Article by .

One of the central problems confronting contemporary spiritual culture is not simply whether particular teachers are ethical, whether certain retreats are overpriced, or whether modern spiritual communities have become too commercialized. The deeper issue concerns the organizational form through which spiritual teaching now moves. In many traditional settings, the teacher existed within a larger institutional structure: a monastery, temple, church, lineage, order, or school. These structures often contained serious problems of their own. They could be hierarchical, authoritarian, patriarchal, and closely tied to the political forms of the societies in which they developed. Yet they also provided a container larger than the personality of the individual teacher. The teacher, the teaching, the treasury, the lineage, the community, and the institution were not necessarily identical.

Modern spirituality has disrupted this arrangement. In many respects, this disruption has been necessary. Traditional religious institutions frequently preserve forms of authority that belong to earlier social worlds. They may contain profound contemplative technologies and centuries of accumulated wisdom while remaining organized according to structures inherited from feudal, monarchical, or highly stratified societies. As modern and postmodern culture has challenged those forms, many of the most creative spiritual teachers have emerged outside traditional institutions. They have translated old teachings, developed new practices, integrated psychology and science, and addressed questions that inherited traditions were often poorly equipped to answer.

Yet the departure from traditional institutional structures has created a new problem. When the teacher leaves the monastery, church, or lineage structure, the teacher frequently enters the marketplace. Once this happens, the conditions of the market begin to shape the form of spiritual transmission. The teacher must now sustain an organization, attract students, generate income, maintain visibility, and compete for attention. There is nothing inherently wrong with teachers being paid or with spiritual organizations developing sustainable economic models. The difficulty arises when the financial survival of the teaching becomes inseparable from the continual concentration of attention, loyalty, and money around the teacher.

This is the structural problem at the heart of much contemporary spiritual culture. The market rewards visibility, repetition, brand recognition, exclusivity, and ongoing engagement. A spiritual teacher operating independently is therefore subtly encouraged to become not only a teacher, but also the central brand, economic engine, symbolic authority, and organizing principle of the institution. The result can be a system in which the distinction between the teacher and the teaching gradually collapses. The organization no longer exists primarily to transmit a body of knowledge or to move students through a developmental process. It begins to exist around the continued presence and centrality of the teacher.

The problem is therefore not simply that spiritual teachers charge too much money. Price alone does not tell us whether an institution is healthy. A costly training may be justified if it pays several qualified teachers, funds scholarships, supports long-term research, sustains infrastructure, and guides students through a coherent educational process. Conversely, an inexpensive teaching can still foster dependency and reinforce unhealthy authority structures. The more important question is what the economic system rewards.

A market-based spiritual organization tends to benefit when people remain engaged with the same teacher. Repeated attendance generates income. Continued admiration generates visibility. Greater visibility attracts more students. The teacher’s reputation increases, and access to the teacher can itself become more valuable. In this way, attention becomes a form of capital. The structure begins to reward a chain of dependence: attention produces loyalty, loyalty produces repeat participation, repeat participation increases the value of proximity, and proximity can then be monetized through increasingly exclusive forms of access.

A genuine educational system should produce almost the opposite movement. Its purpose should be to develop students toward increasing competence, autonomy, responsibility, and eventually graduation. A successful teacher should make the student less dependent upon the teacher, not more. A successful institution should increasingly distribute knowledge and authority rather than continually concentrating them. This does not mean that deep teacher-student relationships are inherently problematic or that long-term mentorship should disappear. It means that the relationship should be developmental. The student should progressively acquire capacities that were initially located in the teacher.

This distinction reveals the importance of organizational design. A sincere and compassionate teacher can still become embedded in a structure that creates dependency because the economics of the institution reward dependency. The problem does not necessarily begin with conscious exploitation. It can emerge gradually from the demands of sustaining an organization. If the survival of the community depends upon the continued attraction of the teacher, then the teacher must continue to attract. If the financial system depends upon students repeatedly returning to the same source, then the institution is rewarded for retaining them. The result can be a conflict between the educational purpose of the teaching and the economic needs of the organization.

The traditional concept of the egregore offers a useful language for understanding this dynamic. An egregore can be understood as the collective field formed by a community, institution, or shared symbolic world. In a modern interpretation, this field is not merely mystical or energetic. It includes the stories a community tells about itself, the emotional bonds among its members, the reputation of the teacher, the distribution of authority, the financial flows, the rituals, the governance structure, and the patterns through which attention is organized. Every enduring spiritual organization generates such a field.

The question is therefore not whether a spiritual community creates an egregore, but what kind of egregore it creates. An extractive egregore continually directs energy toward the center. Students direct their attention, devotion, money, and aspiration toward the teacher; the organization amplifies the teacher; the amplified teacher attracts more students; and the cycle repeats. A generative egregore, by contrast, directs energy through the teacher and then outward. The teacher awakens capacities in students; students develop competence; competence becomes responsibility; responsibility becomes teaching, service, research, or cultural production; and the intelligence of the whole community increases.

This suggests that the central question in evaluating a spiritual teacher should not be limited to the teacher’s personal qualities. Whether a teacher is wise, compassionate, charismatic, or spiritually accomplished remains important, but it is insufficient. We must also ask what kind of social organism forms around that person. Does the teacher create people who become increasingly capable of standing on their own? Does authority become more distributed over time? Can the organization distinguish the founder’s gifts from the permanent needs of the institution? Can students move onward when they have learned what that teacher has to teach? Can the teacher themselves continue to develop?

These questions require us to reconsider the proper role of the teacher. The problem with contemporary guru culture is not that teachers exist or that differences in realization and competence exist. Any serious educational system must recognize expertise. Some teachers have practiced for decades. Some have deep contemplative realization. Others have unusual capacities for philosophical synthesis, psychological insight, ritual, ethical formation, or subtle forms of transmission. Denying these differences in the name of equality does not produce maturity. It merely obscures genuine competence.

The more important task is to locate the teacher within a larger educational ecology. The teacher should function as a catalyst rather than as the permanent center of the organism. In the early stages of an organization, a founder may necessarily hold many functions at once. The same person may teach, design curriculum, manage finances, make strategic decisions, and hold the vision of the whole community. This concentration may be unavoidable at the beginning. But maturation requires differentiation. Teaching should gradually become distinct from governance. Governance should become distinct from finance. Curriculum should become distinct from personality. Pastoral care should become distinct from organizational loyalty. A founder may continue to play an important role, but the institution should progressively become capable of functioning without requiring the founder to remain the source of every major decision and every significant form of meaning.

This process can be understood almost biologically. A young organism begins from a relatively undifferentiated state and gradually develops distinct organs. In the same way, a mature spiritual institution should develop separate capacities for teaching, governance, finance, research, mentorship, stewardship, and community leadership. If every function remains concentrated in the founder, then the institution never truly becomes an organism. It remains an extension of the founder’s personality.

This organizational problem is closely related to another major weakness in contemporary spirituality: the absence of a larger curriculum. A single teacher cannot teach the entirety of human development. One teacher may be excellent at introducing meditation. Another may understand trauma and psychological integration. Another may be capable of teaching concentration or subtle-body practices. Another may specialize in ethics, relational development, philosophical inquiry, contemplative realization, or social engagement. These are different capacities, and there is no reason to assume that mastery in one implies mastery in all.

The problem is that when a larger educational system is absent, each teacher is pressured to become a complete system. A successful meditation teacher gradually becomes a teacher of psychology, ethics, relationships, cosmology, leadership, and social transformation. The teacher’s personal body of work expands until it appears to constitute an entire path. This may happen partly through genuine development, but it may also occur because the teacher and organization need to retain students who would otherwise move elsewhere.

A more mature model would understand teachers as occupying different classrooms within a larger school. Some teachers teach foundational material. Others teach intermediate or advanced work. Still others specialize in particular domains. The point is not that one teacher is spiritually superior because they teach more advanced students. A brilliant primary-school teacher is not inferior to a university professor. Indeed, foundational education may carry even greater importance because everything else depends upon it.

This classroom metaphor changes the nature of spiritual authority. Rather than asking who the greatest or most enlightened teacher is, we begin asking what a particular teacher is actually qualified to teach, what capacities students should develop through their work, what should precede that teaching, and what should follow it.

Once we adopt this educational perspective, another problem becomes obvious: many spiritual communities have no meaningful concept of graduation. In a healthy school, students are expected to move through stages. They complete one level and proceed to another. They encounter different teachers. Eventually they may specialize, become practitioners in their own right, or enter the teaching profession themselves. Movement is built into the structure.

Many contemporary spiritual organizations do not operate this way. A student discovers a teacher, attends an introductory retreat, and then moves into more advanced offerings with the same teacher. The advanced offering leads to an intensive. The intensive leads to a teacher training. The teacher training leads to an inner circle or more exclusive form of participation. This progression can sometimes represent real deepening, but structurally there is often no point at which the organization tells the student that they have learned what this teacher is particularly capable of teaching and should now study elsewhere.

This is where the economic contradiction becomes particularly acute. If an organization loses revenue whenever a student graduates, then the institution is punished for fulfilling its educational purpose. It becomes economically advantageous to continually generate additional layers of participation. The same fundamental lesson can be repackaged in progressively advanced forms, allowing the student to remain within the same orbit. The teacher continues teaching the same developmental grade, while the institution renames the classroom.

A mature spiritual educational system would need to normalize graduation. Teachers should be honored for helping students reach a point at which another teacher or another field of study becomes more appropriate. Organizations should be capable of referring students to one another without experiencing that movement as economic loss or betrayal. Students should be able to say that they have completed a stage of training and moved onward without being treated as disloyal. Eventually, some students should become colleagues rather than remaining permanent disciples.

This leads to perhaps the most neglected dimension of the entire problem: the teacher also needs a path. The teacher-centered system does not only extract from students. It can also become profoundly extractive toward teachers themselves.

Once a teacher becomes the symbolic center of a community, the expectations placed upon that person multiply. The teacher is expected to teach, inspire, counsel, lead, mediate conflict, raise money, embody the values of the community, produce new material, maintain public visibility, and remain psychologically stable. The teacher may become responsible for the livelihoods of employees and the financial survival of retreat centers or organizations. Students project onto the teacher the image of wisdom, stability, compassion, or realization. The teacher may gradually lose the freedom to change because too many people depend upon the continuation of the role they are already playing.

The most dangerous moment may come when the teacher ceases to have teachers. Where can a spiritual teacher once again become a student? Who is authorized to challenge them? Who can tell them that they are wrong? Where can they withdraw, practice, fail, or reconsider? What happens when their students become highly developed and begin to approach them in competence? If there is no larger system in which the teacher themselves occupies a developmental position, the teacher can become trapped inside the projection of mastery.

This helps explain why spiritual communities that begin with genuine insight can later develop significant shadow problems. As students mature, some inevitably begin to see the limitations of the teacher. Others may become capable of challenging the teacher intellectually or spiritually. If the structure requires the teacher to remain exceptional, such maturation can become threatening. Narcissistic inflation, secrecy, financial defensiveness, sexual misconduct, rivalries, authoritarianism, and doctrinal rigidity are often treated purely as personal moral failures. Personal responsibility matters, but these problems can also be understood as symptoms of an institution that has made genuine development structurally difficult for the teacher.

