The Myth of Shadow Work

Thanks man, you made my day. We don't need to get rid of ego do we? Nor do we need to integrate, transform or work with all these darker aspects of ourselves, as long as we make sure they don't stop us. That's a big deal indeed, but if we care we can…
And as I see it, that is how we find real liberation from the limited personal sphere and thus become available for real relationships with people as we spoke about in a long string of comments here

Right, and my point was that shadow work is crucial but that if we do it in a personal context it will never get us anywhere. It is like trying to lift yourself up, impossible, you feel like you are making effort but you are not moving.

Shadow work in an absolute, cosmic or enlightened context means, in my opinion, that time is ticking, everything counts, you don't have to perfect or transform your shadow because you know that that is not who you ultimately are. Yet you have to be wide awake because you know you are an egoic narcissist and don't want that to cause harm. I find life is too precious to dig in the past or prepare for the future. I feel we are needed NOW to create an enlightened future between us…

What I love about Jesus as we know him from the scriptures is both his humanness like you described, Nicole, and his revolutionary fire.

I am getting responses to this blogpost from many directions, below I will post the ones that are in English that get send to me by email.

Great issue to be discussing! This gets back to one of the very points that causes some “friendly” friction between the integral community and the enlightenNext community - as to how much do we focus on the individual vs. the collective, and how much to transcend and include (and exclude) in the context of evolutionary enlightenment. I am no expert on shadow, but I speak from a cursory theoretical understanding and some personal experience. I resonated with the Arjan's writeup, as I can validate that there are many transformational integral “geeks” who are constantly self evaluating every emotion, thought, and sensation. It does become incessant at some point. Yet, I have seen many people who have awakened themselves and meditate on a regular basis, and will still project their psychic issues frequently. There are some interesting stories of monks living in monasteries who would get into heated arguments and even become physically hostile in the dining hall after meditating for an entire day!

Wilber saw the importance of shadow work when he saw all these “enlightened” people in various spiritual communities still not behaving as whole beings. The limited shadow work I will do has become an ongoing practice for me, where in relation to another individual, I witness any charge someone is giving me and turn it around from their perspective. It causes me to sometimes catch myself before I cling on to any reactivity, and to take the perspective from another individual. Wilber does make the point that the more evolved you are, the more you can take on various perspectives and integrate them coherently. This is a major point of integral theory - to be aware of what's arising from all four quadrants - and only in that context can you become more whole and more evolved.

Getting back to Arjan's point, I agree with his point that we have to “dive in at the deep end” because we do need to care for something bigger than ourselves. But what does it mean to care and to evolve consciousness? I believe it some way it means we have to evolve as whole beings. As much as I may care for the Sacred, I will still have conflict in my life, and on some days it may feel worse than others because my brain physiology is fucking with me, or someone hit a real psychic nerve from my childhood, or the cosmos just decided to really test me. How do I deal with those times - and am I really caring for the Sacred if I'm dismissing something in myself that isn't awakened to my wholeness?

Arjan mentions that he doesn't “feel we have time for the kind of shadow work [he] mentioned…, even if it would work.” Yet, I am sure he meditates on a regular basis, and how much time would it take to do some shadow practice on occassion or even to self evaluate something that really grabs you. Do we just dismiss those items that grab us, and focus on the evolution of consciousness - only to find that things that grabbed us never went away because we never dealt with it? Or do we try to deal with those things that get in the way of our wholeness, and with that take on the perspective that we're not doing that just for ourselves, but in the end to evolve the higher Self?

Much love,

Ted

So… I agree with everything Ted said. Let me add to it. Not that I expect every one of Andrew's students to be an expert in Integral Philosophy, but this demonstrates a flawed understanding of the work, and of the relationship between the individual self and the Self. The Two Truths Doctrine is clear that, although there is an ultimate reality, there is also a relative reality, and in the relative world, I'm Scott. To deny that, in a relative sense, I am Scott, with this body and this mind and these gorgeous blue eyes and this set of thoughts, is simply inaccurate. Likewise, to deny that my relative self has flaws or blockages also is inaccurate.

