The Completed Spiritual Spectrum

 The Completed Spiritual Spectrum

       One more go round at this. I’ve been studying more of the teachers that I mentioned in my previous blog posts for the last couple months. Digging deeper into their content has supplemented their places for me in the Conservative-Progressive spiritual spectrum. 

       I’ll discuss each new addition from “left” to “right” (bottom-up in this spectrum’s case). So beginning with the most Progressive addition, we have David Hawkins. Creator of the Hawkins Map of Consciousness. 

       This model for consciousness scales human development from 1 to 1,000 across 17 main levels: shame, guilt, apathy, grief, fear, desire, anger, pride, courage, neutrality, willingness, acceptance, reason, love, joy, peace & enlightenment. Establishing so many stages of consciousness puts Hawkins in the Progressive realm before considering that he also uniquely approaches spirituality from an academic-scientific position which solidifies him there. 

       He’s an experienced clinician, physician, and psychiatrist with a PhD and M.D. in clinical psychology (if I’m not mistaken). Researching and teaching spirituality from such a vantage point is what’s Progressive about him. His work unifies pure consciousness-work with clinical sciences such as psychology and psychiatry. 

       His map of consciousness is also much more nuanced than the stages you would find listed in the various teachings of Spiritual Moderates. With that said, his model is still much more linear and rigid than the models of consciousness you find at the more extreme ends of the Progressive spectrum. For example, joy is placed higher than love when many people would consider love to be higher. Some people would even say that love is greater than enlightenment. So given such vast scales of relativity, Hawkins’ model is too inflexible. 

       His map is also not that complex when comparing it to more Progressive spiritual teachings. When you place him next to teachers like Leo Gura or Connor Murphy or Ethan Kahn who are exclaiming that there’s infinitely many levels to be found within consciousness well...the Hawkins Map of Consciousness begins to look quite rudimentary. 

       With all that said, I’ve placed David Hawkins as Slightly Progressive. He makes it into the blue side of the spectrum but is by no means an extremist. 

       Moving on past Teal Swan and Matt Kahn we reach our next additional member. Frank Yang is a popular spiritual teacher on YouTube and Instagram. Like Connor Murphy, he’s into bodybuilding but unlike him, he’s been engrained in the spiritual community for years. Much longer than Connor Murphy. 

       I’ve already partially discussed my placement of Frank in my Post Notes on the Spiritual Spectrum so it won’t take too long for me to explain that here. He advocates for psychedelic usage (a Progressive view) but only insofar as they’re capable of providing Awakenings leading up to what Frank terms “Full Enlightenment.” 

       His depiction of Enlightenment is still largely binary (a Conservative standpoint) and he leans in that direction as being more important. So while exploring psychedelic states isn’t necessarily a distraction, according to Frank, it is ultimately a distraction. Basically, they’re not a method that’s going to bring you all the way. 

       This leans Frank Yang in the Conservative direction. He’s not as far away from Moderate as Sadhguru but still in-between Moderate and Conservative to a degree similar to how Teal is in-between Moderate and Progressive. 

       Further on up and to the right, we have Alan Watts - everyone’s favorite teacher to listen to while they’re high on a Sunday afternoon. He’s a much older teacher than many of the others on this spectrum (born in 1915 and died in 1973). You can still find tons of his voice recorded lectures uploaded to artistically edited videos on inspirational YouTube channels. 

       Alan Watts is largely thought of as the man responsible for popularizing Nonduality and other Eastern spiritual philosophies in the West. As such, his teachings are a much more accurate and unfiltered reiteration of those ancient philosophies than the post-1960s “woo-woo” that we find littered throughout the New Age movement. 

       If you’re someone who considers New Age spirituality to be too much about aliens and not enough about Dharma; too much about crystal healing and not enough about Karma; or too much about astral projection and not enough about waking up then Alan Watts is the purer source of wisdom that you’re looking for. His style is a more mature, adult presentation of Nonduality rather than the kindergarten color-books of the New Age. 

       Now I don’t mean to invalidate New Age teachings since - being Spiritually Moderate - they hold more complexity than the teachings of Alan Watts. However, what I’m saying here is that Watts has a much more straight-forward delivery that cuts straight down to the heart of what spirituality is really about at its most fundamental core. 

       That’s the reason for his position in the Conservative portion of the spectrum. He doesn’t mess around with the colorful aspects of spirituality. He cuts right to the chase. However, he’s not super-strict or rigid like a lot of zen masters. His lectures are more playful, adding an element of existential humor to the subject matter. 

       This makes Alan Watts a more open, flexible Conservative. He’s not hardcore like Peter Ralston or other similar teachers who originate from zen or No-Mind traditions. He’s Slightly Conservative. 

