AC: And part of that compassion is also that uncompromising urgency.

ML: Absolutely.

AC: In your message, there is an interesting paradox. A paradox between your revolutionary call that is defined by an inspiring unwillingness to compromise with the status quo and, at the same time, your plea to always be compassionate with ourselves and others. On one hand, you stress the need to be compassionate, yet on the other hand, you passionately shout, "Hey, everybody, wake up because there's no time to waste." And the waking up you're referring to means right now. So I see a great tension between these two positions: "Be compassionate and gentle with yourself" and, at the same time, "Wake up right now!"

ML: That's exactly right. I think you put it very beautifully. There's a tension. And spiritual life is about balance, and getting the right balance between those two—between, on the one hand, the pull of hearing the spiritual voice of the universe screaming out, "The world can be healed and transformed, and you have to be part of it. You must be a manifestation of the goodness and love of the universe," and on the other hand, the other voice that says, "Be compassionate and recognize the limits that we have, and don't judge, don't be harsh, don't be hurtful toward the ways in which you can't fully transcend. Accept the limitations." And so, yes. These are two different pulls.

AC: Yes, but isn't that "balance" you're referring to actually a completely non-static position—a mysterious place in which both extremes dissolve?

ML: Yes, absolutely.

AC: Because you're describing a position or a place of incredible evolutionary tension.

ML: Yes, the spiritual evolution of the universe moves in this way.

AC: In a previous issue of What Is Enlightenment?, Ken Wilber wrote an article for us called "A Spirituality That Transforms." In that article he describes the difference between what he calls "translative" and "transformative" spirituality. Translative spirituality he defined as that spirituality that consoles the ego or the separate sense of self and gives it a vitally important and empowering sense of purpose, place, and security in what, from the perspective of the ego, seems to be a deeply insecure universe. Transformative spirituality he defined as being not that which consoles the ego but that which literally shatters it. The former he called horizontal spirituality, and the latter he called vertical spirituality. So what I'd like to ask you is, What is the role of translative spirituality in the awakening of humanity to its responsibility to save the world for the sake of all sentient beings and all of life? And what is the role of transformative spirituality in the awakening of humanity to its responsibility to save the world for the sake of all sentient beings and all of life?

ML: First, I don't see these as so counterposed. That is to say, although I very much loved Wilber's distinction, I see them often as occurring in the same human being. People often have both elements within them. Now, with regard to translative spirituality, I believe that the task of overcoming the pain and distortion in the universe involves, on the one hand, healing some of the pain that the ego generates. And on the other, it also involves healing some of the pain that generates the ego. Translative spirituality can work at both of those levels. It can help people overcome some of the ego, and it can also help people have compassion for the levels in which they have ego distortions. And that can be an important element in moving them to a point where they would be open to seeing some changes that are possible in the world. You can't get people to be involved in social transformation when their own personal pain is so overwhelming that they can't see anything but that pain. And translative spiritual consciousness and spiritual practice sometimes can help that. So even though it has some of the elements of accommodating oneself to ego, it can also assuage some of the worst pain that one is facing.

This translative spirituality allows for the development of reformist movements. And a reformist movement can be a really good thing to have at any particular moment. A reformist movement might, for example, save the whales or it might protect the redwoods in northern California. They are really good things to have, but there are limits there. Because truly revolutionary movements, that is, the movements that would actually save the planet from ecological destruction, require something more. They require a new bottom line, a new bottom line of love and caring. And they require a new definition of productivity, efficiency, and rationality in which institutions and social practices are understood to be efficient and productive, not simply to the extent that they maximize money or power but to the extent that they maximize people's capacity to be loving and caring; to be ethically, spiritually, and ecologically sensitive; to be able to respond to the universe in a nonutilitarian way. To respond with awe, wonder, and radical amazement at the grandeur of creation. Now, that consciousness, that ability to go for a new bottom line, cannot be achieved in translative spirituality, because translative spirituality too often reinforces a narrow vision of self-interest. That's why truly revolutionary movements need a transformative spirituality, or what I call an "emancipatory" spirituality. Because the ability to transcend ego enough to see oneself as part of the totality of all, and to see the universe from that consciousness, is critical if we're going to transform this world, to save the world from both ecological destruction and from spiritual degradation. To get that new bottom line, to be able to see oneself as fundamentally part of the totality, requires transformative spirituality. That's a form of spirituality that I think many spiritual traditions tend to encourage, and that's why I believe that the fundamental transformation of the universe is going to be a spiritual transformation.