Now, I may gain a glimpse of Self at any point on the path (especially thanks to Big Mind) but the individual self that then perceives and manifests as the Self will have flaws that prevent the most complete flowering and expression of the Truth that is our Authentic Self. Some may perceive the Self and have a developmental level of Red, or Amber, or Orange, or Green, and then the expression of Self that comes from that will be incomplete, and tailored to that level. Another way that the vessel that is the individual self may be flawed is in the physical. We may have birth defects or retardation, we may be disabled in some way, we may have disease, we may have brain damage from a stroke or from an accident, etc. that prevents us from being able to be healthy enough to maintain and express the realization of Self. And yet another way that the vessel may be flawed is in the psychological. We may perceive Ultimate Reality, and yet literally be psychotic, and therefore not able to communicate or express that realization in a way that benefits ourselves or others. We may have blockages at a Gestalt or Existential level that prevent us from owning our realization, fully embracing it, and communicating and living it clearly. Or we have have shadow issues that prevent us from being able to express this realization in as full and fruitful a way as possible. These shadow issues can spring up in all sorts of ways: then may block us from having honest and open relationships with others; they may cause us anxiety about things that others don't have a problem with; they may prevent us from understanding aspects of teachings we need; they may cause us to become obsessive about a particular path in life; they may cause us to project power or pain that we carry onto others. The list goes on and on. They may cause all kinds of untold damage, to us and to those around us. And one can lead a “normal” life and never deal with them. A lot of spiritual people, prior to Integral philosophy, considered the highest achievement to be the realization of Emptiness, and then that was that, and whatever you did after that didn't matter much (this was prior to the discovery of psychology in a Western sense, and even after, I'm afraid). Some spiritual teachers, as Ted pointed out, because they haven't dealt with their own shadow (frequently manifesting in the psychosexual or power realms… hmm, imagine that?) act in ways that are contrary to their own teaching, and which they may even be aware of, but which are unconsciously driven.

Since Integral philosophy, though, we know that Enlightenment is defined as: the highest level of state realization available (which hasn't changed since Buddha) and the highest level of stage development (which continues to unfold). Higher levels of stage development, and particularly the ability to live through those higher stages, require psychological work (one of the great discoveries of the 20th century). So it seems misinformed to me to suggest that shadow work is unimportant, simply because only the Authentic Self ultimately exists. If it's unimportant to work on the relative vessel, why does Andrew insist that all of his students continue to meditate, even after they've tasted the non-dual? Why does he insist that all of his students exercise regularly? I mean, that's just the body… far less important than the mind, right? Does Andrew have shadow issues? You betcha. So does Ken. So do I (As you all know, I'm an asshole). So do you. Now, I have no idea of the extent to which Andrew has sought to work on his shadow, if at all, but I know that Ken did therapy for many years (he wrote about it), and for all I know, he still may engage in a session here and there. I do know that the ability of both of them to continue to express Evolutionary Enlightenment and AQAL would benefit from continuing to explore stuck areas, where the shadow tends to come up and limit us. Same for me, by the way, and that's why, when I'm conscious enough to remember to, I do things like 3-2-1 Practice, or Byron Katie's The Work to help me through areas in which I'm stuck. Some things are worse than others… some of my stuck paths are old and comfortable despite the pain and limitation they cause. But I believe the practices help, and I know I've had good results with that work. It doesn't mean I obsess about it (well, not always)… it just means I understand that it helps me to be a better vessel. And that is the point, right? To be a better relative vessel… to be able express the realization of Unmanifest Truth more clearly, more lovingly, more gracefully, without blockages, without hindrances, and without imperfections. Let us all continue that work with our relative selves, in all areas where that work is needed, while we rest as the I-I, the Non-Dual, the Authentic Self.

Scott

I just wanted to respond back to Ted and Scott's emails…I think it's really important to clarify that Arjan is not saying that shadow works isn't important. In fact, as Andrew once said in a retreat, his students probably do more shadow work than anyone in the world (just imagine, being in a tight knit group of twenty guys for over ten years in the context of transcending ego, meeting formally sometimes twice a week…). What Arjan is pointing to is the context in which we do shadow work.

Of course we all have shadows! But what bothers me about the more widely held beliefs about shadow work is that we have all the time in the world to work on them, and that they may be giving some people some aggravation, but nothing too inconsequential. In this view, it's the suffering of the person with the shadow that seems to be the most important part of the picture.

But from an evolutionary context, our individual development is directly related to the development of the whole. The degree to which I take on my shadow is the degree that the fullness of the Authentic Self can actually affect this world in real time, and the degree to which I choose to keep putting it off, not only hinders its expression through me, but it keeps the development in the collective down as well.

And of course, we're not going to be perfect anytime soon, and in my own experience, I discover that my own imperfections and resistance to evolution at deeper levels – but you can't put a pause button on life while you work these things out! We're all interconnected and we're all depending on each other on so many levels. And it's that care for our process that Arjan so beautifully describes in his blog that becomes the impetus to bypass the personal orientation to dealing with one's shadow that sees itself as having all the time in the world to work itself out. I think it's only in this kind of care that you actually find the intention and power to actually deal with one's shadow for real.