A healthier system would actively protect teachers from deification. Students naturally project onto teachers. A teacher may become a symbolic parent, healer, savior, sage, or embodiment of the student’s own unrealized potential. Such projection is psychologically understandable and can sometimes become useful material for spiritual practice. The danger arises when projection is fused with financial, organizational, and interpretive authority.

If the same individual who receives the student’s deepest projection also controls access to status, money, teaching authorization, community belonging, and institutional decision-making, the relationship becomes dangerously concentrated. No amount of personal virtue can reliably substitute for structural safeguards. A mature institution should therefore separate different kinds of power. Spiritual authority should not automatically confer financial authority. Charisma should not automatically confer governance authority. Foundership should not automatically confer permanent control.

The alternative is not a world without teachers. It is a world in which teachers function more like members of a faculty within a larger sacred educational system. Each teacher would have particular domains of competence. Some would specialize in foundational work, others in advanced contemplative practice, psychology, ethics, subtle-body systems, philosophy, social engagement, or cultural transformation. Teachers could refer students to one another. They could step away from teaching. They could remain students themselves. They could participate in peer structures and be held accountable by people they respect.

Within such a system, humility would no longer require pretending that teachers have no authority. It would mean understanding the scope of that authority. A mature teacher should be able to say: this is what I know; this is what I am qualified to teach; this is where my knowledge becomes limited; this other person understands the next stage better than I do. Such statements should not diminish a teacher’s credibility. They should become marks of genuine maturity.

The transition required in contemporary spiritual culture is therefore not simply from bad gurus to good gurus. It is from a teacher-centered model to an educational ecology large enough to contain teachers. The goal is not to abolish hierarchy, expertise, transmission, or deep mentorship. It is to embed them within institutions that can differentiate functions, distribute authority, graduate students, care for teachers, and survive the eventual absence of their founders.

The ultimate measure of a spiritual teacher may therefore be less dramatic than contemporary culture often assumes. We tend to ask whether the teacher has a powerful presence, whether their retreats are transformative, whether their ideas are original, or how many people follow them. These questions are not irrelevant. But they should be accompanied by another set of questions. What happens to the people around this teacher after ten or twenty years? Do students become increasingly dependent upon the teacher or increasingly capable of embodying the teaching themselves? Does knowledge remain concentrated at the center, or does intelligence begin appearing throughout the community? Does money continually flow toward charisma, or does it increasingly support education, service, practice, research, and the development of new teachers? Does the community produce followers, or does it produce mature human beings capable of becoming colleagues?

A teacher should not ultimately be judged only by the intensity of the experience they create. A teacher should also be judged by the kind of human and institutional development that remains when they are no longer in the room.

The deepest purpose of teaching is not to make the teacher indispensable. It is to transmit capacities that become increasingly independent of the teacher’s presence. A mature spiritual teacher becomes less central as the teaching becomes more fully embodied throughout the community. Their wisdom does not disappear; it becomes distributed.

The challenge facing contemporary spirituality is therefore to build institutional forms capable of receiving the genuine gifts of powerful teachers without converting those teachers into permanent centers of attention, authority, and economic dependence. Such structures would protect students from dependency and teachers from deification. They would allow teachers to specialize, students to graduate, elders to continue learning, and communities to become progressively more intelligent.

The teacher would remain essential, but in a different way: not as the sun around which the community must forever revolve, but as a temporary concentration of knowledge, realization, and care whose deepest purpose is to awaken those same capacities elsewhere.

Dr. John Churchill is the founder of Planetary Dharma, a contemporary Bodhisattva training school integrating perennial wisdom, contemplative practice, attachment healing, and adult development.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

This essay is generated from a podcast dialogue with and Joel Monk on Coaches Rising that was published on July 1, 2026.

You can listen to the full audio recording below, or via Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

The End of a Time

One of the things we all have to do right now is make meaning of the situation we find ourselves in. We are story-living, story-breathing beings. And I think the collective unconscious (the collective intelligence) still responds at the level of story, not philosophy. So story matters enormously right now.

If we take the perspective of the Judeo-Christian tradition: when I look at the world outside, I can’t see us living in a Gregorian calendar in thirty years. Time is a central organizing principle of a culture, and times change. The kind of synchronization AI is interested in is going to force a new time. From the perspective of those mythic religions, we’re at the end of time. I think those traditions intuited this moment. Mystics have a capacity to intuit through time, and then you interpret it based on your framework. So mythically, we’re at the end of time. But as contemporary, integrally developed human beings, I’d say we’re at the end of a time, and the beginning of something else.

Those narrative structures (the end of a time, a judgment day, meaning a decision) point to something real. There’s a decision our civilization is going to make. The wheel goes one way, or the other way, or both ways at once, driven by AI, which is, mythically speaking, a form of fire. We first built our tools through fire. Now everything around us has been built by fire: napalm, gasoline, and who knows where we’re going. The Greeks called this pyrosis: a moment of great fire in the cycle of time. The question is whether we can contain that fire within our psyche, within a vessel, or whether it leaks out and gets expressed through the world.

That can sound like gloom and doom, but it isn’t. As far as the East goes: the tradition I know best is the Kalachakra, the time wheel teaching, the most sophisticated tantra of the Mahayana and Vajrayana. It speaks to the same thing: the end of a time and the beginning of another, and what kind of bridge (what kind of time machine, if you will) is necessary to make that transition. In contemporary language: the cumulative karmic forces of multi-generational trauma, now institutionalized, are reaching a point of a great planetary alchemical process between the forces of confusion and the forces attempting to awaken. Within that, the vision (the way I translate it) is a garden university of truth, beauty, and goodness, two or three hundred years from now. I think the old sages intuited that just from watching cause and effect, and from some non-ordinary capacity to sense how much karmic baggage humanity can carry before we need to take a really big dump. We’re in an incredibly creative, inspirational moment. A time between worlds — the death of an old world and the beginning of something new.

The Bodhisattva Path, Reframed

When I talk about “planetary dharma,” I don’t mean it as my own project. I mean what’s unfolding, what’s being asked of us. If you look at the great contemplative traditions, they tend to frame their practices as philosophical, or theological (separated, in a sense, from the world). The first thing I want to recognize is that humanity is woven into a planetary system, and the deeper states those traditions point to are our phenomenological experience of the deeper dimensions of planetary intelligence itself. We’re woven into a single intelligence that’s woven into a much larger solar field. And that matters because it lets us align with what’s happening on the planet as part of a much deeper transformative process: one that includes the subtle and imaginal dimensions the mystics talk about, not as separate from what’s happening on the ground, but as part of it.

At some point you need a cosmology: a story that weaves the whole together, so we don’t feel we need to escape. That flavor of escape runs through a lot of the great traditions. So I’d say the sacred world is the frame. In the Buddhist tantras, they talk about the mandala: a whole world of practice within an envisioned cosmology. The difference now is that the mandala is the planetary system, with all of its dimensions. Just like we have a physical body and an etheric body, with channels and meridians and chakras, the planet has the same. It’s a living, breathing organism that goes through molting cycles. The collective unconscious, at the imaginal level, is a dimension we share with animals, with trees, with all sentient beings — the whole phylogenetic evolutionary process is there. And then there’s the noosphere, the archetypal dimension: our minds and thought processes are expressions of a planetary intelligence. We are the intelligence of a planetary system waking up — moving from formal operational thinking, to systemic, to multi-systemic, all the way to a holonic recognition that we are a planetary system.

So the Bodhisattva path gets recontextualized inside that process. The fullest awakening is a holonic awakening to our deep interdependence with the planetary system we’re part of.

And I’d add: your brain doesn’t know the difference between what you imagine to be real and what is real. So not having a cosmology is still a cosmology. We do want a diamond cosmology: one that gives us a degree of confidence to face death, because the alchemical process is centered on death and transformation, both personal and collective. That means recognizing what needs to die, being willing to die together, and recognizing what needs to be born.

Sacred View

In these traditions, the manifestation of a new civilization is three hundred years in the future — and also right here, right now. To the extent you can commit to seeing that as true, you get a vertical access: I’m already there, we’re already there. If I die, that’s where I’m going: to that party. And we’re moving forward, manifesting it in the world. That’s called sacred view. In the tantras, it’s the sacred view of the mandala, paired with what’s traditionally called deity pride, updated. I’d call it archetypal pride, or soul confidence in that view.

Even if it isn’t literally true, it’s a diamond vessel of confidence that lets each of us give it our all. That’s the contemporary worldview I’d offer: not something everyone has to hold, but something that weaves in everything we know from a hundred years of transpersonal investigation in the West, from meditation to medicine work to breathwork. That context is itself psychoactive. It’s itself a practice of maintaining view.

Agreement, Coherence, Alignment

We’re in an alchemical process, and alchemy doesn’t always go well: sometimes the vessel explodes, sometimes there’s too much heat and it dries up, sometimes too much water and it turns to goop. The good news is there’s a process, and more and more people are learning to dial it in.

I want to talk about the difference between agreement, coherence, and alignment — three dimensions related to who we are: personality, the archetypal self or soul, and spirit, the fundamental ground of being. All of them are part of ecosystems. Many of us are already in agreement about what’s going on. And most of us have touched deep coherence, the power of we-space, deep intersubjectivity: the heart-mind coming online, that sense of autonomy and communion at once. We all crave that.

But coherence isn’t enough. It’s magnetic, but it doesn’t have enough structure in the psyche on its own. There’s a deeper layer: alignment. Alignment means aligning with planetary purpose: a much larger process that’s multi-generational, multi-incarnational. It’s narrative, but the narrative helps, because it’s about aligning with a truth you will see and participate in, even if maybe not in this fleshy vehicle. As the line goes: I burn my life for a sunrise I’ll never see.

Non-dual states carry incredible power, but they also contain subtle structures related to purpose — and as a state becomes more of a structure, that purpose becomes part of the ground of being itself. We might not recognize it unless it’s pointed out. So much of the path, for all of us, is about how it gets wired in. There’s a story from Tibet: the Samye debate, a huge debate over what kind of Buddhism would be practiced across the whole of Tibet. On one side, roughly, a Chan-influenced direct-introduction stream; on the other, Kamalashila, holding the gradual path. The gradual path won out, not because you can’t awaken to non-dual states directly, right here, always already, but because what matters is the integrative weave: how that awakening is woven through cognition, through purpose, through self-structure, through the emotional body, into the physical body, into building civilization and culture.

The wiring practice is directly related to the heart-mind. The Bodhisattva path is a developmental unfolding through the heart. You can have real perspectival development (fifth, sixth, seventh person perspective) without it necessarily widening the heart as much as it’s meant to.

The Heart-Mind

The heart-mind is love and wisdom together. Wisdom is the recognition, both the deconstructive openness many of us have touched through insight, and the constructive developmental process, understanding both as simultaneous. If you only deconstruct, you’re left in openness with nothing to hold. If you only construct, you build a more sophisticated prison. Neither is enough on its own. Love, which comes especially from the Maitreya transmission in the Mahayana, is the felt sense of deep relationality — learning how to relate to the earth, to nature, to our ancestors, to our bodies, our emotions, our own self-structure, to each other, to souls in coherence. The path is all about right relationship, which doesn’t just mean yes, it means appropriate boundaries and appropriate openness both.