       Speaking of Peter Ralston, we’ve now got someone even more purist than him. He’s none other than Prince Siddhartha Gautama (the historical Buddha). Ralston may be intensely deep into the No-Mind cornerstones of spirituality but he doesn’t edge out the founder himself. 

       Siddhartha is revered as one of infinitely many Buddhas yet is the sole one responsible for creating the teachings that have grown into the fourth-largest religion of today. He’s known as Gautama Buddha and his teachings were original and profoundly unique amongst the other religious philosophies of his day. 

       There were no other forms of spirituality (that we know of) which taught surrender to such an extreme extent as Gautama’s. Hinduism had an abundant multitude of sects existing at the time which taught about letting go of the illusory nature of the self but even they still believed there to be an Ultimate Self that was truly real. 

       By comparison, Gautama’s philosophy didn’t even consider the notions of a Higher Self or Supreme Being to be anything more than fleeting fabrications of the mind that must also be surrendered. Hindus taught students to let go of the Atman (individual self) for the Brahman (Supreme Self). Gautama and subsequent Buddhists taught that even the Brahman must be surrendered. 

       No notion of a self or personal identity can remain if one is to attain Nirvana, according to Gautama Buddha. Complete detachment from thoughts, emotions, desires, beliefs, and ideals is required. 

       Siddhartha was the first known historical figure to teach this realization of anatta (No-Self). As such, he is the originator of extreme Conservative practices like No-Mind meditation, Personal Cessation, & Universal Detachment. 

       Basically, his teachings are the roots of Conservative spirituality and practice. They’re the bare naked core of traditional purist spirituality. This already places Siddhartha Gautama at the most extreme end of the Conservative portion of the spectrum. 

       Yet, he technically should be placed even further right because his teachings are foundational to Conservative spirituality (like I said, they’re the bare roots). His philosophy is what you find before traditional spirituality is established. This makes them pre-establishment in a sense, which pushes him beyond Conservative. However, he’s certainly not Barbaric since his teachings are still very set and orderly. They’re not a loose system of pleasure-seeking spirituality. 

       So Siddhartha stretches out into the gap between Conservative and Barbaric (which I call Classical). Being the root of No-Self spirituality means he’s extremely Conservative but it also entails that the Buddha is Classical in some respects. 

       This is why he’s slightly further to the right than Ralston. Peter Ralston teaches that everything except Consciousness is “just stuff.” Gautama Buddha, on the other hand, would most likely tell Ralston to let go of even his notion of Consciousness. If even the Brahman must go, then Ralston’s ever-present Consciousness must be surrendered too. 

       If we move even further right into Barbaric, there’s another teacher that I briefly discussed in my Post Notes. Rasputin was a mystic born and raised in Western Siberia back in 1869. 

       He grew up as a rural peasant but used his mystic powers to quickly gain access to the Russian Royal Family. From there, he leveraged that power to influence the Russian Empire so much so that he became viewed as a threat by numerous Russian aristocrats. 

       I don’t have time to divulge his entire life story but it is a very intriguing one worth studying if and when you have time of your own. What I will focus on here is what exactly about his form of spirituality that makes him Barbaric. 

       He had a sizable congregation in St, Petersburg who later made accusations of physical and sexual abuse at the hands of the mad-eyed mystic. He was known for teaching people to dissolve the influence of sin through sin itself. Under that mantra, he became very promiscuous and often sought social or physical dominance as a means to get closer to God. Divinity, for Rasputin, was found in pleasure and power. 

       It was even told that Rasputin gained access to his reported mystical abilities by going deep within to the most raw, unfiltered depths of himself. This was a place within one’s identity wherein lied all their deepest desires untempered by civilized society. 

       Certainly such types of spirituality aren’t for the traditional seeking of Enlightenment. Rather, Rasputin was indulging in Empowerment which is found on the ultraconservative side of the spectrum. 

       His case, however, is a very dark and toxic presentation of ultraconservative spirituality. Wim Hof is a more self-restrained example using his ultraconservative freedom to control deep biological urges. Such Primitive Spirituality is so free that it simultaneously satisfies one’s needs and doesn’t take advantage of others to do it. 

       Further to the right still, is the final addition to this revision of the Spiritual Spectrum. He’s the god-man who’s arguably the most influential figure in known history. Jesus Christ. 

       I’m not claiming to know what Jesus was really like. My analysis of him is based on a put-together image of the retold figure which is essentially an amalgamation of Biblical and Gnostic conceptions of Christ. 

