combining with oxygen to form water, etc., etc. But the world we live in most of the time is just not very rigorous.
A personal example. All my life I've wondered about the differences between a rill, a rivulet, a stream, a brook, a creek, and a river. Surely someone somewhere set down the specific rules on how you can use those terms, like "a creek must be at least N feet in width while Q feet from its outlet into a larger body of water before it can be termed a creek..." but I've seen brooks that are wider than things called rivers, etc. So much for my childish hope for precise terms..... ;-)
Same with spirituality and religion, there's no official set of standards on how to use them, one person's labeled "spirituality" is another's "religion," etc.
I distinguished them for Mohammed in what you might think of a common, "statistical" ways. A person is more likely to be described as "religious" if they belong to an organized faith - the social part - believe in defined doctrines and try to live by defined rules, while a person is more likely to be described as "spiritual" if they question doctrines but regularly practice various experiential techniques, "meditation," e.g., to try to ascertain the nature of spiritual reality for themselves, etc.
But in actual usage, there's enormous overlap and contradiction. And don't even start me going on the many contradictory and confusing ways the term "meditation" is used...
If two people are mentioned to me, one labeled "religious" and the other "spiritual," I really know almost nothing about them until I question each about what they actually do. But statistically speaking, if one group of a thousand is labeled "religious," etc., the distinction has some use.
A follow-up response from Dr. Charley Tart to Dr. Braud's email above:
"I would add to Charley's and Christopher's comments that spirituality--as well as religion--can have (some might say "should have") a social action component"
Amen, Brother! Those are my values too. If spirituality and religion don't make people both wiser and more actively compassionate and helping - well, they're nice, but so is reading novels...
"Not only religion but also spirituality and science (and any and all human enterprises) may include doctrines and beliefs--perhaps not imposed but held or assumed (and often not recognized or sufficiently questioned nonetheless"
Indeed! That's why I like Patrick Henry's Revolutionary War saying, and apply it to all areas of life. "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom." Those assumptions creep in all the time and freeze up our minds...
That's why my most important and longest running research project has been studying the mind of one Charley Tart. A very strange process...
"It would seem possible to be "spiritual" in one sense of that term and still believe that everything might be eventually be understood as involving various types of "material" processes. "
Perhaps, but going down that route loses ITP's and TP's uniqueness and puts spirituality firmly in the hands of those who see it just as a brain state which we will someday efficiently induce with the right drugs. And I would argue very strongly that parapsychological data (including extensive and important work by a fellow named Braud) demonstrate rigorously, by the criteria of science, that the human mind has "spiritual-like" qualities that should be investigated and developed on their own terms, we shouldn't wait for the brain scientists to explain it all away...