The deeper the love for the whole, the easier the insight, because love is the felt recognition of the deep interdependence of everyone. When the two are conjoined and seen as inseparable (form is emptiness, emptiness is form), that’s the great insight of the Mahayana. The heart is the heart of this. There are three hearts in the traditions: physical, subtle, and causal — the Hridaya.

To the extent we care more and don’t experience ourselves as separate from the world, we’ve all been led on a hero’s journey toward a greater degree of service. That’s the archetypal structure of the hero’s journey: the unfolding of the heart-mind. The heart has a magnetic quality. When we’re in deep coherence in we-space, we feel that magnetism, pulled into something larger than ourselves. That coherence organizes the brain too: the heart isn’t only in the chest, the other end of that sensory nerve runs into the brain. So the deepening of care and love and compassion for the whole brings greater coherence, which organizes the psyche and brings about the higher stages of development coming online the right way — from a heart embracing a whole world system, wanting to be of service.

That heart-mind cognitively produces what the Buddhist tradition calls direct, non-conceptual, valid cognition: intuition. The heart is the center of synchronicity; in Asian medicine it synchronizes the meridian systems, and it synchronizes the brain. That synchronization is what allows for synchronicity, because the heart has a direct, non-causal access to knowing. We’ve all tasted that. The deeper the coherence, the wider the vision, the more the intuitions arrive about what response is needed — whether that’s relating to someone as a coach, or intuiting what a decentralized financial system might look like, or what a sovereign AI aligned with planetary evolution might be.

I’ll say this plainly: what often happens is people touch that heart-mind briefly, and instead of continuing to offer it in service to the whole, they try to monetize it. We watched OpenAI go from a nonprofit meant to serve the whole to a private corporation making deals with the government for surveillance. That happens to each of us: we’re not able to sustain the motivation at the heart, and it falls back into the separate grasping of the traumatized self-structure.

There’s also an external dimension to this synchronicity, which is where I’d reframe Bodhisattvas as planetary citizens. If we get through this, in three hundred years, this is what it means to be a planetary human. This is human education. If you picture the heart between the crown and the root, it’s the center. The function of humanity is to hold that center, to build civilization there, fourth-person perspective, if you like that language. Fourth-person perspective starts with a horizontal dimension (we’re all equal, the postmodern embrace) and matures into recognizing the vertical dimension too. The two together, synchronistically, are the equal-armed cross of alchemy — earth, four spokes, the fourth turning. No matter how developed any of us gets, humanity’s function is still tending to the heart of what it means to be human, and building civilization from there, even while employing structures and technologies from higher levels of perspectival capacity. What it means to be human isn’t those higher perspectives. It’s the heart. Our human heart is in resonance with a planetary heart, and synchronicity is that non-causal planetary intelligence in dialogue with our own heart-mind, supporting the unfolding of a process where personal, interpersonal, and collective are not separate.

Synchronicity isn’t enough on its own: you need the skill to make use of what arises. That’s the Bodhisattva path: walking into the world, loving it more and more deeply, recognizing it isn’t separate from us, and therefore that our own integration and the healing of the world are inseparable.

The Kalachakra was the Indo-Tibetan attempt to formalize that into structure: into hierarchy, meaning sacred order, not a power pyramid. Sociocracy, holacracy, the turquoise structures we’re starting to intuit — those are attempts at the structure necessary to hold a collective alchemical process. Traditionally it’s vertical; part of institutionalizing it is coherence and alignment across many people (ceremonially, structurally) so that the synchronicity of many people gets harnessed into something with the capacity for civilizational change. Part of our work now is figuring out how to transition into new structures so group intelligence, rather than a single guru, can guide this.

Many of us listening are probably already doing it — already in sacred world, already building these systems within that view. What’s needed is more conviction, and clarity about what to let go of and what to move into.

Alignment is related to hierarchy and structure because power needs to move through structures we’re all aligned to, ideally decentralized, Turquoise-style structures. And there’s a purpose piece too, which requires being willing to see the shadow. The Kalachakra is a war tantra: war alchemy. It points at the violence and aggression in all of us, both desire and aversion, and at the degree to which the pathological war machine (military, industrial, financial, call it empire) is quite happy to turn all of us and our children into dog food. We have to be willing to see how destructive those systems are, and how destructive we are, because we’re still participating in them. That’s scary. Until there’s real urgency (a felt sense of we have to get out of this), we fall back to “well, hang on, my 401k.” To the extent we can see that, feel it, within a vessel of deep embodiment, deep connection to earth, deep interpersonal coherence — that feeling produces the energy and the willingness to align with planetary purpose. And then we get, so to speak, the military-grade specs for what needs to happen: yes, we are all going to die, that’s okay, but we’d like to help seed and leave behind something for our children aligned with the one life and the one heart of humanity.

That’s contemplative practice: weaving together deep embodiment, attunement, a strong sense of sovereignty, deep interconnectivity, creative vision, a deep sense of purpose, the clarity of awakened awareness, and the fundamental openness of everything. All of it woven at the heart. That’s what alchemy is — learning to weave those together, and sustaining it long enough that the neuroplasticity can hold all those dimensions at once.

Initiation, Desire, and the Padma Fusion Drive

We have to recognize what particular initiation is needed right now, hopefully our children or grandchildren get to start from the very beginning, but that requires infrastructure we don’t have yet. The initiation we’re asked into right now is the initiation of the Bodhisattva, which is related to vowing, to continually practicing vowing into this process.

There are initiations related to plant medicine. There are also initiations related to our sexuality — not just our individual sexuality, but sexuality as a collective energy, like all these other energies, which needs to be woven into this work. Why? Because once we have that deep motivation and heart-centered weave (as the Dalai Lama puts it, little desire, little awakening; big desire, big awakening), the more we can dedicate that energy to the whole, the more it brings the whole thing all the way down into the body. Sexuality was a definite initiation for most of us in adolescence: it’s what initiated us into intimacy, and it reactivated the attachment system, because, at least for me as a man, the last time I nursed was as an infant. There’s a gap there. People are doing great work with this (dearmoring, neo-tantra), understanding that the world that wants to be born wants to be born from joy and pleasure and art and creativity. If we’re going down, we want to go down making love. That provides deep energy.

When I look at what we’re trying to build on a civilizational level, I call it the Sacred Secular Operating System: what allows all of us to align around a sacred humanistic view, with a unified language of experience, enough that no single teacher owns the language, enough of a platform that the various Renaissance communities can actually integrate. Underneath that, I call it the Padma Fusion Drive: in each of our lives, the purification of deep desire — how much do we actually desire that world? To the extent that desire is skillfully integrated with the view and the commitment we’re running, that’s what produces real magnetism. That’s why at the core of the Kalachakra you have the Yab-Yum, the mother-father archetype: the universal mother and universal father as the central nuclear reactor of our own psyches. How do you unify wisdom and compassion with skillful means? That’s a significant part of it.

Prayer belongs here too: it’s a way of digging into that desire, of attuning the heart to the field. Within relational mysticism, the lover and the beloved is the deepest structure. To the extent what we love is the beauty of the world (the earth as Eden, seen both in her natural perfection and in how humanity could weave together), that vision is the union of the universal mother and father. And to the extent we recognize that what we truly desire, and the love we have for everything we desire in life, needs the same transmutation we bring to the energy of war — that’s when lovemaking with the whole vision becomes possible. Not just a non-dual vision, but a relational one, of her, or him, or them, depending on your inclination. That gets fed back into our personal relationships, because we come to view the other as that.

That’s part of what prayer is: a kind of repentance (my gosh, I’ve been a participant in this) and also a willingness to deeply desire to be part of the solution. How deep can we all dig that? How deeply do we desire a beautiful, good, and true world for our children and grandchildren? I know I have to keep digging into that, using every moment I can to cultivate that desire — because that desire feeds the whole synchronistic process.

The Next Ten Years

I say three hundred years so I don’t sound too new age. But I think the next ten years are fundamental for the alignment of this whole process. We are in it right now, particularly because of AI, or more broadly the metacrisis. AI is the fire of the whole process, and how that fire gets aligned (what it’s aligned to, which really comes down to what we’re aligned to), matters enormously. The next ten years could be instrumental for the next several hundred years to come. That’s always true, in a sense, but particularly now.

An Invitation

I think we all have to recognize that the practice is our life. We have to move from coherence with one another into alignment. We have to ask what structure that requires, and hold that question — it will begin to reveal itself, because we’re all collectively recognizing: yes, this is needed.

I think that’s the simplest approach right now, aside from the larger question of how the various communities come together in alignment, which I believe will happen, because we’re all going to recognize the necessity of it. It comes back to the depth of prayer, the depth of our concern, the depth of our love for our planet, for ourselves, for the whole — and each of us committing more deeply to feel, to grieve, and from that depth of feeling, to find the depth of conviction and desire to give ourselves more fully to what we’re each doing. We’ll find our way.

One thing I’d offer: it might be worth taking some real time together (even a day) to offer what we’ve been talking about as a transmission, so it can actually be practiced. Not “here’s my work, come look at it,” but: this is a transmission, here’s how we put it into practice, let’s wire it in. I’m not attached to that particular form, but it feels like a real offering. So many of us are already so busy, woven into so many trainings — maybe what’s needed isn’t more extended training, but a way to catch the transmission and continue onward from there. Extended training is possible too, of course.

Dr. John Churchill is the founder of Planetary Dharma, a contemporary Bodhisattva training school integrating perennial wisdom, contemplative practice, attachment healing, and adult development.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

The path of love wisdom

We started where it begins for each of us: personally. What does the bodhisattva path actually mean in our lives?

For some of us it’s a vow that’s impossible to keep, one we fail at again and again, and there’s a humility in taking up something unconquerable like that. For some of us it’s the simplest, most exciting thing there is: to dedicate all of our life energy to the benefit of all beings, and then to keep re-examining what all beings even means — extending it to the ones we can’t see, the microorganisms in the soil, the deities and nature spirits, the people we’ll never meet. For some of us it’s the unification of wisdom and compassion, where wisdom is the awakening to the unbroken ground, and compassion is simply what’s left when the separate agent no longer takes center stage - because at that point there’s no one over “here” who isn’t suffering when someone over “there” suffers. It’s one thing happening.

Whatever language we use, we kept circling the same shape. The bodhisattva path is a path of love wisdom. The wisdom is the unboundedness, the openness. The love is the relationality, which is both a big yes and, when it needs to be, a big no.

The fullness has more color now

The bodhisattva path is an embrace of all beings, all that exists. And as our sense of what the world contains expands, the path itself attenuates. Today that world includes organisms they didn’t know about in Tibet a thousand years ago. It certainly includes our own deep interior plurality, which wasn’t emphasized traditionally the way it is now.

So the fullness has gained more color, more spectrum. And alongside that horizontal fullness there’s still the strength of verticality: the freedom dimension, a quality of purpose that an egocentric, self-help frame could never supply. We don’t think this journey runs on self-improvement. It runs on something closer to a myth.

The story many of us find ourselves in love with and acting out is integrative development as the existential path. Beingness not only as the unconditional ground but as something we build by integrating our perspectives, drives, and energies, by leaning into suffering rather than away from it. The cosmos seems to have a slope to it. It prefers, over time, certain directions, and out of those preferences came the ecosystems and biospheres we’re part of. Ecologies are fundamentally collaborative. So we’re collaborating here. Everyone reading is collaborating, whether we recognize that or not.