Love,
Kenzo

  Kenzo, 

I think your email refines and clarifies the issue somewhat, and states some ideas better than I did. Yes, of course shadow work is important. But it shouldn't just be important in the sense of individual development, but to play a part in the development of the whole. We have a responsibility for the higher Self that is evolving as individual self unfolds. It's tricky fine line here, and I suppose it gets to one thing you said: “but you can't put a pause button on life while you work these things out.” I pondered this for a while, trying to get at what is being said. Ostensibly, this statement ties into Andrew's spiritual activism: we have to do I now…not later…but now!  I believe the concept of shadow work or any personal development technique should not be differentiated as an either/or option: you're either doing shadow work or you're engaged in the evolutionary process. I think, as you clearly pointed out, your community is doing both but in the context of the whole. (I still believe Arjan didn't make this as clear as you did.)

I also think this issue goes even farther – into the idea as to whether you're doing this as part of a collective - and therefore making the intersubjective commitment to the process. And that's the Maginot line: are we so deeply committed to this that we're willing to give ourselves to some intersubjective collective committed to the evolution of consciousness? Seeing that that the EnlightenNext community is the only game in town doing this, then you may saying well come aboard one and all! :) However, we all have different paths, and we need to reconcile how we move the cosmos forward in those respective paths. It may not be a path that calls for a close nit community engaging evolutionary consciousness, but somehow we need to make that path work for ourselves. I still believe buddhism/christianity/scientology (ok, kidding) can provide us a road on this path, although the interpretations need to be refined to include evolutionary speak to update these premodern teachings. Ultimately, it can't be about intellectual/emotional/somatic/psychosexual gymnastics, although that will always play a part, but about how we evolve the cosmos from Cambridge, Seattle, and Lenox through our unfolding and enfolding souls. Our men's group is obviously one piece of this puzzle, and I most interested in how this can be accomplished from unique paths with various spiritual teachers - because that's the only way it's going to happen - not through one teacher and one path, but through those committed to a common evolving “end” via pluralistic means.

Rereading Arjan's blog entry, I still think he's rejecting individual shadow work as unimportant and something that he feels is a luxury that he doesn't have time for. We'll have to ask him what he meant, I guess. Also, I know (and love) the focus on the interpersonal from Andrew's instruction, but that doesn't mean that we can cast everything in terms of the interpersonal and intersubjective. While we all have four quadrants (and eight perspectives), shadow work is specifically an UL practice, in other words, personal subjective. I'm not seeing how talking about the LL here has any relation or bearing on whether or not shadow work is important and useful. I mean, sure, healthy humans can contribute and interact in the LL better after shadow work, but the work itself is inherently personal, and inherently about issues specific to the individual. To suggest otherwise is to say something like “I go jogging to work on my contribution to the LL.” Um, no, you don't. So either you think that personal, individual shadow work is important, or you don't. It sounds like Arjan thinks it's not important. I disagree, and so does Integral philosophy.

Agree/disagree?

Scott

Hey guys.

I actually agree with both of Scott/Ted and Kenzo/Arjan, and I think this is possible because terminologically I think you are speaking past eachother. Shadow work, as it is practiced in regards to Ken's model, is an upper left phenomena, meaning that it is an individual and interior practice. That fact does not exclude the possibility of approaching that UL practice from a kosmo-centric or impersonal perspective or context. The color coded stages, or verticality, which can be moved through in each of the four quadrants, is often spoken of generally as ego-centric, ethno-centric, world-centric, and kosmo-centric. In each developmental leap there is a new relationship to the content of each quadrant, and so what arises in the upper left, say an ugly pattern of self-loathing, is interpreted differently according to your stage altitude, as well as, I would argue, your depth (state stage). “Personal,” then does not necessarily mean “Individual” but more an orientation that interprets individual / interior phenomena in a particular way. Impersonal, or the more positive term of universal, is also a possible context to interpret or approach UL phenomena. For Wilber and Andrew, the emphasis is on understanding all experiences and phenomena, internal, exter nal, individual and collective, from the broadest and most inclusive vantage point, and this would have to be the kosmo-centric perspective. That doesn't mean that all of the personal or individual qualities or issues are ignored or they no longer exist. They are just revealed to be less compelling in and of themselves, in light of a vast process that they are now seen to be arising within.

One possible tension between both schools (Cohen and Wilber), and this is crucial as we start to envision a meta-school which we are actually creating real-time with this dialogue, is that the focus on the personal for Andrew as inherently bad, while, for Ken, it appears to be an important dimension of life that needs to co-develop with all the other dimensions. This is a general summary and is not exhaustive of their actual views, which are much more complex, but of the tension I see in our dialogue on the shadow. To help clarify I think we need to make a clear distinction between personal / impersonal and individual / collective.