       Each of the reported stories about Jesus’ life (whether found in the canonical gospels of the Bible or the lost gospels associated with Gnosticism) all have a common thread running through them. Namely, that Jesus claimed himself to be a Highly Divine figure who took on a human male incarnation to judge and save the world (to simultaneously condemn it and redeem it). 

       Technically, John 3:17 says that God didn’t send Jesus to condemn the world but only to save it. However, if you read that verse within the fuller context of John 3:16-18, there’s still some condemnation going around...

       “For God so loved the world that he gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” 

(New International Version)

       That last line (John 3:18) is the punchline. Technically, some of the world is still being condemned even though they’re supposedly doing it themselves because Jesus could still choose to save anyone who doesn’t believe. From there, it would just be a matter of who would want to be saved rather than who believes in his Divinity personally. 

       Although, that’s beside the point for right now. The case I’m making here is that Jesus (in both the canonical gospels and the lost gospels) is depicted as a figure who holds power over the fate the world. Okay so...typical Primeval Spirituality. You’re so far to the right that not only do you have the power & freedom to control your individual self like Wim Hof in Primitive Spirituality but you possess so much that your individual self now gets to decide the state of a broader collective. 

       That’s essentially what the historical figure of Jesus is reported as being: a figure who holds the might & freedom to determine what’s done with the world. This is also what he taught about himself and - according to those same reports - what he demonstrated himself to be through performed miracles. 

       This is most assuredly Primeval Spirituality. Even if you analyze his miracles in a Christian context from a Christian perspective, you see signs of Primeval Spirituality. 

       For example, if you ask a typical Christian today whether hearing Jesus’ voice communicate to you in your mind is a form telepathy, they would either say no or give a reluctant yes. The real reason for this would be because they see it as a subtle heresy to be tainting scripture with scientific jargon but there’s a deeper reason here to take the Christian at their word. 

       That is, if Jesus is truly the Son of God, then does he even need to use telepathy to communicate remotely? Telepathy, if you really think about it, would still be just as much a form of communication as speaking verbally. It may be more high-powered but it still requires effort to send a message through a medium (even if that medium isn’t spatial). 

       Therefore, telepathy still requires effort. Does the Son of God actually need to put in effort of his own in order to send and receive messages? Wouldn’t he just have so much power and authority that the environment obeys his wishes without him having to lift a finger? 

       The apostles actually hint at this in Mark 4:41 when after Jesus calms the storm at sea, they question, “Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!”

       Now again, we’d have to take the apostles at their word just like we’d have to take the telepathy-denying Christians at their word to come to this conclusion that Jesus is so powerful that he doesn’t actually have to expend his own energy because the world quite literally obeys him. Nonetheless, there’s actually more consistency if we do...

       Framing Jesus within this scriptural context as a figure who holds so much power over the Universe that the world literally obeys him perfectly aligns ancient accounts of Jesus with modern-day conceptions of him. It creates a more wholesome image of Jesus that unifies all conceptions of him. 

       Since I’m basing my analysis of Jesus on such combined conceptions, I’m sticking with this interpretation. Under this interpretation, Jesus’ abilities wouldn’t have been accomplished through inside-out influence of the environment but rather outside-in command over it. 

       What do I mean by this? Well...let’s look at the difference between someone who creates a system from the outside and another person who interacts with that system on the inside, after it’s been created. 

       The person on the inside will have to “play by the rules.” The system influences their actions because all of their actions take place within the context of the system. Basically, their actions must utilize the system which means they rely on it to make things happen. 

        The creator on the outside wouldn’t need to rely on that system since none of their actions are taking place within its sphere of influence. So if they want to accomplish something through the system, they don’t have to play by its rules to do it. They can just program the system to accomplish the task for them. The system is their servant just like an AI system or any other technological system should ideally act as a servant. 

       So now let’s say we have two beings: one inside of the Universe and under the influence of its physical laws and the other outside of the Universe and not bound by its laws. In this example, the Universe along with its scientific laws comprises a particular system. The former being is inside of that system while the latter is outside of it. 

       If the being on the inside wants to levitate, they need to do whatever is required of them by that Universe’s physical laws in order accomplish that task. Let’s say...they need to generate one trillion watts of power with their mind and channel it through their feet (just an arbitrarily made up scenario). 

       Now what if the being on the outside walks into that Universe (but still isn’t under its influence) and they also want to levitate? Well, they wouldn’t necessarily need to generate one trillion watts of power to get it done. They could re-program the system (the Universe) and lower the amount of power required for levitation. They would, quite literally, command the environment to allow them to levitate and it would obey...see where I’m going with this? 

