Revisioning Advaita Vedanta

Let me first say that Jorge F. Ferrer's book "Revisioning transpersonal theory" isn't bad. Quite the contrary. It's one of the more interesting and well-written books on spirituality I've come across. That being said, I nevertheless disagree with the author.

Ferrer belongs to the current known as transpersonal psychology, a more explicitly spiritual version of humanistic psychology. Transpersonal psychology is often considered a part of the New Age milieu. Ferrer's book is a criticism of both "official" transpersonal studies and Ken Wilber's more recent version (Integral Theory). By implication, Ferrer also criticizes the broader New Age scene.

The author believes that transpersonal psychology has become too obsessed with subjective and ostensibly spiritual "experiences", a viewpoint he dubs "experientialism". This has led to a weird dualism between inner and outer worlds, where the inner experiences are seen as privileged. Downright narcissism in spiritual matters is another consequence. Ferrer also attacks something he calls "the empiricist colonization of spirituality", the attempt to "prove" spirituality in general and mysticism in particular by appeals to a methodology similar to that of science. In Ferrer's opinion, this is misguided. The spiritual sphere of existence cannot be accessed or judged by methods from a completely different and unrelated sphere.

Finally, Ferrer criticizes perennialism. (He calls Wilber's opinions neo-perennial.) There are at least two problems with perennialism, according to Ferrer. First, it simply isn't true that all or most spiritual traditions are similar. Mystics don't have similar experiences, the author argues. Second, perennialism - while claiming to be universalist and inclusive - actually ranks spiritual traditions, usually with those similar to Advaita Vedanta at the top, with more theistic systems ranked lower.

So far, I think Ferrer has raised many interesting points, and his scholarly erudition is considerable (this guy could have been a professor at a "respectable" institution, rather than at the somewhat obscure California Institute for Integral Studies).

My problem is with his alternative, which he calls "participatory epistemology". Ferrer believes that the spiritual or divine realm, which he calls the Mystery, is somehow created or co-created by human beings. The Mystery can take many different forms, depending on how different religious traditions "enact" it. Ferrer is at pains to distinguish this perspective from that of Advaita, by claiming that while the Advaita Vedantins believe in an ontologically objective impersonal reality that seemingly takes different forms depending on how it's approached, participatory epistemology doesn't believe in an ontologically objective reality in the first place. If we choose to enact a Catholic reality, the Mystery to that extent actually becomes Catholic, if we choose Advaita, it becomes Advaitin, etc.

But isn't this just another form of crazy subjectivism? What about enacting the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn? Ferrer believes that his position transcends the subject-object dualism and hence isn't a new form of new agey sollipsism. First, he emphasizes the communal dimension of spirituality. Second, he believes that there are *some* objective constraints on how the Mystery can possibly be enacted. Thirdly, Ferrer actually ranks different traditions himself (!), by saying that there is an objective moral criterion involved. The best traditions are those that open us up to the Mystery by simultaneously diminishing our selfishness, greed and narcissism. Presumably, Satanists and Crowleyans need not apply.

In my opinion, Ferrer's position is at bottom simply another form of Advaita Vedanta. Had Ferrer stopped at the claim that the Mystery is somehow created by humans, he would have been no different from an atheist, a kind of non-materialist atheist perhaps. Note also that the more tangible reality studied by natural science *isn't* enacted or co-created in this manner. However, by taking the whole reasoning a step further by introducing objective constraints and even objective moral criteria for the Mystery, Ferrer lands exactly at the spot he claims to have avoided.

At bottom, Jorge N. Ferrer has simply revisioned Advaita Vedanta.

Ramakrishna Mission, anyone?