I can be engaged in a collective endeavor (organizing and participating in an anti-war effort) while focusing entirely on the personal benefits, and maintaing an ubroken self-centered motivation towards every facet of that collective endeavor. Similarly, one could do individual shadow work, not solely for personal development, but as part and parcel of a universal process which fundamentally motivates such work, so the collective, species, planet, cosmos can move forward as a fulsome expression of harmony and integrity.

This is where the care element seems to fit in regarding Arjan's post – what are we working on the shadow for? We can work on individual and interior elements of our lives from a vast impersonal perspective, and, arguably,  this is the only way to truly bring the shadow to light.

Am I being too green with this attempt at perspectival accomodation?

Ben

    Yes, Greenie.  Stay out of it.  :-P

    Ben, I think you've identified some important issues, and I'll try to drill down a little more to dig in my heels on my point-of-view even more.  :-)

    Now, I don't mean to be the Dharma Defender of Integral here, and I'm happy to learn something new… but I still don't get it.  Having your self-sense at kosmocentric doesn't change the nature of shadow work to me… unless you're going to talk about doing shadow work on all of the unconscious problems of the Authentic Self, of which I'm not aware of any.

    And saying that “I'm doing X not from a personal context, but from a kosmocentric context” doesn't automatically change the nature of X, or imbue it with extra gravity or importance.  “I'm washing my dishes from a kosmocentric point-of-view”… what does that even mean?  “I'm jogging from a kosmocentric point-of-view”… well, that's awesome if you can maintain a non-dual perspective during exercise, but you're still jogging.

    I'm concerned that we're going down a path where claiming a higher context allows one to: 1) deny the importance of doing something at a personal level, when it might be crucially important to do something at a personal (i.e. not impersonal) level (EnlightenNext people, I'm looking at you); and, 2) claim special importance for doing something at a kosmocentric level, when such claims are imprecise or even nonsensical.

    In short, I'm perceiving imprecision in the use of these terms, and I think this is more than a semantic issue… I think that being sloppy here can lead to some bad outcomes in terms of what we see and how we behave.  I am concerned that some of this imprecision, while stemming from the laudable excitement of dealing with things from as high of an intersubjective point-of-view as one can hold, may end up as a dissociation from, or demonization of, things that naturally, logically, fit within a personal context, and only in a personal context.  (This is why I'm being so God-damn-would-he-just-shut-up-already difficult here.)  And there's nothing wrong with identifying things that fit in a personal context… we all have gross, subtle, and causal bodies, and we do things for all three.

    To use a Buddhist formulation, I might begin my exercise session by saying, “I dedicate all merit from this exercise for the benefit of all sentient beings, and keep none for myself,” and I might be completely sincere in that, I might hold the Witness as I say it, and it might even give me extra desire to work hard, but the work is personal and physical.  Claiming that higher context around it, while valid, doesn't negate the need for that exercise, or change its nature.  Similarly, if I were to say, “I dedicate all merit from this shadow work for the benefit of all sentient beings, and keep none for myself” it in no way changes that the shadow work is personal and targeted at my individual self, and has to do with the forms that the shadow has taken in this body and mind.

    Of course there are those who only have a personal context from which to do shadow work (like almost everyone on the planet right now).  And seeing the way they go about their shadow work can sometimes be tedious, as Arjan points out, and sometimes can be quite inspiring.  I agree that doing shadow work while being aware of an impersonal context should change the extent to which you attach to the outcome of that work (as attachment decreases with spiritual advancement).

    But, again, either you think that doing the shadow work is important, or you don't.  Claiming a higher context or higher caring about it doesn't change that it's personal and it's a dirty job and that you've got to do it.  And if you think it's not important, that stance is at odds with the best research currently available about how mental health fits in the broader context of living a life where the spiritual comes into focus… in other words, Integral theory.

    I think.

    Ben, is this all just a restatement in a different way of what you just said?  Is this something that makes sense to be incredibly careful about?  Am I being too intellectual and doctrinal?

- Scott “My shadow is making me so difficult here” Arbeit

Hi Scott,

What the hell does washing dishes and jogging have to do with shadow work?!