The bodhisattva as a planetary function

Traditionally the path was contextualized inside a system that removed the human being from the planetary system. We’re pointing at something else: the bodhisattva as an ecological function within it. We’re not trying to find freedom from the world. We’re trying to serve within it, as it.

Buddha nature is nature. Not a nature separate from gross nature, rather we are unfolding with her, as her. Even the word dhatu points here: in Sanskrit it names the realms, and in medicine it names a tissue. So the planetary system has tissues — physical, etheric, and beyond — and the human being has a secretory function within them. How we perceive, how we metabolize what we receive, gets released back into the wider circuitry of the larger body we belong to.

The vow is a verb

The vow turns out to be a verb, not a noun. It has the quality of verticality, a stake driven into the ground, which is where its integrity and its gravity come from. There’s gravity to the vow because there is, quite literally, gravity; vowing isn’t only individual, it’s part of nature. The planet is vowing. And a real vow has to go all the way through — through death, through transition. We all know the feeling when it doesn’t.

Relationship is what then reveals where and how the stake hasn’t gone all the way down. I was committed to loving all beings…until you were a jerk. That’s the gift of relationship. Working through those places in a relational context is how the stake goes a little deeper, so next time we can flow through what used to snag us. Which is why cleaning up (shadow work) is intrinsic to vowing. Waking up, growing up, cleaning up, showing up, opening up, and our favorite, fucking up. The “mishap lineage” is central. The old precepts — everyone’s good, you’re bad, take it all onto yourself — may have worked once; they don’t work for us now, because the self is as much a part of the whole as any other.

Two moves matter here. First, radical acceptance: things are as they are, and they could be no other way. From there we can be for things rather than merely against them. Second, a metamodern correction to the old asymmetry. The ancient picture has “the perfected one” helping everyone else, one-directional. We’d rather say: I want to be of service, and I also want to be changed. I want the grit to modify me. Less an injunction enforced by willpower, more the bemused discovery that you’re already committed — and then asking why. At its ripest it stops being philosophy and becomes ethics as aesthetics, a creativity and elegance to how things unfold. There’s no fixed goal. The only reason it would be a terrible vow is if you thought there were one.

Medicine and container

There’s something psychedelic about the way the universe patterns itself. For most of human history, periodic ritual use was part of the normal self-regulatory practice of villages, and normalizing intelligent, well-contained use again belongs in the minimum operating system of a wisdom civilization. These substances don’t add something foreign; they activate what’s already innate, which is why meditation matters so much for grounding and integrating what they open. Container, set and setting, virtue, good friends, experienced guides — a wholesome vessel, every time. And also room for the trickster, the feral exploration that samples the noosphere and tells us something we couldn’t learn safely any other way.

Communion, communication, community

None of this is done as individuals. We practice as part of a community. We have to keep an eye on the collective narcissism and groupthink that have crept into practice communities almost without exception. The movement we kept naming is communion to communication to community. Without people sharing their direct phenomenology of where they are on the path — not just beliefs about the experience — a community isn’t wired in at depth. When that sharing happens, the sangha itself becomes a transmission, not only the teacher.

Living it is harder than loving the idea of it. The dissolution of boundaries isn’t only the ego’s; it’s whose stuff is whose, whose time, whose schedule. Most of us grip for control before the relief arrives…the relief of not carrying everything alone. And the universe reliably delivers the exact person, or, in our case, the broken air conditioner in the middle of a roundtable recording, that shows us where we still need to grow. That’s what practice is for.

Apprenticing to our uniqueness

Here’s the paradox we love: interdependence and uniqueness deepen together. Notice that unique and universal share the prefix. The greater the uniqueness, the greater the capacity for universality, the way a liver has to be fully a liver for the organism to function. The same light funnels through each person’s prism and takes on a unique signature we feel as their passion, their curiosity, their care. None of us could unpack the whole thing alone; it’s too vast. We need the multiplicity of prisms to fill in the larger mosaic.

The ego is a process, not a self. Conditioning packed together into a genuinely unique manifestation, forming a hilarious uniformity in how uniquely unique we all are. Apprenticing to that uniqueness has three faces: a view fluent enough in paradox to see that the homogenous thing is diversity — difference is what’s distributed the same everywhere; health, in the spirit of the integral bodhisattva vow as no part left behind; and art — falling in love with the work of stylizing your character in a way that doesn’t foreclose your other possibilities of what might emerge. When true uniqueness comes forth, it’s compelling. It creates soul. It creates aliveness.

Why now

For the first time, five worldviews are operating simultaneously, at scale, all over the world, which makes applying the right solution to the right problem much harder. Things once given to our ancestors — embodiment, culture, the whole ecological background — now have to be intentionalized purposefully, and their jeopardy produces a response of care. We have to accept the apocalyptic mood of our times honestly, rather than treat the doom as only an anxious fantasy. And we have to take seriously the ingression of the strange. The weirdness temperature is rising, and that’s a feature, not a bug.

And yet the opportunities for transformative change are tremendous. We can hold the possibility of collapse and the need for stability at the same time. The practice for this is to take everything more personally. That’s where creativity comes from. We’re being asked to witness the hospicing of the end of one time and the midwifing of another. From a metamodern orientation, we haven’t inherited a thousand-year lineage, so we have a creative choice about almost everything. What a responsibility, and what a creative moment to be alive and journeying together like this.

So the bodhisattva hasn’t changed and has changed completely. The unchanging part: to love inexhaustibly and deeply, to hold people in their pain so they can build a new relationship with their experience. The new part is to love precisely — to listen to a person not as a stair-step stage but as a whole chord on a harp, and to meet the texture of that cry. Their torment really is a deep gift, but no one wants to be told that. So that’s not our job. Our job is to love them precisely, so it becomes a natural discovery from within.

We dedicate whatever merit was gathered here. There was a lot of joy in the field. We hope that joy ripples through the interconnected field and blossoms into goodness, truth, and beauty.

About the roundtable

Recorded in Boulder, Colorado in May 2026 during the ICON Integral Conference, this roundtable brings together five practitioners to explore what the bodhisattva path looks like through a metamodern and integral lens. Featuring Dr. John Churchill, Layman Pascal, Alexander Love, Catherine Pawasarat, and Keith Martin-Smith.

Dr. John Churchill is a co-founder of Planetary Dharma and a dharma teacher. His interest lies in contemplative practice, human development, developmental psychology, and psychological healing, and in the emergence of a more conscious, sacred-secular, humanistic dharma.

Layman Pascal, with the bling, is host of The Integral Stage and creator of the Metamodern Spirituality Labs. His work explores the edges of culture, spirituality, psychology, and philosophy through dialogue, writing, and experimental learning spaces — all in a spirit he likes to call the serious playground.

Alexander Love is a facilitator, developmental coach, and acupuncturist whose work bridges Eastern wisdom, path work, and transformational practice. He is the creator of the Lumina Process and is currently writing Evolutionary Gestures, a book exploring human development through the lenses of wholeness and embodied growth.

Catherine Pawasarat is a teacher and co-founder of Clear Sky Retreat Center and Planet Dharma, carrying forward the Namgyal Rinpoche tradition of planetary awakening. Based on decades across continents, her work weaves contemplative practice, conscious community, and ecological interconnectedness with a deep smile.

Keith Martin-Smith works with leaders, authors, and organizations to help clarify and communicate what matters most. His work brings together developmental psychology, Zen practice, martial arts, leadership, and human development. He is currently co-authoring a book on the STAGES developmental model.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Driving to the retreat this morning, I found myself asking: what seed should we plant today? What dropped in was appreciative joy.

It isn’t really a virtue our civilization often cultivates. But on retreat it’s invaluable — because sometimes you land in what Dr. Dan Brown used to call “can’t do shit samadhi.” (That’s the technical term.) When that happens, it helps to remember there’s probably someone in the room having the best day of their life. We have mirror neurons; no doubt we have mirror nadis too. We build a field, and as we begin to appreciate what that field is, it creates a feedback loop.

As we grow into the bodhisattva developmental tier, something begins to happen: we appreciate projection more and more. At a third-person perspective, we don’t recognize we’re projecting at all — it’s just “this is how it is.” At a fourth-person perspective, we start to see the constructions — of race, of gender, of class — but it’s usually someone else doing the projecting. The problem is with those guys. At a fifth-person perspective, we realize we’ve been constructing experience the whole time, even constructing the language we filter everything through. And at a sixth-person perspective, we recognize that we are always projecting. You cannot not be projecting onto me right now, and I cannot not be projecting onto you.

And here’s the thing: that’s exactly where real creativity is born.

All the yidams, many of the meditational forms, were designed by teachers who functioned at that level and recognized: it’s all projection, so what do we want to project? How beautiful can we make it? How beautiful am I? How beautiful are you? How beautiful is sacred world?

Of course, the instant you land in "Oh my gosh, there's Tara, right here in the room," she turns around and says, "Fuck you." So the real question becomes: how do you make meaning of that — how do you hold sacred view when sacred world is so plainly not playing the goddess? That's the alchemy of adversity — the lojong instruction to bow to the ones who really get under your skin. Can I see you as the soul being you are and as the one who’s testing me, at the same time? Not collapsing into “he’s an asshole,” and not collapsing into “he’s a manifestation of Manjushri” either. Both. That takes a real sophistication of perspective, and it can take bravery, too.

It helps me enormously to remember that the whole thing is theater. All the world’s a stage. We’re not going to get out of the stream of karma our civilization is in without putting on a play — a mystery play. Except the metamodern mystery play isn’t performed on a stage; the stage is everything. Which gives us the audacity to attempt something that’s never been done. It’s play, and it’s also deadly serious — and to handle the seriousness, you have to be able to play. To play, you need the Mahayana recognition that the self is more ephemeral than we think, more display than substance. Everything is fundamentally open, unbounded, impermanent. From there, we can create.

There’s a way the path climbs — philosophically, building up our understanding of how things are. But on the way back down, we return into levels of mind that are almost childish: playful, imaginative, creative. From a tantric perspective, if you can’t put on stilettos and a short skirt, there’s a problem. You have to be able to shape-shift — and the ability to shape-shift is related to how open and groundless your sense of being is. That’s why dance, why all the arts come back in on the other side — music, movement, whatever your artistry is. Culture is what happens on the way back down. Creative culture. And we’re at a moment in history where we’re going to have to seed culture intentionally. Much of what we do on retreat is a lab for that. But we don’t want to solidify form too quickly, because we need a little room to play and find out what the forms even are.

So as we sit together: what would it feel like if every being in the room had an orb of light around them? To do that, you have to take the open view first — the view of “I don’t know anything” — and from that place use your attention to be creative. Notice what shifts. The room gets lighter, more transparent, more dreamlike. There’s connection, synchronicity, a strange relief — we’re not alone; we have each other. There’s a sense that it’s already done. That “so be it” feeling is central to any real magic. (And then, of course, you have to follow up and follow through.)

This is how you stabilize the view: by delighting. Basically, you are who you see. If you’re not delighting in one another, you’re still projecting — you’re maybe just vomiting your mommy-and-daddy stuff, your multigenerational trauma, all over each other. That’s what we do. Sometimes that’s what I do, anyway.

