Recently, I watched Rick’s interview with Stan Grof at SAND. I realized that one of the founders of Transpersonal Psychology defined “transpersonal” not as post-personal development but as the collective unconscious which he divides into historical and archetypal. This came out of mapping peoples’ experiences with hallucinogenic drug trips.
During my trip to CA in the fall, I also noticed Sofia University, the home of Transpersonal Psychology, was researching induced experiences as a means of “spiritual” development.
From my perspective, chasing experiences is not a means to post-personal development. Some such practices may have therapeutic benefit – that is beyond my knowledge – but they’re problematic for actual spiritual growth. Strong experiences tend to create lasting impressions (samskaras) and drugs have a habit of leaving energetic debris, both of which reduce clarity. While an opening may be experienced, there is no means to develop it.
Dr. Cook-Greuter has proposed Transpersonal stages more aligned with how I’ve used the term. Such research is why I picked up the term. But if the term mixes altered states with stages of development, it doesn’t have the meaning I intend. I’ll revert to using “post-personal”.
Last Updated on