I'm saying that to make some important distinctions in what we're speaking about. Of course, there are totally mundane things that have no relevance whatsoever whether you're doing them from a kosmocentric perspective or from barely above beige, and yes, there is a very individual and personal dimension to the human experience that just is what it is (Andrew's not just drumming in Unfulfilled Desires strictly for the sake of all sentient beings) – but this awesome and engaged dialogue that's been these past few days have been around the subject of a person bringing the light of awareness to one's unconscious motives in order to stop creating suffering to others…Right? I mean, even if you are a total, absolute raging narcissist short of being a lunatic schizophrenic, the whole idea of shadow work wouldn't even occur to you unless you were getting some feedback from other people in relationship to you that something you were doing was having a negative impact on them!

I think that's an important point, because inherent in shadow work, from whatever perspective, is about relationship. I don't understand how it ever could be a solely individual interior event, as it sounds like both you and Ted are alluding to (please correct me if I've misunderstood this). The work is taking place within an individual's interior, but I'll be damned if it wasn't motivated by stimulus and data coming from all other three quadrants. Whew, I just remembered it's called the 3-2-1 shadow process! (Sorry, there goes my shadow again!) And I think it's the isolation and fixation of the UL that creates a moral conundrum, and also what Arjan's blog post is pointing to. Isn't the fundamental point of Integral that it reveals many different perspectives on one Kosmic Whole? I want to reiterate that both EnlightenNext and Integral agree that shadow work is vital and crucial to the spiritual path. But I think where we don't seem to agree is that from the point of view of Evolutionary Enlightenment, the current mainstream view of shadow work doesn't take its implications seriously enough. It seems to say, “we'll care about becoming more integrated people, but only up to a certain point, and then it's my life, baby.” Evolutionary Enlightenment says, “No sir, you are evolving incarnate consciousness – you began this process and you are in it until the very end.”

I don't believe that any truly significant shadow work could occur that didn't ultimately have to do with care for the collective. And I think the issue is that the mainstream view of shadow work only reinforces the emotional and psychological conviction that one is essentially separate from it, and therefore, not responsible for it.

 Kenzo

I can't in good conscience let Scott take all the fire here, even though I know he's up to it.

 I agree 100% - the admission of a kosmocentric perspective does not change the nature of the activity. And the goal is not to transcend the personal, but to transcend the pathology of the personal and include the healthy personal in a healthy collective. This may all be part of a process, but it very literally takes place in the world of individualized beings; that is simple fact that no amount of kosmocentric perspective will change.

 I think the most authentic shadow work has less to do with the

 feedback we get from relationships than our own sense of knowing that we are imperfect and we have egoic blind spots that limit our ability to have a positive impact on the world, and courageously undertaking a process of inquiry and development in order to become more capable, more engaged and more positive in our influence on the world.

 The thing about shadow, is when it's projected towards individuals, it tends to bring out the shadow in those individuals as well Eckhart Tolle calls this the “pain body” and does a really good job of describing the dynamics of “shadow interaction.” But that's why we need to undertake this individual task on a collective level, because we're not just working out our own shit, we're working out our own shit, and allowing other people to work out their own shit rather than saddling them with ours.

 Yeah, maybe Arjan isn't saying that shadow work is strictly unnecessary, but he sure goes to a lot of effort to downplay it without admitting any alternative approach or perspective in which it is valuable or effective, all apparently for the purposes of reaffirming what is a known shared value of audience, which is that anything undertaken from a strictly personal perspective merits examination. So why then single out shadow work over anything else (ie jogging, washing dishes) unless there is some particular (but unstated) complaint against shadow work or Integral practitioners?

 So one aspect of shadow work is that you look for areas where you have an elevated reaction in order to know where you need to work So, for example, if you have a strong negative reaction towards washing dishes (or jogging, or shadow work), that might indicate that you have some shadow around that, and maybe you should work on that shadow so you can stop projecting it on others (ie dishwashers, joggers, shadow work practitioners)

I think the conflict underlying this issue is less about a fundamental disagreement around what type of work we should be doing and more about an evangelic culture within EN, in which some individuals speak from a perspective of demonstrating how their philosophy transcends all others rather than translating their values and perspectives into broader culture in an uplifting manner. We in postmodern culture have a tendency of believing that the recognition of a thing is the same as the embodiment of it (Recall our “third tier” discussion.) But the admission of hierarchy does not automatically place one at the top.

 Andy

Dear Shad

Very inspiring to read your comment! I don't see enlightenment as the ability and determination to perfect one's morality, I think enlightenment has to do with waking up to our limitless nature, beyond time as emptiness or consciousness and in time as evolution or creative urgency. But I think the willingness to consciously reach for moral perfection is actually more important than enlightenment. My experience tells me that realizing our limitless nature is much easier than cultivating the integrity to do the right thing with that realisation.