One of the recognitions that comes with emptiness — with seeing that things are constructed — is the emptiness of time. Past, present, and future are constructions. Even understanding that cognitively opens a possibility: relating to information from the future, and from the past. We can intuit ahead and ask: who are we becoming? Beliefs are psychoactive, and once we also understand that they’re constructions, we get to choose constructions as creative as they need to be. The idea of reincarnation is one of those — we’ll find out if that’s the case, as there’s a hundred percent mortality rate here. We’re all leaving! But in the meantime, the story that these continuums continue is useful, because it lets us bring the fruit — making the fruit the path. Who are you going to manifest fully as? There’s no limit to that.

We can’t help but live inside a story. Even refusing to live inside a story is a story. So the question becomes which frame? And the frame I keep returning to is Sacred World. When it’s time for a new civilization to be born — not just from our human vantage but from the noosphere of the planet itself — it begins taking shape in the subtle and works its way down. A lot of what that world might be in three hundred years is already being prototyped on the other side. We don’t remember our part in it mostly because the physical body hasn’t been initiated; the wiring that lets you sustain awareness through waking, dreaming, and deep sleep takes time we may not have.

But there’s something that passes straight through all those dimensions: universal love. It’s the carrier of direct, non-conceptual knowing, streaming in from the subtle where the new culture is already taking form. It’s not as far away as we think. We feel it as a field, and there’s a flow to it. It lands in us first - in the heart - and from there into the logos of the planet, and then moves out through resonance.

So the metamodern version of Creation Stage is simply this: with the heart open, we begin to participate energetically, etherically, in that sacred world civilization now — with the confidence that that’s exactly what’s happening.

Nature already knows. The flowers are radiating it; the birds are singing exactly what we’ve been talking about. Let decay what needs to decay. And if we ever do build it — let’s make sure that this time it’s synchronized in right relationship with the Earth. The garden university, brought into form.

Let’s put it into practice.

John becoming an ant in the Metamodern Mystery Play aka improv theatre at the PD Convergence Day 🐜

Recently we held an open community call on sense-making sparked by feedback from a student during a Bodhisattva’s Compass session that had ventured into edge-of-knowledge territory. The feedback was a gift. It forced us as a collective to articulate openly what we actually mean when we say sense-making — and how we go about it when we’re doing it well.

What follows is a synthesis of that conversation. An attempt to put on the page what’s usually held as implicit.

We’re in funky times. Information’s coming at us faster than we can metabolize it — from sources of wildly varying altitude and intent, and from worlds the mainstream has, frankly, agreed not to see. The pressure of this moment produces a kind of cosmological vertigo. To find your footing in it, you need a practice (not a position).

Sense-Making, Meaning-Making, Decision-Making

One thing to name right at the start: these three aren’t the same thing.

Sense-making is the radar sweep — the wide intake of what’s actually out there in the world, across the full developmental range, from Amazonian shamans to ethno-nationalists, from the neoliberal consensus to the postmoderns, all the way up to the Turquoise tech at the leading edge of culture. To sense-make well, you need a lot of stock. You can’t discern a signal you haven’t yet heard; the radar sweep of sense-making deepens only through wide exposure, the grit of contrast, and the calibration of direct experience.

Meaning-making is what you do with the sweep — the pattern recognition, the synthesis, the cosmology you build from gathered material.

Decision-making is the third movement: what you actually do, in your life and your work, on the basis of meaning you’ve made.

Where this tends to go wrong: meaning gets made way too fast out of something that was just sense-making, and then decisions follow from a meaning that hasn’t earned its position. You collapse the three. The practice is to keep them distinct, and to hold each one lightly.

Hold It All as Open and Empty

Whatever you’re taking in, hold it as an open construct.

This isn’t relativism: not “everything’s true” or “nothing’s true.” The thing is, if you’re going to change your world, you’ve got to change the self that perceives it at the same time. The self-world construct arises together. They’re synonymous, in some ways. So if you grip a worldview tightly, you’re also gripping yourself tightly, and nothing new can land.

Beliefs are psychoactive. Worth noticing what each one actually does to your nervous system before deciding whether to keep it.

Resourced Metabolization

The psychological setup matters a lot here. Sense-making, when it goes deep, is going to reorganize the self that’s doing it. New information — especially information about how the world actually works, or about the depth of the sacred — isn’t just information. It restructures you. And if you don’t have a sense of ground, you’re either going to reject everything new, or grab it too quickly as identity. Neither one works.

The conditions for genuine sense-making are trust, attunement, and openness. The resources that make these possible are specific:

• Good attachment. The felt-sense of being held by a deeper ground.

• Personal security. Stable enough material life to think clearly.

• Cosmological security. A working relationship to ultimate questions — not certainty, but a stable orientation.

• A strong enough sense of self. Not rigid, but coherent. The witness has to have somewhere to stand.

• Deep love. The medium that lets shadow be metabolized rather than just absorbed.

• Emptiness. The capacity to see structures (including self-structure) as constructs, not identities.

To these, add the be-here-now skills: mindfulness, presence, embodiment.

The practice is to face material while resourced. Not gung-ho — that’s bypass dressed up as courage. Not avoidant — that’s bypass dressed up as caution. The path is the willingness to look at what wants to be seen, when there’s enough ground to look from.

The Stack Is Wider Than the Mainstream Allows

Every developmental stage has a world. And every academic discipline has both what it lets into the mainstream and what it leaves out.

In psychology (my own field), I’d estimate the mainstream lets in maybe less than half of what a real sacred academy would include. And my sense is the same gap exists across every discipline: chemistry, physics, medicine, mathematics. The official map is always partial.

And let’s remember: memes are real worlds. When you move from one to another — from a neoliberal frame into UAP research, or into esoteric Christianity, or into integral theory, or into contemplative neuroscience — you’re not just entertaining a different opinion. You’re moving into a completely different world. Its own internal logic, its own evidentiary standards, its own felt sense of what’s plausible. So disorientation, when it happens, is appropriate. Pretending otherwise is, I think, what leads people to either bounce off in dismissal, or fall in too fast.

Sense-making, as a contemplative practice, includes learning to feel that gap between the official maps. And learning to step into other worlds without losing your own.

Pre-Rational and Trans-Rational

This is where Ken Wilber’s pre/trans fallacy becomes really important. Both pre-rational and trans-rational experiences sit outside ordinary rational thought — which means, to the rational mind, they can look identical.

The key to remember is that genuine trans-rational insight has passed through reason and will submit to examination. It doesn’t ask you to abandon careful thinking — it actually invites you further into it. Pre-rational experience, on the other hand, kind of regresses around reason. And from the inside, it can feel just as revelatory and certain.

So a rainbow body, for example, could be transrational psychosomatic technology — or it could just be a fairy tale. The discernment is which, and that takes work. The test is whether the claim, the experience, or the framework will sit still under examination, or whether it requires you to suspend the rational faculty in order to hold it.

Dark Shadow and Golden Shadow

The mainstream lets in a narrow band. Outside that band, in both directions, are realities the culture has agreed not to see.

On one side, the dark shadow — the unconscious of the collective psyche. Sociopaths exist in every nation. Power structures that don’t want to be seen. Things genuinely hidden, sometimes deliberately so.

On the other, the golden shadow — the buddhas and bodhisattvas, the guides and beings, the support and sacred world and beauty that would just stun you. Equally real, equally excluded from the official story.

Healthy sense-making expands in both directions at once. Holding more of the difficult stuff is only sustainable if you’re also opening to more of the support. They balance each other.

First, Second and Third-Person Knowing

The other thing — and this one’s subtle — is that first-person experience, second-person relational knowing, and third-person knowledge are different kinds of knowing. Different criteria entirely. And conflating them is one of the most common failures we see in contemplative communities.

A genuine first-person realization — a breakthrough into emptiness, a direct encounter with the sacred, a moment of clarity that reorganizes your sense of self — is real. It’s its own kind of knowing. But realization doesn’t mean everything you now know is correct. The realization tells you about the nature of mind, or the nature of being. It doesn’t tell you who’s running which power structure, what’s happening in a laboratory, or whether a particular cosmological story is historically accurate.

There is also a second-person dimension of knowing: the relational field of trust, ethics, care, attunement, and mutual recognition. Some things are known through participation with others — through dialogue, compassion, integrity, and the quality of relationship itself. This is the domain of goodness. Whether something deepens relationship, increases dignity, strengthens mutuality, or supports wiser participation in the world involves different criteria.

There are different criteria for what’s true, what’s beautiful, and what’s good. Third-person truth claims about the world have to meet third-person standards — evidence, coherence, falsifiability. First-person experience tells you something about beauty, meaning, depth, and the nature of consciousness. Second-person knowing asks what something does between beings. The fact that something is beautiful, or that it landed for you in deep practice, doesn’t make it true. And the fact that something is true doesn’t automatically make it good.

Crucially, you have to hold what’s true as empty too. Not because truth doesn’t matter, but because if you grip even truth too tightly, you can’t let new truths in. The contemplative move is to let what you know stay provisional, even when it’s well-grounded.

The Seven Dials

When new material arrives — a video, a book, a teaching, a story — there are at least seven dials I find myself turning to clean up the signal.

1. Source Altitude. From what depth of realization does this come? Egoic, psychic, soul, trans-soul? Does it carry love-wisdom and humility, or glamour and control?

2. Addressed Level. Who is this for? Mythic, rational, pluralistic, integral? A high being often simplifies for beginners. A beginner often inflates to sound advanced. The two can look similar from the outside.

3. Cultural Matrix. What’s the symbolic code — Tibetan, Christian, scientific, psychological? What does that code reveal, and what does it obscure?

4. Psychodynamic Filter. What unconscious material is shaping the transmission? What wounds, projections, compensations? And — crucially — what are mine as the receiver?

5. Typological Polarity. What energetic tone predominates? Solar or lunar, masculine or feminine, ascensional or incarnational? This often explains why a teaching attracts or repels you before content is even processed.

6. Transmission Vector. Through what vehicle is the wisdom moving? Text, ritual, video, embodied teacher, AI-mediated channel? Each medium colors the light.

7. Authenticity Gradient. How coherent, humble, compassionate, and reality-anchored is this? Does it integrate the receiver, or inflate them?

When all seven are attuned, comparison becomes comprehension. Different teachings stop competing for true-versus-false and show up instead as different refractions of one light through different prisms.

Three More Questions

The seven dials calibrate the signal. Three further questions calibrate your relationship to it.

Is this my department? You’re not required to be deep on every domain. If you’re working in childhood education, you probably aren’t an esoteric physicist — and there’s no reason you should be. Different departments have different interests. Curiosity is real and worth honoring, but so is the discipline of staying with your actual work. Not every rabbit hole is yours.

Does this shake my vow? If a piece of material is rattling your sense of vow for a world that’s good and true and beautiful, that’s information. Sometimes it means the material is genuinely destabilizing. More often it means the vow isn’t yet strong enough not to be disturbed by it. Either way, it’s a flag worth noticing — and a signal about whether engaging with this material is yours to do at this stage.

How is this changing my direct experience? Especially useful in periods of deep psycho-spiritual transformation. Treat this as a separate question from “is it true.” Even if it’s true, it might not be the time for you to go down that rabbit hole. You can always circle back later. Your direct experience — your nervous system, your relationships, your capacity to function and love and act — is itself a form of evidence about what’s metabolizable for you right now.

Cultivating the Intuition

None of this, by the way, is purely cognitive. The deeper capacity at work is what the Buddhists call Buddhi — direct, non-conceptual valid cognition. The ability, basically, to know shit without knowing how you know it.

And it’s developmental. You build it by testing it. You take an intuition into a domain you actually know — your field, your work — and check it against what’s verifiable. Get feedback. Calibrate. Do it again. Over years, the signal-to-noise gets better.

A useful refinement: domain-specific trust transfer. You can’t be an expert in everything, so you identify who does good sense-making in which domains, and you pay particular attention to where credible sources disagree. That’s where the real edges are. A working sense of a domain often comes faster from understanding the live disagreements within it than from trying to learn the whole field from scratch.

Epistemological Humility

So — you hold what you take in lightly. You stay resourced. You sweep wide, in both directions of the shadow. You distinguish realization from knowledge, beauty from truth, what passes through reason from what regresses around it. You calibrate the signal with the dials, and your relationship to it with the further questions. Together, this is one practice.

What we want, finally, is epistemological humility — held alongside the courage to actually look. To actually try things. To actually build. To become the kind of practitioner who’s learning how to think, not what to think. How to question, not just what to question.

The world is going to get funkier. Things our culture has agreed don’t exist will start showing up in laboratories. AI already looks like magic to most people, and the developers don’t fully know how it works. The pressure of this moment is also producing higher-order complexity — that’s the gift inside the difficulty.

The dials of discernment and the practice of sense-making are how we stay calibrated as the territory shifts.

May we be in this practice, together, my friends.

If you feel the pull of this vow and want to walk the Bodhisattva path with us in a deep, sustained way, we offer a two-year flagship training. It weaves mature human development, attachment healing, and contemplative practice into an integrated path. Learn more here.

And if you’d like a lighter-touch, monthly rhythm of engagement with the teachings, The Gateway is our community membership. It’s designed to welcome new students and support ongoing practitioners through practice, dialogue, and relationship with the lineage, including monthly Bodhisattva’s Compass conversations with John Churchill.

Dr. John Churchill is the founder of Planetary Dharma, a contemporary Bodhisattva training school integrating perennial wisdom, contemplative practice, attachment healing, and adult development.

This essay was composed via two transcripts from lectures by given on the Bodhisattva Vow, one from last month and one from year. The majority of the words in this article are direct quotes from John. Edited by .

A New Vow for a New Time

A Bodhisattva, in the way we mean it, is an awakening being — someone aligned with the evolutionary drive of life itself, committed to the flowering of a world that is good and true and beautiful.

There is a degree of complexity around the commitments of the Bodhisattva that goes way beyond the tradition. Way beyond. And that’s something we have to discover together, as a community.

Because we’re not 14th-century Tibetans. Or 18th-century Hasidic Jews. We’re not 20th-century Christians. We’re 21st century. So we’ve received the traditional transmission — thanks, Granddad, appreciated that — and now we go forward from there.

With that in mind, let us discuss the Bodhisattva Vow.

Vow as Practice

In the way we think about this, the Bodhisattva vow is actually Bodhisattva vowing. It’s not some big thing where you’ve signed a billion-year contract with the Scientologists. (They actually have one of those. We’re not doing that.)

Essentially, it’s taking up vow as a practice. Aligning with your vow to serve goodness, truth, and beauty — and to serve the planet in the manifestation of that. Like calm-staying, like emptiness practice. Not some heavy, oppressive thing. Not “may I take on all burdens of all beings and hit myself with a stick daily.” Vow is a practice — and like any practice, it lives by being practiced.

It’s also motivational, inspirational. A practice that comes back to the verticality of: what are the core codes that really, really mean the deepest to me? Those core codes mature over time.

The Vow in the Seed

Vow is also something much deeper than a ceremony.

It’s the vow in the acorn to become an oak. It’s the vow in the fawn to become a stag. It’s the vow in the seed to become a rose, or jasmine.

Within all seeds, nuts, eggs, if you will, there is a deep design that wants to come forth. The practice is aligning with that. In Jungian terms, there’s an ego and there’s the deeper self, and there’s a self–ego axis — what’s called the transcendent function. Vow is what helps that verticality.

Naming, Optional

Part of the traditional process is a naming. We live in a culture where you’re given your name and that’s it. But there are cultures where many names are given throughout the journey of a life. Even in the Buddhist tradition you might have a refuge name, a Bodhisattva name, a Vajrayana name.

The point isn’t that from here on you are Mountain Dew of Clear Light Mind or whatever it is. The point is that the name signifies the journey. It’s a sweet process. You don’t have to be burdened by it for the next thousand years! Sometimes we slip into Bodhisattva names because it helps us shift reality a little bit. Oh, I’m not just John Churchill. I’m not just Michael, or Ivan, or David, or Bev, or Kaya.

It’s a vow for beauty. A vow for truth. A vow for goodness. A vow for aligning with those evolutionary qualities. And then living it, and letting it live us.

From Theravada to Mahayana

To understand what this vow is actually pointing to, we have to see how it evolved.

In what was called Theravada Buddhism, the majority of the psycho-technology focused on how to alleviate personal suffering. That was Shakyamuni Buddha’s first concern: oh my gosh, life is a vale of misery and suffering. Within that frame — which is a really important frame, because out of it developed all kinds of meditative technology — sat the concept of nirvana. Cessation. The cessation of suffering.

That, in some ways, was seen as cessation off the wheel. As if suffering were out there. As if the world was suffering, and we were going to cease our participation in this miserable wheel of samsara and just go off and chill out in nirvana. I’m not saying that’s what the Buddha meant. But it can definitely be interpreted like that.

Then along comes the Mahayana, which begins to play with the understanding that the relief of emptiness can also be found in the form of reality. The focus on individual suffering became the recognition: hang on a second — we’re interconnected. The self as a structure is interconnected with everybody, with culture, with society. How can I be fully liberated even beyond this life if I’m taking the perspective that I’m separate from everybody else?

From that grew interdependency. Interconnectivity. The understanding that me is really we.

But the earlier versions of the Mahayana can have a flavor of: the world is miserable, but I’m such a superhero that I’ll stay here and put off my own personal liberation, because I’m just so kickass, to save you miserable people. That’s a very concrete operations flavor. The cosmology underneath is still: this is confusion, let’s get out of here as quickly as possible — just with a bridge thrown back to the rest of us.

That’s not the full Mahayana.

The Full Mahayana Vision

The full Mahayana vision is that the world itself is a pureland. Within its seed is the plan to fully blossom. To fully blossom as a learning organism. As a deity. As a being that we are parts of.

We see this in the Kalachakra Tantra, the most evolved of the tantras. It points to the unfolding of our planet and the unfolding of our karma wanting to fully blossom and bear fruit — this planetary being we’re on going through cycles. Each cycle wants to give a fruit, then rot, then give a fruit, then rot. Nature fully blossoming. Spirit fully coming into matter.

Rather than form is empty — “I want to free myself and others from suffering” — the recognition is that spirit wants to come into form. A new world wants to be birthed. Within you. Within me. Within the planet itself. And the planet includes dimensions beyond the physical — what we might traditionally call the heavens and the hells. Civilization extends through other dimensions.

This flowering, over vast amounts of time — physical and subtle — is happening on nearly every planet in the solar system, throughout the galaxy. Civilizations exist on the subtle level through the whole thing. But the manifestation of something physical, a physical coming into physicality? That’s a rare blossom. Oh my gosh, Gaia — this is a rare blossom. It’s a precious moment to be alive.

Bodhi-Sattva: Awakening Being

Here’s the etymology that opens it up. Bodhi means awakening. Sattva means being. So everybody is an awakening being.

If you’re on a growth trajectory — if you’re part of the evolutionary process — then you are, by virtue of being awake and a being, an evolutionary Bodhisattva. The vow isn’t something you have to manufacture out of nothing. Taking it up consciously is just saying yes to what’s already underway.

Multi-Lifetime, Reframed

The multi-lifetime vow, then, is a way of aligning. You’re saying yes to a natural process where this planet is a Bodhisattva, this solar system is a Bodhisattva, this galaxy is. The vow is woven into the deep psycho-spiritual DNA of the whole thing.

And from a narrative point of view — whether all of that is true or not — it’s a really beautiful story within which a lot of creative work on yourself can happen, framed in a really inspiring way. The point is, the multi-lifetime vision isn’t meant to check you out. It’s the opposite. It’s meant to check you in. Particularly at this moment, where we’re going through the transition of an age. What’s our responsibility? How are we going to show up fully aligned with the time?

As individual Bodhisattvas, part of our vow is to come into harmony with the Bodhisattva of the planet. To work out what we’re here to do. How we’re here to serve.

The Sacred Secular Version

That’s the esoteric perspective. The sacred secular perspective — the sacred humanistic perspective — you can code all that vast vision down to this:

A vow to full participation in the wisdom of compassion and insight, committing to a developmental process so that we may leave behind a world that is good and true and beautiful.

That’s the whole thing.

Alignment, Not Just Agreement

There’s another piece, and you can see it in how the superhero movies have evolved. What’s more interesting now isn’t a single superhero. Like, it’s a bit boring. What’s more interesting is The Avengers. What does a vow mean together?

This is the shift the full Mahayana is pointing toward. It’s not the lone Bodhisattva nobly staying behind to save everyone. It’s a we aligning around something larger than any of us.

And there’s a real distinction here. We can agree on something, and we can cohere. But a vow allows for alignment. If something wants to be built — a community, a culture, a new world — what vow does is align us with purpose. Purpose has a kind of energy. You can live on purpose, and purpose can provide sustenance.

It also aligns you with the purpose of the planet. That adds a kind of information flow. You start being connected to purpose like I’m a kidney cell, or a liver cell — my purpose is to do this. Really core in your design. To the extent that we acknowledge that the planet has purpose and that you have purpose, it begins to draw resources, people, and situations more into our lives.

Vision and Purification

The vision needs to be high — a civilization of relationality that can embrace left and right, up and down, masculine and feminine, pure spirit and pure instinct. But it also has to descend. Once we have the right containers, we have to be willing to clean the stuff out. The mess. We all know the multigenerational trauma around the lower three chakras — safety, attunement, sexuality, power, money. The whole list.

It can’t just be a big vision without the purification process. The Mahayana vision is that this is a descent process. You climb up, awaken your Bodhisattva self, then let that come down and open. Emptiness comes into form.

Take It When You Can

The vow is already happening. The question is: to what degree does the self-structure decide to participate?

If you’re awakening — and you are — then you’re already participating. The process will continue to unfold. Your understanding of what it means will be a continual journey. Some part of that begins as a simple planting of a seed and grows into something palpable.

My sense is that one takes the opportunity whenever one can. Rather than waiting — am I ready? Am I sincerely ready?— it’s more like, yeah, give me another hit. Yeah, I’ll have another. And another.

Practice heroic altruism. Even on the playground. I’m Vajrapani. I’m Princess Leia. The more we do it, the better. All the way through the stack. From the kids running around the playground, through adolescent hormones, into the maturation of the practice into something that becomes a really strong, palpable energy.

And it’s a group process. Part of what we come together to do is practice — whatever we can right now — what Bodhisattva sacred culture is. In that ceremonial process, there’s an opportunity to hop onto the momentum of something and let it help you.

So take the opportunity whenever you can.

Yeah. Give us another hit.

If you feel the pull of this vow and want to walk the Bodhisattva path with us in a deep, sustained way, we offer a two-year flagship training. It weaves mature human development, attachment healing, and contemplative practice into an integrated path. Learn more here.

And if you’d like a lighter-touch, monthly rhythm of engagement with the teachings, The Gateway is our community membership. It’s designed to welcome new students and support ongoing practitioners through practice, dialogue, and relationship with the lineage, including monthly Bodhisattva’s Compass conversations with John Churchill.

Dr. John Churchill is the founder of Planetary Dharma, a contemporary Bodhisattva training school integrating perennial wisdom, contemplative practice, attachment healing, and adult development.

This article is edited by and adapted from a live recording by Dr. John Churchill with Integral Life. You can see the full episode here or listen to a free audio preview below:

If you’d like to come into the mandala with us, join us for our next three-day online retreat (yes, the field still transmits) called Awakening the Heartmind on April 24-26, 2026. Read to the bottom for a token of our appreciation.

Asking the hard question

We all feel a deep need for spiritual community. Traditionally it was the third place — we have work, we have home, and we had the third place: church, temple, sangha. If we don’t have that third place, our lives can often feel smaller because of it.

But look at what’s happened to spiritual communities in the West. Most of the ones I can name from the last fifty years have collapsed, often spectacularly. The guru-at-the-top model — the Rajneesh phenomenon — is just too prone to abuse. The communities that form around a single personality without peers tend to end the same way. Tremendous gifts get transmitted, and alongside those gifts, a tremendous amount of shadow runs. And once you know how these stories tend to end, you start to ask the harder question:

How are we going to do this?

This is a question that has taken up a lot of my thought and study over thirty years. And I want to start by saying something that might sound strange: it’s not the psycho-technology that’s missing. We have the psycho-technology. My apprenticeship with Dr. Dan Brown, my years studying with the Tibetans — we have these practices. Hundreds of thousands of volumes in the Tibetan libraries. The Vajrayana, at its best, is industrial-level depth processing of the shadow, built into ritualized structures that might appear like something else if you only read them theologically. The deity practices, the father tantra practices, the mother tantra practices — these are designed to do really deep work. They’re not missing.

So the problem is somewhere else.

What we’re actually missing

The problem is architecture.

When we think of spiritual teachers, we tend to picture one kind of person — the teacher, or maybe the prophet, the seer, the shaman, the priest. But there is another function that almost no one talks about, and it’s the one we most desperately need: the architect.

If we were going on a forty-year or more journey — and that’s really what this is — we would want to have the architecture of that. Of course there is individuality within the journey, but if there’s no outer structure, and no institutions that understand we are going on a multi-decade journey, then what you have is the postmodern predicament: spiritual teachers essentially making it up as they go along.

The lineages had architecture. But the architecture is a thousand years old, and it was built for elites. In Tibet and in Japan, these systems were wildly elitist — a vanishingly small percentage of the population ever went through the training, had access to the esoteric resources, or found a community of peers who could test and push and challenge them. Now the teachings have come to the West and been democratized, which is a good thing in many ways — but we don’t yet have a Western version of Vajrayana, and we haven’t yet built the architecture we need.

And the challenge for a creative Western teacher who sees our unique psychology, our unique traumas — the moment you understand that, it’s going to be difficult to be solely part of a traditional lineage. So now you’re by yourself. And because of that, you run into the shadow of what happens when you are a teacher without peers. One teacher, not a circle of teachers. That’s where things tend to break.

A multi-generational project

If we’re thinking intelligently, we need to be thinking about how we build an integral lineage. And that means more than adding psychology to Buddhism or making Christianity integral. It means actually designing the subtle architecture of a lineage — its transmission structures, its feedback loops, its research and development, its mechanisms for updating itself. If you just put one person at the very top, you are not building an intelligent organization. You have to use the best of Western developmental and organizational understanding to build something that can actually hold the depth.

The first thing this requires is seeing further than our own practice this year, or ten years from now. This is a multi-generational project. Once you start thinking that way, you begin to see potential solutions — what we need to build, and how.

Teaching is one function, but it’s not the only function. Education is a sacred dimension. Business and finance are sacred dimensions. Land is a sacred dimension. All of these pieces belong in the mandala. It is tetra-rising — an integral lineage has to consider all quadrants, all eight zones. You’re not going to wing that. You have to design it.

The guild model

One comparable system we can look at is the Freemasons — a deliberately developmental, initiatory system with a pedagogy that leads somewhere. Once you are trained, once you are initiated, you become a member of a guild. And at the level of the guild, you are a worker, a co-worker with other people who have received that degree of training.

What that means, practically, is that you have to build an education system. We already understand this from K–12 schooling. We understand pedagogy. You lay out a pedagogical map, with phases, and it leads from the outside world to the outer court, and on to further initiatory levels from there.

And in building that organizational structure, you also come to understand a crucial distinction: the governance system necessary for a training body is not the same as the governance system necessary for a community.

You want a more egalitarian, democratic culture at the level of the village — that’s the community. But when you go to school, you want to have someone in charge. Sacred culture involves both of those. You need a mandala large enough to have different governance systems for different dimensions of the culture.

Some dimensions of this need to be meritocratic. That’s not a popular thing to say, but it’s important, because we are trying to train people well. But that isn’t the only dimension of sacred culture. I also want to be able to go down and join the drum circle, and be part of something more village-like. Both have to be there.

When these things get mixed, everything risks collapsing. Either into a flat no-hierarchy community where no one can make a decision and the whole thing atrophies — or the single-personality-at-the-top model where it’s the same old story all over again. The differentiation is crucial.

Starting with safety

There’s another piece we need to name and where we actually have to begin.

The first thing in the mandala is safety.

We should begin by staying on the attachment security system. This is what gets internalized in early childhood as our innate sense of trust and faith — in ourselves, in life, in other people. It gets internalized as our capacity to attune and self-regulate our own nervous system. In the psychology of religion, attachment is what becomes faith.

If we don’t address this, our contemplative practice actually reinforces the split. You end up with very awake people who still have a raging volcano underneath, because the valve is too narrow — you’re transmuting a little drip that’s coming through when underneath there’s Kundalini, the suppression of the evolutionary force itself. And when you gather those people into community without attending to this first, you get the same old shadow patterns — just with more insight layered on top.

So when I think about how we build a community that can actually hold the depth Vajrayana wants to go, I come back to this: we build safety first. We track the ground. We track the Mother. We track the degree to which we are safe in every moment. We build the floor of the mandala before we build the rooms.

Once that floor is there, we can do the kind of work the tantras point to. If we don’t, we can’t.

Building the cathedral

I think of this, in the Planetary Dharma cohorts I’m working with now, as training masons.

We’re not just training individual practitioners. We’re training the people who are going to help build the cathedral. You have a senior architect who holds the plan, but you need a whole guild of peers who are capable and ready to build. And the building includes the organizational pieces — holacracy, civic technology, land-based practice communities, all of it. We all hold a dimension of the mandala. It isn’t just the teaching, or the teachers.

This also involves helping people recognize their own unique self — their unique genius — and how that fits into building Sacred World. I do believe everybody has a particular offering in that process.

And the training is designed to engage you in the world, not remove you from it. The path of the Bodhisattva is literally nondual, not metaphorically. Nondual means our development arises as we meet the world. Inner and outer are not two. The demands of the world are what ask us to bring out our unique genius.

That might look humble — I’m going to make the best bakery in town with the best bread. It might be parenting. It might be building a movement. The whole ecosystem of sacred culture has to be engaged.

Otherwise, what’s the point? This is not about going to the monastery and staying in the monastery. That’s overtly not the point. This is Bodhisattva training. We need to train people to use their practice out in the world. To change the world.

Slow by slow

I’ll end with something one of my Tibetan friends used to say: slow by slow.

These are difficult times. Maybe more than ever, we need to see some successes. We need to see that this can actually be built — not as another round of talking about the fourth turning of the wheel of dharma, but actually building it. Testing it. Refining it. Letting it be dynamic enough to respond to what’s happening as real people come through and share what’s working and what isn’t.

That, in the end, is the Bodhisattva’s question. Is this actually helping? Or is it another grand project of ego that’s not going anywhere?

The only way to answer that honestly is slow by slow.

Come sit with us

From April 24 to 26, Dr. John Churchill is teaching a three-day online retreat all about this: Awakening the Heartmind: Introduction to Bodhisattva Training.

Over three days, we’ll move through a full arc of practice. You’ll be guided into the release in the stable ground, into the feeling of being held and attuned to, into the meeting of humility and sovereignty at the heart, and the fundamental openness of experience beyond all constructs.

John will give you live pointing-out instruction on what’s actually arising in your direct experience, session by session. You’ll ask questions, and you’ll receive precise, real-time feedback. And you’ll be held in a sangha field built deliberately for this kind of work.

Three days to move the heartmind from intellectual understanding to direct experience. In the body, with others, in real time.

If you want more of what you experienced reading this, come sit with us!

Learn more and register at: heartmind.planetarydharma.com. The first 10 people to use the code OPEN-MIND get $100 off.

If you can’t join for the retreat, check out our monthly membership, The Gateway, for monthly calls with John and access to our Wisdom Library of dharma teaching and meditation recordings.

Dr. John Churchill is the founder of Planetary Dharma, a contemporary Bodhisattva training school integrating perennial wisdom, contemplative practice, attachment healing, and adult development.

Note from the editors & :

This article is adapted from a live transmission by , from Day 1 of the Embodying the Open Ground Retreat, January 2, 2026.

96% of this article is made of direct quotes from the raw transcription. The remaining 4% has been cleaned or rephrased slightly for readability and flow by our in-house Planetary Dharma AI system which runs on the Claude Opus 4.6 model.

Listen to the original audio lecture below:

If you’d like to come into the mandala with us, join us for our next three-day online retreat (yes, the field still transmits) called Awakening the Heartmind on April 24-26, 2026. Read to the bottom for a token of our appreciation.

All the world’s wisdom traditions agree

Consciousness is located in the heart.

From the Andes, to the Sahara, to the Himalayas, to the vast expanse of the cold regions — all cultures, all eras, all the wisdom holders of our world agree upon this. So this is where we begin, friends.

And please, let’s not relate to these traditions as if they’re antiques. The world’s wisdom traditions are the inheritance we have from all of our ancestors across this whole beautiful planetary system.

By heart, I don’t just mean the physical organ. I mean the heart as the lived experience of love and care. The center of our awareness, and of our knowing.

This is also true in all the world’s medical systems, except contemporary allopathic medicine. Chinese medicine sees the heart as the emperor, or the empress, that integrates all the meridian systems. Ayurvedic medicine understands the heart as governing the five main pranic fields. Tibetan, Greek, and alchemical medicine all agree: your heart coordinates your body-mind.

This is an ancient, cross-cultural understanding. It’s universal.

Feeling-knowing intelligence

So what do I mean by heart here?

I mean a feeling-knowing intelligence. The heart is a feeling-knowing capacity where intelligence and feeling arise together. I don’t just mean emotion. What I’m talking about is the quality of being attuned to what’s arising in experience.