       Interpreting Jesus as someone like that outside being who has so much power over the Universe that he doesn’t need to spend his own energy to manipulate it implies that Jesus would be manifesting miracles from the outside-in. In other words, he wouldn’t need any effort to make them happen because the environment would be programmed to make them happen for him.

       This again, is Primeval Spirituality at its finest. To be Primeval is to be independent of a particular Natural Order. In Jesus’ case, that Natural Order is the world. Since Jesus is independents of the world, he doesn’t need to play by its rules to get things done. The world obeys him and does it for him. 

       This establishes my point that Jesus’ form of spirituality is Primeval even if we take both the apostles and modern-day Christians at their word that Jesus’ abilities aren’t anything scientific. If we assume that his miracles really do manifest because the Universe obeys him, then all the more reason to place Jesus in the Primeval portion of the spectrum. 

       This is why I felt comfortable enough to include Jesus in this revision despite there being no consensus on what he was like or if there was even a historical man behind his image. Given that all the stories about Jesus (whether about a real man or fictional character) point to this common thread of someone equipped with all the hallmarks of Primeval spiritual teachings, I had no reason not to include him in the spectrum, even if just as a character. 

       I’ll finish by discussing his relationship to the man even further to the right than him: Ethan Kahn. Like I did in Part II of the Spiritual Spectrum, I’m not going to divulge any pivotal information from red33m to do this since it is exclusive. Basically, Ethan Kahn’s exclusive teachings are a pure-bred form of Jesus’ supposed teachings, as Ethan’s even made that comparison himself. 

       Being a pure version of Jesus’ teachings places Ethan’s further to the right because things become more absolutist or you could say, more black-&-white as you move further to the right. Going to the left makes you more nuanced or relativistic. 

       So the next question is, what makes Ethan’s exclusive content a pure or absolute version of Biblical & Gnostic spirituality? Well, remember that Jesus’ teachings revolve around saving this world. It’s unclear what would be meant by “the world” in a Biblical context but I discussed in Part II of my Spiritual Spectrum post that I’d give Jesus the highest benefit-of-the-doubt and assume that “the world” would be referring to this entire space-time continuum (this entire three-dimensional reality that’s being experienced through 4-D time, you could say). 

       If we assume that Jesus was talking about saving this entire reality, then he may have been boasting salvation on an infinite scale if space really does go on forever. Though even if he was, that still wouldn’t necessarily make his form of salvation total (pertaining to all of existence) because what if there’s other “worlds” or other dimensions and realities out there besides this one? In fact, Biblical & Gnostic teachings already imply this and therefore, further imply that Jesus wasn’t speaking for all of existence. 

       For example, Jesus obviously taught of the Kingdom of Heaven as something that exists (or at least, he didn’t explicitly state otherwise). Additionally, the Gnostic texts refer to Jesus’ home as being a realm called “Barbelo.” This realm is where purified and saved individuals unite with the Divine after gnosis. 

       If the place where saved people go is still a realm then it still exists. It may be independent of this reality’s Natural Order (Primeval) but it most certainly isn’t independent of existence itself (Primordial). 

       Therefore, the type of salvation that Jesus taught would’ve been Primeval. Not as far to the right as Ethan’s since his is Primordial. You can see this better through analyzing the exact types of corruption that each version of Salvation is meant to save people from. 

       Jesus’ offer of Salvation addresses this world as a fallen one in need of redemption. It’s a corrupt Natural Order that can be saved through Christ in unison with God the Father. 

       You could say, Jesus’ Salvation addresses the fact that this Natural Order fell and needs to be restored. For Ethan, on the other hand, it’s not the fact that the Natural Order fell and needs to be restored that matters, it’s the very fact that it could’ve fallen in the first place!

       Falling shouldn’t even be a possibility unless by free choice. For Ethan, this means that solving the corruption of one specific Natural Order isn’t enough because everything is steeped in vulnerability. 

       This establishes Ethan’s exclusive teachings as more absolutist than Jesus’ and Jesus’ teachings as more relativistic compared to Ethan’s. Not only are Ethan’s teachings more absolutist in comparison, they’re entirely absolutist. You could say that they’re objectively absolutist (absolutely absolutist) while Jesus’ teachings are only subjectively so. 

       Being more absolutist places one further to the right in the spectrum so as such, Ethan is further to the right. Jesus’ teachings are still relativistic and so, they can’t be positioned in the Primordial portion. 

       It’s a very intriguing analysis to see both in comparison but again, I’m not going to state any more here than I should. This completes my analysis of spiritual teachers along the Conservative-Progressive spectrum for the foreseeable future. Next, I’ll be moving on to other subjects of analysis.