VOLUME 1 ISSUE 1 SPRING 2015

sible to encounter a rich array of experiences very similar to those that inspired the great religions of the world – visions of God and various divine and demonic beings, encounters with discarnate entities, episodes of psychospiritual death and rebirth, visits to Heaven and Hell, past life experiences, and many others. Modern research has shown beyond any doubt that these experiences are not products of fantasy or pathological processes afflicting the brain, but manifestations of archetypal material from the collective unconscious, and thus germane and essential constituents of the human psyche. Although these mythic elements are accessed intrapsychically in a process of experiential selfexploration and introspection, they are ontologically real, have objective existence. To distinguish transpersonal experiences from imaginary products of individual human fantasy or psychopathology, Jungians refer to this domain as “imaginal”. French scholar, philosopher, and mystic Henri Corbin, who first used the termmundus imaginalis, was inspired for this concept by his study of Islamic mystical literature (Corbin 2000). Islamic theosophers call the imaginal world –whereeverything existing in the sensory world has its analogue – alam a mithal, or the “eighth climate”, to distinguish it from the “seven climates”, or regions of traditional Islamic geography. The imaginal world possesses spatial and temporal dimensions, forms and colors, but these are not perceptible to our senses as properties of physical objects. Yet this realm is in every respect as fully ontologically real as the material world perceived by our sensory organs and experiences of it can be verified by consensual validation by other people. The ontological reality of transpersonal experiences and events is also supported by theories that recognize and emphasize their participatory nature (Ferrer 2002; Tarnas 1991 and 2006). In view of these observations, the fierce battle that religion and science have fought over the last several centuries now appears ludicrous and completely unnecessary. Genuine science and authentic religion do not compete for the same territory; they represent two approaches to existence, which are complementary, not competitive. Science studies phenomena in the material world, the realm of the measurable and weighable, whereas genuine spirituality and true religion draw their inspiration from experiential knowledge of the imaginal world as it manifests in holotropic states of consciousness. The conflict that seems to exist between religion and science reflects fundamental misunderstanding of both. As Ken Wilber has pointed out, there cannot possibly be a conflict between science and religion, if both of these fields are properly understood and practiced. When conflict seems to occur, we are likely dealing with “bogus science” and “bogus religion” (Wilber 1982). The apparent incompatibility is due to the fact that either side seriously misunderstands the other’s position and very likely represents also a dubious version of its own discipline. The only scientific endeavor capable of making any relevant and valid judgments about spiritual matters is consciousness research studying holotropic states, since truly informed opinion in this regard requires inti26 (24) Stanislav Grof

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzgxMzI=