Transpersonal psychology

The thinkers who have set the stage for transpersonal studies are William James, Carl Jung, Roberto Assagioli and Abraham Maslow.[7][6][8][9][10] More recent attention has brought to light transpersonal aspects of Jean Piaget's untranslated French works, and argued that Piaget's transpersonal experiences and theoretical interests were a major motivation for Piaget's psychological research.[11] A review by Vich[12] suggests that the earliest usage of the term "transpersonal" can be found in lecture notes which William James had prepared for a semester at Harvard University in 1905-6. The meaning then, different from today's usage, was in the context of James' radical empiricism, in which there exists an intimate relation between a perceiving subject and a perceived object, recognizing that all objects are dependent on being perceived by someone.[13] Commentators[14] also mention the psychedelic movement, the psychological study of religion, parapsychology, and the interest in Eastern spiritual systems and practices, as influences that shaped the early field of transpersonal psychology.

Another important figure in the establishment of transpersonal psychology was Abraham Maslow, who had already published work regarding human peak experiences. Maslow is credited for having presented the outline of a fourth-force psychology, named transhumanistic psychology, in a lecture entitled "The Farther Reaches of Human Nature" in 1967.[15] In 1968 Maslow was among the people who announced transpersonal psychology as a "fourth force" in psychology,[16] in order to distinguish it from the three other forces of psychology: psychoanalysis, behaviorism and humanistic psychology. Early use of the term "transpersonal" can also be credited to Stanislav Grof and Anthony Sutich. At this time, in 1967–68, Maslow was also in close dialogue with Grof and Sutich regarding the name and orientation of the new field.[12] According to Powers[17] the term "transpersonal" starts to show up in academic journals from 1970 and onwards.

Both Humanistic and Transpersonal psychology have been associated with the Human Potential Movement, a growth center for alternative therapies and philosophies that grew out of the counter-culture of the 1960s at places like Esalen, California.[18][19][20][21][22]

Gradually, during the 1960s, the term "transpersonal" was associated with a distinct school of psychology within the humanistic psychology movement.[16] In 1969, Abraham Maslow, Stanislav Grof and Anthony Sutich were among the initiators behind the publication of the first issue of the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, the leading academic journal in the field.[15][16][23] During the next decade significant establishments took place under the banner of transpersonal psychology. The Association for Transpersonal Psychology was established in 1972.[18] An international initiative, The International Transpersonal Psychology Association, was founded by Stanislav Grof, and held its first conference in Iceland in 1973.[23] This was soon to be followed by the founding of the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology, a graduate training center, in 1975 .[18][24] The institute was founded by Robert Frager and James Fadiman[24][25] in response to the academic climate of the 1970s, and included transpersonal and spiritual approaches to psychology.[24] Soon other institutions, with transpersonal psychology programs, followed. Among these were Saybrook Graduate School, the California Institute of Asian Studies (now California Institute of Integral Studies), JFK University, and Naropa.[26]

In the 1970s the field developed through the writings of such authors as Robert Frager, Alyce and Elmer Green, Daniel Goleman, Stanley Krippner, Charles Tart, Roger Walsh, John Welwood, and Ken Wilber.[27][23] Wilber emerged as a leading figure and major theoretician of the field.[28][7] Another important contributor to the field, Michael Washburn, was drawing on the insights of Jungian depth psychology.[29] According to Smith,[30] Wilber and Washburn presented the major guiding theories of transpersonal development. The 1980s were also characterized by the work of Stanislav and Christina Grof, and their concept of spiritual emergence and spiritual emergencies.[31][32][33]

The period also reflected initiatives at the organizational level. In the early 1980s a group within APA division 32 (Humanistic Psychology) argued in favor of establishing transpersonal psychology as a separate division within the framework of the American Psychological Association. A petition was presented to the APA Council in 1984, but was turned down. A new initiative was made in 1985, but it failed to win the majority of votes in the council. In 1986 the petition was presented for a third and final time, but was withdrawn by the executive board of Division 32.[4][18] The interest group later re-formed as the Transpersonal Psychology Interest Group (TPIG), and continued to promote transpersonal issues in collaboration with Division 32.[18]

The 1990s introduced new profiles who contributed insights to the field. Among these authors we find Brant Cortright, Stuart Sovatsky, David Lukoff, Robert P. Turner and Francis Lu. Cortright[34] and Sovatsky[35] made contributions to transpersonal psychotherapy. Both authors published their primary work as part of the SUNY-series.^{Note b} Lukoff, Turner and Lu, writers in the clinical field, were the authors behind the proposal for a new diagnostic category to be included in the DSM-manual of the American Psychiatric Association. The category was called "Psychoreligious or psychospiritual problem" and was approved by the Task Force on DSM-IV in 1993, after changing its name to Religious or spiritual problem.[31][36][16]

While Wilber has been considered an influential writer and theoretician in the field of transpersonal psychology, his departure from the field was becoming more obvious during the decade of the 1990s. Although the date of his departure is unclear,[4] Freeman[37] notes that Wilber had been distancing himself from the label of “transpersonal”, in favour of the label of “integral”, since the mid-1990s. In 1998 he formed Integral Institute.

On the organizational side the decade was marked by a steady increase in membership for the Association for Transpersonal Psychology, stabilizing at approximately 3000 members in the early nineties.[16] In 1996 the British Psychological Society (the UK professional body equivalent to the APA) established a Transpersonal Psychology Section. It was co-founded by David Fontana, Ingrid Slack and Martin Treacy and was, according to Fontana, "the first Section of its kind in a Western scientific society".[38][39] In the second half of the decade commentators remarked that the field of transpersonal psychology had grown steadily[16] and rapidly.[7]

The beginning of the 2000s was marked by the revisionary project of Jorge Ferrer, which is considered to be an important contribution to the field.[40] His main publication from this era, Revisioning Transpersonal Theory - A Participatory Vision of Human Spirituality (2001),[41] was part of the SUNY Series in Transpersonal and Humanistic Psychology.

In 2007, the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology and the International Journal of Transpersonal Studies were accepted for indexing in PsychINFO, the journal database of the American Psychological Association. In 2012 the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology announced that it was changing its name to Sofia University, a change that included a new profile in the academic landscape, with an expanded graduate program featuring computer science and business.[42] In 2016, the California Institute of Integral Studies launched an online PhD degree in Integral and Transpersonal Psychology, founded and chaired by Glenn Hartelius, including Jorge Ferrer on its faculty, and sponsoring publication of the International Journal of Transpersonal Studies.

The transpersonal perspective spans many research interests. The following list is adapted from the Textbook of Transpersonal Psychiatry and Psychology[45] and includes: the contributions of spiritual traditions such as Taoism, Hinduism, Yoga, Buddhism, Kabbalah, Christian mysticism, Shamanism, and Native American healing to psychiatry and psychology; meditation research and clinical aspects of meditation; psychedelics; parapsychology; anthropology; diagnosis of religious and spiritual problem; offensive spirituality and spiritual defenses; phenomenology and treatment of Kundalini; psychotherapy; near-death experience; religious cults; psychopharmacology; guided imagery; breathwork; past life therapy; ecological survival and social change; aging and adult spiritual development.

The research of transpersonal psychology is based upon both quantitative and qualitative methods,[6] but some commentators have suggested that the main contribution of transpersonal psychology has been to provide alternatives to the quantitative methods of mainstream psychology.[6] Although the field has not been a significant contributor of empirical knowledge on clinical issues,[14] it has contributed important quantitative research to areas such as the study of meditation.[6]

One of the demarcations in transpersonal theory is between authors who are associated with hierarchical/holarchical, sequential, or stage-like models of human development, such as Ken Wilber and John Battista, and authors who are associated with Jungian perspectives, or models that include the principle of regression, such as Michael Washburn and Stanislav Grof.

The transpersonal psychology of Ken Wilber is often mentioned as an influential theoretical framework for the field.[7][4][14][37] Wilber is often regarded as a leading theorist[4] and pioneer of the transpersonal movement,[7] but he has not been actively associated with the label for quite some time. Several commentators[4][37][59] note that he has distanced himself from the transpersonal field in favour of a new model that he calls integral. However, his psychological model still remains influential to the practice and development of transpersonal psychology,[14] and transpersonal themes remain a central part of his own work. Central to his theory of consciousness is a synthesis of eastern and western psychologies and models of human development.[60]

Wilber's model of consciousness consists of three broad developmental categories: the prepersonal or pre-egoic, the personal or egoic, and the transpersonal or trans-egoic.[7] A more detailed version of this model includes nine different levels of human development, in which levels 1-3 are pre-personal levels, levels 4-6 are personal levels and levels 7-9 are transpersonal levels.[61] Later versions also include a tenth level.[62] The transpersonal stages, or the upper levels of the model, are the home of spiritual events and developments.[14][29] The framework proposed by Wilber suggests that human development is a progressive movement through these stages of consciousness.[63][61] The theory implies that different schools of psychology are associated with different levels of the model,[64][60] and that each level of organization, or self-development, includes a vulnerability to certain pathologies associated with that particular level.[14][63][61] Each level also represents developmental tasks that must be properly met, or they might lead to developmental arrest.[29] A basic tenet of Wilber's transpersonal psychology is a concept called the "pre/trans fallacy". That is, a confusion of transpersonal progression with prepersonal regression.[60] According to writers in the field[64] western schools of psychology have had a tendency to regard transpersonal levels as pathological, equating them with regressive pathological conditions belonging to a lower level on the model. The pre/trans fallacy describes a lack of differentiation between these two categories.

Wilber's understanding of the levels of consciousness, or reality, ranging from matter to body to mind to soul to spirit,[37] or from prepersonal to personal to transpersonal,[65][66] is often referred to as the "Great Chain of Being". This overarching framework, that is adapted from the "perennial philosophy" of the worlds great spiritual traditions, is later reformulated by Wilber as the "Great Nest of Being".[37] That is, not just a simple linear hierarchy, but a kind of nested hierarchy, or holarchy.[64][65] Human development, and evolution, is considered to move up this holarchy.[64]

The 1990s marked a move into the world of integral ideas for Wilber. According to commentators he stopped referring to his work as transpersonal, in favor of the term integral, by the mid-1990s.[37] Literature now confirms that he has shifted from transpersonal psychology to integral psychology.[4] According to Brys & Bokor Wilber presented major parts of his integral approach in the years 1997-2000.[67] The integral theory included a four quadrant model of consciousness and its development, whose dimensions were said to unfold in a sequence of stages or levels. The combination of quadrants and levels resulting in an all-quadrant, all-level approach. The theory also included the concept of holon, "a whole that is simultaneously part of some other whole", and holarchy, "hierarchical holons within holons".[68] According to reviewers,[69][70] the spiritual dimension was central to Wilber's integral vision.

Similar to the model presented by Wilber is the information theory of consciousness presented by John Battista. Battista suggests that the development of the self-system, and of human psychology, consists of a series of transitions in the direction of enhanced maturity and psychological stability, and in the direction of transpersonal and spiritual categories. His model presents a series of developmental tasks with corresponding levels of consciousness and psychopathology, and discusses therapeutic interventions in relation to the different levels and transitions.[71]

Michael Washburn presents a model of human development that is informed by psychoanalysis, object-relations theory, and the depth psychology of the Jungian perspective.[29][72] In the context of transpersonal psychotherapy Washburn's approach has been described as a «revision of Jung's analytical psychology».[73]

According to Washburn transpersonal development follows the principles of a spiraling path.[72] Central to his model is the understanding of a dynamic ground; a deep level of the unconscious,[72] with spiritual qualities,[74] that the person is in contact with in the prepersonal stage of development.[72] According to commentators Washburn describes three stages of human development; the pre-personal, the personal and the transpersonal,[72] also described as; pre-egoic, egoic and trans-egoic.[74] In the pre-stage (up to age 5) the child is integrated with the dynamic ground. Later in life this contact is weakened, and the prepersonal stage is followed by a new stage of development where the ego is dissociated from the dynamic ground.[72][74] This happens through the process of repression, [75][74] and marks the stage of adulthood,[72] and of the mental ego (egoic stage).[75][74]

However, later in life there is the possibility of a re-integration with the dynamic ground, a trans-egoic stage.[72][75][74] According to Washburn this transpersonal development requires a kind of U-turn, or going back to the dynamic ground, in order for the ego to become integrated with its unconscious dynamics.[29][72][75][76] This aspect of Wasburn's model is described by commentators[76] as «a going back before a higher going forth». A regression that paves the way for transcendence,[29] and a fully embodied life.[72] Washburn's approach to transpersonal development is often summed up as «regression in the service of transcendence»[29][72][75][74] which, according to Lev,[75] is a "twist of the phrase, regression in the service of the ego". Washburn has contrasted his own perspective, which he calls spiral-dynamic, to the developmental theory of Ken Wilber, which he calls structural-hierarchical.[74][77] The differing views of Washburn and Wilber are mentioned by several commentators.[72][74][76]

Stanislav Grof, on the other hand, operates with a cartography consisting of three kinds of territories: the realm of the sensory barrier and the personal unconscious (described by psychoanalysis), the perinatal or birth-related realm (organizing principles for the psyche), and the transpersonal realm.[37][29] According to this view proper engagement with the first two realms sets the stage for an ascent to the third, transpersonal, realm.[29] His early therapy, and research, was carried out with the aid of psychedelic substances such as lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), psilocybin, mescaline, dipropyl-tryptamine (DPT), and methylene-dioxy-amphetamine (MDA).[78][79] Later, when LSD was prohibited, Grof developed other methods of therapy, such as holotropic breathwork.[79][80]

His early findings,[81] which were based on observations from LSD research, uncovered four major types of experiences that, according to Grof, correspond to levels in the human unconscious: (1) Abstract and aesthetic experiences; (2) Psychodynamic experiences; (3) Perinatal experiences; (4) Transpersonal experiences. Grof returns to many of these findings in later books.[79] Psychodynamic levels, which correspond to the theory of Sigmund Freud, is the area of biographical memories, emotional problems, unresolved conflicts and fantasies. Perinatal levels, which correspond to the theories of Otto Rank, is the area of physical pain and agony, dying and death, biological birth, aging, disease and decrepitude. Transpersonal levels, corresponding to the theories of C.G. Jung, is the area of a number of spiritual, paranormal and transcendental experiences, including ESP phenomena, ego transcendence and other states of expanded consciousness. In order to bring structure to the psychodynamic and perinatal levels Grof introduces two governing systems, or organizing principles: The COEX-system, which is the governing system for the psychodynamic level, and the Basic Perinatal Matrices, which represent the birthing stages and is the governing system for the perinatal level.[79][81]

Grof applies regressional modes of therapy (originally with the use of psychedelic substances, later with other methods) in order to seek greater psychological integration. This has led to the confrontation of constructive and deconstructive models of the process leading to genuine mental health: what Wilber sees as a pre/trans fallacy does not exist for Washburn and Grof, for pre-rational states may be genuinely transpersonal, and re-living them may be essential in the process of achieving genuine sanity.[82]

The idea of development is also featured in the spiritual psychotherapy and psychology of Stuart Sovatsky. His understanding of human development, which is largely informed by east/west psychology and the tradition and hermeneutics of Yoga, places the human being in the midst of spiritual energies and processes outlined in yogic philosophy. According to Sovatsky these are maturational processes, affecting body and soul.[35][83] Sovatsky adapts the concept of Kundalini as the maturational force of human development. According to his model a number of advanced yogic processes are said to assist in "maturation of the ensouled body".[84]

The scholarship of Jorge Ferrer introduces a more pluralistic and participatory perspective on spiritual and ontological dimensions. In his revision of transpersonal theory Ferrer questions three major presuppositions, or frameworks for interpretation, that have been dominant in transpersonal studies. These are the frameworks of Experientalism (the transpersonal understood as an individual inner experience); Inner empiricism (the study of transpersonal phenomena according to the standards of empiricist science); and perennialism (the legacy of the perennial philosophy in transpersonal studies).[20][37][41][59][85][86] Although representing important frames of reference for the initial study of transpersonal phenomena, Ferrer believes that these assumptions have become limiting and problematic for the development of the field.[86]

As an alternative to these major epistemological and philosophical trends Ferrer focuses upon the great variety, or pluralism, of spiritual insights and spiritual worlds that can be disclosed by transpersonal inquiry. In contrast to the transpersonal models that are informed by the "perennial philosophy" he introduces the idea of a “dynamic and indeterminate spiritual power.”[41][86] Along these lines he also introduces the metaphor of the "ocean of emancipation". According to Ferrer "the ocean of emancipation has many shores". That is, different spiritual truths can be reached by arriving at different spiritual shores.[41]

The second aspect of his revision, "the participatory turn", introduces the idea that transpersonal phenomena are participatory and co-creative events. He defines these events as "emergences of transpersonal being that can occur not only in the locus of an individual, but also in a relationship, a community, a collective identity or a place." This participatory knowing is multidimensional, and includes all the powers of the human being (body/heart/soul), as understood from a transpersonal framework.[41][59][77][85] According to Jaenke[86] Ferrer's vision includes a spiritual reality that is plural and multiple, and a spiritual power that may produce a wide range of revelations and insights, which in turn may be overlapping, or even incompatible.

Ferrer's approach to participatory thinking has been taken-up in the context of psychoanalysis. Drawing from Ferrer's criticisms of perennialism, Robin S. Brown[87][88] adopts the participatory paradigm as a means to fostering clinical pluralism.

Early contributions to the field of transpersonal psychotherapy includes the approach of Walsh & Vaughan. In their outline of transpersonal therapy they emphasize that the goals of therapy includes both traditional outcomes, such as symptom relief and behaviour change, as well as work at the transpersonal level, which may transcend psychodynamic issues. Both Karma Yoga and altered states of consciousness are part of the transpersonal approach to therapy. According to Walsh & Vaughan the context of karma yoga, and service, should also facilitate a process whereby the psychological growth of the therapist could provide supporting environment for the growth of the client.[89]

Several authors in the field have presented an integration of western psychotherapy with spiritual psychology, among these Stuart Sovatsky and Brant Cortright. In his reformulation of western psychotherapy Sovatsky addresses the questions of time, temporality and soteriology from the perspectives of east/west psychology and spirituality. Besides drawing on the insights of post-freudians, such as D.W. Winnicott, Sovatsky integrates his approach to psychotherapy with an expanded understanding of body and mind, informed by the philosophy of Yoga.[35][83]

Cortright, on the other hand, has reviewed the field of transpersonal psychotherapy and the major transpersonal models of psychotherapy, including Wilber, Jung, Washburn, Grof and Ali, as well as existential, psychoanalytic, and body-centered approaches. He also presents a unifying theoretical framework for the field of transpersonal psychotherapy, and identifies the dimension of human consciousness as central to the transpersonal realm. He also addresses clinical issues related to meditation, spiritual emergency, and altered states of consciousness.[73][34] According to commentators[73] Cortright challenges the traditional view of transpersonal psychology that a working through of psychological issues is necessary for progression on the spiritual path. Instead he suggests that these two lines of development are intertwined, and that they come to the foreground with shifting emphasis.

A transpersonal approach to clinical practice has been outlined by psychoanalyst Robin S. Brown[90] who draws from relational psychoanalysis, analytical psychology, and participatory theory. Within contemporary psychoanalysis it has been suggested that, from a clinical point of view, postulating a transcendent dimension to human experience is theoretically necessary in promoting non-reductive approaches to therapy.[91]

The first book to survey the field of spiritually oriented psychotherapy, published by the American Psychological Association in 2005, included a chapter on the Transpersonal–Integrative Approach to therapy.[92]

Transpersonal psychology has also brought clinical attention to the topic of spiritual crisis^{Note d}, a category that is not ordinarily recognized by mainstream psychology. Among the clinical problems associated with this category, according to transpersonal theory, are: psychiatric complications related to mystical experience; near-death experience; Kundalini awakening; shamanic crisis (also called shamanic illness); psychic opening; intensive meditation; separation from a spiritual teacher; medical or terminal illness; addiction.[31][93] The terms "spiritual emergence" and "spiritual emergency" were coined by Stanislav and Christina Grof[32][94] in order to describe the appearance of spiritual phenomena, and spiritual processes, in a persons life.^{Note e} The term "spiritual emergence" describes a gradual unfoldment of spiritual potential with little disruption in psychological, social and occupational functioning.[31][93] In cases where the emergence of spiritual phenomena is intensified beyond the control of the individual it may lead to a state of "spiritual emergency". A spiritual emergency may cause significant disruption in psychological, social and occupational functioning.[31][93][29][95] Many of the psychological difficulties described above can, according to Transpersonal theory, lead to episodes of spiritual emergency.[31]^{Note f}

At the beginning of the 1990s a group of psychologists and psychiatrist, affiliated with the field of transpersonal psychology, saw the need for a new psychiatric category involving religious and spiritual problems.[26][96][16] Their concern was the possibility of misdiagnosis of these problems.[31][26][36][94] Based on an extensive literature review, and networking with the American Psychiatric Association Committee on Religion and Psychiatry, the group made a proposal for a new diagnostic category entitled "Psychoreligious or Psychospiritual Problem".[31][36] The proposal was submitted to the Task Force on DSM-IV in 1991. The category was approved by the Task Force in 1993, after changing the title to "Religious or Spiritual Problem".[31][97][98] It is included in the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), as a minor category. [7][95][99][100]^{Note g} The text of the new category did not mention the particular spiritual problems, or psychiatric complications, listed above.

According to the authors of the proposal[31] the new category "addressed problems of a religious or spiritual nature that are the focus of clinical attention and not attributable to a mental disorder". In their view there exist criteria for differentiating between spiritual problems and mental disorders such as psychosis.[95][101] This concern is also addressed in the DSM-IV Sourcebook.[98][102][103] According to Lukoff[94] and Lu,[104] co-authors of the category, religious or spiritual problems are not classified as mental disorders. Foulks[105] also notes that the new diagnosis is included in the DSM-IV-TR nonillness category (Other Conditions That May Be a Focus of Clinical Attention).

Addition of the new category to the DSM-system was noticed by a few psychiatric publications,[7][105][104][103][106] and the New York Times.[97] Several commentators have also offered their viewpoints. Chinen[16] notes that the inclusion marks "increasing professional acceptance of transpersonal issues", while Sovatsky[35] sees the addition as an admittance of spiritually oriented narratives into mainstream clinical practice. Smart and Smart[107] recognizes the addition of the category, and similar improvements in the fourth version, as a step forward for the cultural sensitivity of the DSM manual. Greyson,[108] representing the field of Near-death studies, concludes that the diagnostic category of Religious or spiritual problem "permits differentiation of near-death experiences and similar experiences from mental disorders". In a study from 2000 Milstein and colleagues discussed the construct validity of the new DSM-IV category religious or spiritual problem (V62.89).[102]

According to commentators[14] transpersonal psychology recognizes that transcendent psychological states, and spirituality, might have both negative and positive effects on human functioning. Health-promoting expressions of spirituality include development and growth, but there also exist health-compromising expressions of spirituality.

Reception of Transpersonal psychology, in the surrounding culture, reflects a wide range of views and opinions, including both recognition and skepticism. Transpersonal psychology has been the topic of a few academic articles and book reviews in other academic fields, including Psychiatry,[7][47] Behavioral Science,[48] Psychology,[21][29][117][118][119] Social Work,[30][61] Consciousness Studies,[37][120][121] Religious Studies,[10][28][59][122] Pastoral psychology,[66] and Library Science.[123]

Several commentators have expressed their views on the field of transpersonal psychology and its contribution to the academic landscape. Hilgard,[119] representing the contemporary psychology of the early 1980s, regarded transpersonal psychology as a fringe-movement that attracted the more extreme followers of Humanistic psychology. He did however remark that such movements might enrich the topics that psychologists study, even though most psychologists choose not to join the movement. Adams[28] also observed the fringe-status of transpersonal psychology, but noted that the work of Wilber had provided the field with some amount of legitimacy. Cowley and Derezotes,[61] representing the Social Work theory of the 1990s, regarded transpersonal psychology as relevant for the development of spiritual sensitivity in the helping disciplines. Bidwell,[66] representing the field of pastoral psychology, saw transpersonal psychology as a developing field that had largely been ignored by his own profession. He did however believe that transpersonal psychology could contribute to the areas of pastoral theology and pastoral counseling. Elkins,[124] writing for the field of spiritually oriented psychotherapy, considered that transpersonal psychology had grown away from its roots in the humanistic movement and that it had established its own theories and perspectives.

Taylor,[23] representing the field of Humanistic Psychology, presented a balanced review of transpersonal psychology in the early nineties. On the negative side he mentioned transpersonal Psychology's tendency toward being philosophically naive, poorly financed, almost anti-intellectual, and somewhat overrated as far as its influences. On the positive side he noted the fields integrated approach to understanding the phenomenology of scientific method; the centrality of qualitative research; and the importance of interdisciplinary communication. In conclusion he suggested that the virtues of transpersonal psychology may, in the end, outweigh its defects. In a later article Taylor[21] regarded transpersonal psychology as a visionary American folk-psychology with little historical relation to American academic psychology, except through its association with Humanistic psychology and the categories of transcendence and consciousness.

Ruzek,[125] who interviewed founders of transpersonal psychology, as well as historians of American psychology, found that the field had made little impact on the larger field of psychology in America. Among the factors that contributed to this situation was mainstream psychology's resistance to spiritual and philosophical ideas, and the tendency of Transpersonal psychologists to isolate themselves from the larger context.

A few small attempts have been made to introduce Transpersonal psychology to the classroom setting. Perspectives from transpersonal psychology are represented in a widely used college textbook on personality theories,[126][127] marking the entrance of transpersonal themes into mainstream academic settings. In this book author Barbara Engler[126] asks the question, "Is spirituality an appropriate topic for psychological study?" She offers a brief account of the history of transpersonal psychology and a peek into its possible future. The classroom dimension is also present in a book on personality theories by authors Robert Frager and James Fadiman.[128] In this publication they provide an account of the contributions of many of the key historic figures who have shaped and developed transpersonal psychology (in addition to discussing and explaining important concepts and theories germane to it), which serves to promote an understanding of the discipline in classroom settings.

Noting that the majority of mainstream psychology departments rarely offer training programs in transpersonal issues and practices as part of their curriculum,[29] graduate programs in humanistic and transpersonal psychology have been made available at a few North-American Universities.[4][16][61][129]^{Note c} Among these we find John F. Kennedy University in Orinda, which included transpersonal psychology in its holistic studies program,[130] and Burlington College in Vermont.[53] In 2012 Columbia University announced that they were integrating spiritual psychology, similar to the perspectives taught at Sofia University (California), into their clinical psychology program.[114]

However, although transpersonal psychology has experienced some minor recognition from the surrounding culture,[16] it has also faced a fair amount of skepticism and criticism from the same surroundings. Freeman[37] mentions that the early field of transpersonal psychology was aware of the possibility that it would be rejected by the scientific community. The method of inner empiricism, based on disciplined introspection, was to be a target of skepticism from outsiders in the years to come. Several commentators have mentioned the controversial aspects of transpersonal psychology. Zdenek,[131] representing a moderate criticism from the 1980s, noted that the field was regarded as controversial since its inception. Other commentators, such as Friedman,[49] and Adams,[28] also mention the controversial status of the field. In 1998 the San Francisco Chronicle reported on the holistic studies program at the John F. Kennedy University in Orinda, which included a transpersonal psychology department. The program was considered to be unique at the time, but also controversial. Commentators presented their skepticism towards the program.[130] Another controversial aspect concerns the topic of psychedelic substances.[132] Commenting upon the controversial status of psychedelic and entheogenic substances in contemporary culture, authors Elmer, MacDonald & Friedman[14] observe that these drugs have been used for therapeutic effect in the transpersonal movement. The authors do however note that this is not the most common form of transpersonal intervention in contemporary therapy.

According to Lukoff and Lu[26] the American Psychological Association expressed some concerns about the "unscientific" nature of transpersonal psychology at the time of the petition (see above) to the APA. Rowan[46] notes that the Association had serious reservations about opening up a Transpersonal Psychology Division. The petitions for divisional status failed to win the majority of votes in the APA council, and the division was never established.[18] Commentators also mention that transpersonal psychology's association with the ideas of religion was one of the concerns that prohibited it from becoming a separate division of the APA at the time of the petition in 1984.[18]

Commenting on the state of the field in the mid-nineties Chinen[16] noted that professional publications, until then, had been hesitant to publish articles that dealt with transpersonal subjects. Adams[59] noted that the field has struggled for recognition as a legitimate field of study in the academic community, while Parsons [10] noted that Transpersonal psychologys naive perennialism, misreading of religious texts, lack of methodological sophistication, and weak epistemology had not been well received by most in academia.

Criticism and skepticism towards the field of transpersonal psychology has been presented by a wide assortment of commentators,[16] and includes both writers from within its own ranks, as well as writers representing other fields of psychology or philosophy.

Critical remarks from within the field include the observations of Lukoff and Lu, and the criticism of Walach. In their contribution to the field of spiritually oriented psychotherapy Lukoff and Lu[26] discuss the strengths and weaknesses of transpersonal psychotherapy and transpersonal psychology. Among the strengths is its basis of theory and practice that allows for communication and dialogue with other cultures, and native healers. Among the weaknesses is a lack of theoretical agreement, which has led to internal debates, and attention from critics who question the validity of the transpersonal approach. Another source, close to the field, is The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Transpersonal Psychology. In a chapter from this book[133] Walach brings attention to unsolved problems within the field. According to the editors the criticism represents "the sort of self-criticism that is mandatory within a responsible discipline".

Criticism from other profiles, close to the field, also include the observations of Ken Wilber and Jorge Ferrer. Wilber, one of the early profiles within the transpersonal field, has repeatedly announced the demise of transpersonal psychology.[134][135] However, the early transpersonal theory of Wilber was itself subject to criticism, most notably from humanistic psychologists Rollo May and Kirk Schneider.[136] Even though Wilber has distanced himself from transpersonal psychology in favour of integral philosophy,[4][37] his transpersonal model has continued to attract both recognition[61][66] and criticism.[28][66]

Among the critics of Wilber we also find Ferrer,[37][59] who in 2001 published a revision of transpersonal theory. In this revision[41] he criticized transpersonal psychology for being too loyal to the perennial philosophy, for introducing a subtle Cartesianism, and for being too preoccupied with intrasubjective spiritual states (inner empiricism). As an alternative to these trends he suggests a participatory vision of human spirituality that honors a wide assortment of spiritual insights, spiritual worlds and places.

One of the earliest criticisms of the field was issued by the humanistic psychologist Rollo May, who disputed the conceptual foundations of transpersonal psychology.[18] According to commentators May also criticized the field for neglecting the personal dimension of the psyche by elevating the pursuit of the transcendental,[4] and for neglecting the "dark side of human nature".[26] Commentators[4] note that these reservations, expressed by May, might reflect what later theorists have referred to as "spiritual bypassing". Other commentators[26] have suggested that May only focused on "New Age popularizations of transpersonal approaches". However, criticism has also come from other profiles in the field of humanistic psychology. Eugene Taylor and Kirk Schneider have raised objections to several aspects of transpersonal psychology.[16]

The field of transpersonal psychology has also been criticized for lacking conceptual, evidentiary, and scientific rigor. In a review of criticisms of the field, Cunningham writes, "philosophers have criticized transpersonal psychology because its metaphysics is naive and epistemology is undeveloped. Multiplicity of definitions and lack of operationalization of many of its concepts has led to a conceptual confusion about the nature of transpersonal psychology itself (i.e., the concept is used differently by different theorists and means different things to different people). Biologists have criticized transpersonal psychology for its lack of attention to biological foundations of behavior and experience. Physicists have criticized transpersonal psychology for inappropriately accommodating physic concepts as explanations of consciousness."[137]

Others, such as Friedman,[49][50] has suggested that the field is underdeveloped as a field of science and that it has, consequently, not produced a good scientific understanding of transpersonal phenomena. In his proposal for a new division of labour within the transpersonal field he suggests a distinction between transpersonal studies, a broad category that might include non-scientific approaches, and transpersonal psychology, a more narrow discipline that should align itself more closely with the principles of scientific psychology. However, this criticism has been answered by Ferrer[138] who argues that Friedmans proposal attaches transpersonal psychology to a naturalistic metaphysical worldview that is unsuitable for the domain of spirituality.

Albert Ellis, a cognitive psychologist and humanist, has questioned the results of transpersonal psychotherapy,[139] the scientific status of transpersonal psychology, and its relationship to religion, mysticism and authoritarian belief systems.[140][141] This criticism has been answered by Wilber[142] who questioned Ellis' understanding of the domain of religion, and the field of Transpersonal Psychology; and Walsh[143] who questioned Ellis' critique of nonrational-emotive therapies.

Other commentators, such as Matthews,[73] are more supportive of the field, but remarks that a weakness of transpersonal psychology, and transpersonal psychotherapy, has been its reliance on anecdotal clinical experiences rather than research. Adams,[120] writing from the perspective of Consciousness Studies, has problematized the concept of introspective 'data' that appears to make up the "database" of transpersonal psychology. Walach and Runehov have responded to this issue.[121]

Transpersonal psychology has been noted for undervaluing quantitative methods as a tool for improving our knowledge of spiritual and transpersonal categories. This is, according to commentators,[14] a consequence of a general orientation within the field that regards spiritual and transpersonal experience to be categories that defy conceptualization and quantification, and thereby not well suited for conventional scientific inquiry.

From the standpoint of Dzogchen, the teachings from Tibetan Buddhism, and Buddhism generally, Elías Capriles has objected that transpersonal psychology fails to distinguish between the transpersonal condition of nirvana, which is inherently liberating, those transpersonal conditions which are within samsara[144] [145][146] In the process of elaborating what he calls a meta-transpersonal psychology, Capriles has carried out refutations of Wilber, Grof and Washburn.[147]

Although the ideas of William James are considered central to the transpersonal field, Gary Alexander thought that transpersonal psychology did not have a clear understanding of the negative dimensions of consciousness (such as evil) expressed in James' philosophy.[122] This criticism has been absorbed by later transpersonal theory, which has been more willing to reflect on these important dimensions of human existence.[148]

Skepticism towards the concept of spiritual emergencies, and the transpersonal dimension in psychiatry, has been expressed by Alison J.Gray.[149]

According to Cunningham, transpersonal psychology has been criticized by some Christian authors as being "a mishmash of 'New Age' ideas that offer an alternative faith system to vulnerable youths who turn their backs on organized religion (Adeney, 1988)".[137]

According to John V. Davis[6] Transpersonal psychology has been criticized for emphasizing oneness and holism at the expense of diversity.