So this is a wisdom that’s lived — it’s not abstract.

When we’re operating from the heartmind, a sense of care is intrinsic to knowing.

Our ethics is felt. It is not calculated. We’re talking about a degree of sensitivity.

The split

What has happened?

From the point of view of a kind of sacred realism — or a sacred humanistic perspective that integrates the insights of the perennial traditions with contemporary psychology — there has been a split. Because of multi-generational trauma, the heart intelligence across the planet has been gently separated.

Our Western civilization — maybe even modern civilization — has often devalued the heart. And has devalued its connection to feeling and intuition. And by intuition, we mean something very technical. We mean a direct capacity to know things.

So because of that, our ethics has often become intellectual and separated from our way of being. Our embodiment has become disrupted. Because really, it is the heart, and the roots of the heart, that allow for a deep experience of embodiment.

The field that never ends

Think of the heart as an integrative field.

The heart generates a very powerful electromagnetic field. This can be measured extending beyond your body 5, 10 feet. And as the devices become more sensitive, we’re able to measure the field of the heart further and further and further.

What the traditions say is, actually, it never ends.

This field extends beyond the body, and it bathes every cell of your body in its information field. There’s research indicating that the cells are essentially calibrating themselves to the information field of your heart — its coherence, or its discoherence. Its ease, or its dis-ease.

And of course, that’s why when we’re in the presence of one another, the stronger the heart field, the less close you have to be to feel and influence each other. We all know that when we’re in the presence of other people, we feel things.

Your heart also organizes and coheres all of your brain activity. Think of the heart as the central organizing principle. A conductor of all of the various brain parts. And as it gets stronger, it coheres and organizes the electromagnetic field of your brain more and more and more.

The body listens to the heart.

Care, love, compassion

The heart’s developmental process begins with care, love and compassion.

And as the heart deepens, so does its ability to organize even how we think. As the heart field becomes more and more coherent, it can organize those structures in the brain. That leads to what we call systemic thinking. Then multi-systemic. Then paradigmatic. Then multi-paradigmatic.

And the reason why this is so important: it is systemic, and paradigmatic, and meta ways of cognizing that are needed at this time in the world, as we move toward, hopefully, a planetary interconnected civilization. That can only happen with the intelligence of the heartmind. Otherwise, as you know, we can see the ravages of separate cognition.

So the heartmind allows us the capacity of complex, intricate cognition. New ways of thinking and feeling that can evolve together. It integrates the left and the right hemispheres, the masculine and the feminine, the interior and the exterior, the rational and the intuitive.

The software and the hardware

The heart has always been seen as the middle way.

In terms of the kind of interior functions of our psyche, the heart is said to sit between the openness of the crown and the solidity of the root. Between pure awareness that is just completely open, and complete embodiment.

So the heartmind is a balancing and mediating intelligence. Balancing me with we. Above with below, inside with outside. The heartmind is the human center of integration, around which the human psyche was meant to organize itself.

From the perspective of the perennial traditions:

There is a way that the human software is meant to operate. And it’s not operating like that. Which is why the human hardware is struggling right now.

Attention is a flashlight. Awareness is the sky.

We need to differentiate between what we call attention, and what we call awareness.

Right now, as you read this — you’re looking at the screen, the words. You’re hearing the sounds around you. Your attentional system focuses on specific objects. Notice that in your direct experience. The specificity.

At the same time, become aware — consciously — that you are aware of the whole room. Not just the specific words you’re reading, but the whole ambient field in which those words are appearing. It’s a very different way of perceiving the world.

The heartmind, as awareness, is always sensing and knowing the whole field. Attention moves within the field of awareness, but it isn’t awareness alone.

Your attentional system is connected to your sense of self. The center of your little self, your self-structure — that’s your narrative self. “Hi, my name’s John, and this is what I do.” That’s your attentional system, because it attends to the specificity. But the heartmind tends to the wholeness.

And the reason this is important to understand is — how you perceive is who is perceiving.

See the flashlight? That’s the attentional system. But see the light of all of the sky. The whole. That is awareness. That’s the heartmind.

It’s not to say the specificity isn’t important. The specificity is actually an expression of the whole. But most of us go through the day just attending to the specificity, and losing the wholeness. We suffer because we’re so attached to just the specificity that we aren’t able to see the whole.

You’ve never smelt a rose

The great contemplative traditions are based on a very sophisticated form of phenomenology. Phenomenology is essentially the study of direct experience. As opposed to perhaps empirical study, where you cut things up. It’s what I like to call the stats and rats approach.

Stats and rats have got us a long way. We have this technology in front of us because of stats and rats. But the science of the interior is phenomenology.

Phenomenology says that all experience right now, everything that you’re experiencing right now, is arising within the field of your awareness.

So what you’re seeing right now — you’re not seeing an outside world. You’ve never seen an outside world. That’s not how things arise. What you’re seeing is what’s being generated within your experience.

You’ve never tasted chocolate. You’ve never smelt a rose. You’ve only smelt, and tasted, your experience.

Your experience right now is inherently intimate. The words you’re reading, the colors you’re seeing, they aren’t separate from your subjectivity.

Love is the warmth of this intimacy. Love arises when we recognize that there is interconnectivity. That there is no separation. And then the separation begins to soften.

We are submerged within reality. We are swimming within the ocean of our own experience. It is already profoundly intimate. But we defend ourselves against that intimacy.

And the sacred — it’s not found in some abstraction or some philosophy. It’s actually found in the depth and immediacy of your sensory experience. That’s why we can explore this without necessarily bringing any metaphysics to it. We’re talking about the direct experience of what it means to be a human being.

Anima Mundi

The heart gives rise to a particular kind of intuition. This is what’s called, in the Indo-Tibetan tradition, direct, non-conceptual knowing. Insight without inference. Immediate recognition. A natural human capacity.

The reason for this — it’s because the heart is the center of synchronicity, of synchrony. Your heart synchronizes. It creates the beat, the rhythm, the intricate rhythm of everything in your life.

But that field, that heart field, is also understood to belong to the planetary system. All the perennial traditions have a cosmology that understands that the Earth also has its own intelligence field.

And our heart resonates with this field. You can go and look up the research at HeartMath and other places. You’ll understand that we can measure now that your heart is in resonance with the Schumann frequency of the planet, which is being calibrated moment by moment by solar processes.

So heart coherence brings about synchronicity with the larger field. When it happens outside, we call that synchronicity. Meaningful coincidences. And when it happens inside, it’s called intuition. You’re directly knowing something.

But they are the same process.

And this is understood because the perspective of all the world’s wisdom traditions is that there is an anima mundi, a soul of the world. An intelligence system. We are part of a larger system. So before we talk about God with a big G, let’s just talk about a planetary system.

Our inner alignment meets outer alignment, outer timing, and life responds with synchronicity. This is because we are actually cells within a larger system. And the larger planetary system is also wanting to flower and blossom.

Not only do we have purpose within ourselves — we are part of planetary purpose. When we begin to align with the heart, we align with the intelligence of this planetary circulatory information system. And we begin to actually participate in a co-creative evolutionary process.

The heart is the key.

Feeling felt

How do we turn the key?

Allow your heart to come into relationship with the stability beneath you, as a thou. As if the ground were the good wisdom mother. As if the Earth, right now, were attuning to you, unconditionally.

It is.

We are held by this Earth system. It is a great mother.

Your heart, your loving awareness, discovers within the quality of holding — stability.

Your experience right now is trustworthy. The guidance is trustworthy. The community is trustworthy. Your experience is trustworthy.

Trust is a resonant quality of the Earth.

Just notice the deep receptivity. There is a presence. Right now, it is unconditionally attuning itself to you. We are allowing ourselves to feel felt.

What parts of you want to be felt, and held, and known unconditionally?

All we have to do is be willing.

Humility and sovereignty

Bring a quality of humility. Of surrendering.

Posture doesn’t matter so much now. Surrender to the Empress, to the Emperor, within you. Beneath you.

Continuously let go. Moment by moment by moment, release into the stability. There’s ground beneath you. It’s actually within you.

And from that quality of surrender, as you breathe in, just naturally allow your spine to lengthen. On the exhale, just stay where you are.

Come into a sense of sovereignty. Sitting upright and sovereign.

Find the meeting space of those two qualities. Find those two qualities meeting at your heart.

How released can you be? How upright, how sovereign can you be right now, without losing the release, without losing the humility? If it creates tension, then it’s too much.

Release first, and then respond. The deeper the release, the deeper the rooting. The more natural the uprightness and sovereignty.

What you are aligning to — when gravity pulls you into the ground and you stay upright — is the integrity of your experience. And that gravity is a massive force. A planetary force. And that planetary force is aligned with a solar force, as our planet moves around the sun. And the sun is aligned with a larger galactic force.

So as you just let go and allow yourself to be humble — and yet stay upright — allow yourself to sense the immensity of that.

Either operational, or not

So: the heartmind is the capacity to know reality, through whole-field awareness, where intelligence and care arise as one.

This is technical. It’s not mystical. It’s not vague.

It’s either operational, or it’s not.

Come sit with us

From April 24 to 26, Dr. John Churchill is teaching a three-day online retreat all about this: Awakening the Heartmind: Introduction to Bodhisattva Training.

Over three days, we’ll move through a full arc of practice. You’ll be guided into the release in the stable ground, into the feeling of being held and attuned to, into the meeting of humility and sovereignty at the heart, and the fundamental openness of experience beyond all constructs.

John will give you live pointing-out instruction on what’s actually arising in your direct experience, session by session. You’ll ask questions, and you’ll receive precise, real-time feedback. And you’ll be held in a sangha field built deliberately for this kind of work.

Three days to move the heartmind from intellectual understanding to direct experience. In the body, with others, in real time.

If you want more of what you experienced reading this, come sit with us!

Learn more and register at: heartmind.planetarydharma.com. The first 10 people to use the code OPEN-MIND get $100 off.

If you can’t join for the retreat, check out our monthly membership, The Gateway, for monthly calls with John and access to our Wisdom Library of dharma teaching and meditation recordings.

Dr. John Churchill is the founder of Planetary Dharma, a contemporary Bodhisattva training school integrating perennial wisdom, contemplative practice, attachment healing, and adult development.

Created via Claude based off a podcast transcript. Edited by .

Inspired by a conversation with Daniela Bomatter on the question: How do we create a better world?

Sign up for our next three-day online Awakening the Heartmind retreat April 24-26, 2026.

We've hidden a few discount codes for the retreat throughout this article. Some are more generous than others. Read carefully.

The Setup: Two Attractors and a Missing Third

The concept of “two attractors” (proposed by Daniela as the dialogue theme) rests on the premise that the world appears to be gravitating toward two futures.

One is authoritarian — a technocratic control system that promises order at the cost of freedom. The other is chaos and collapse — fragmentation, dissolution, the entropy of meaning itself. For many people watching civilizational events unfold, it feels like those are the only options.

But right here, right now — where are those attractors? They aren’t here. What they actually are — both of them — is stories. Stories have a cognitive dimension — certain ways of thinking — and then they are wrapped in imagery. The imagery is what makes them attractive. Even dystopian, fear-saturated imagery creates gravitational pull. So the question of the third attractor is not primarily a policy question or an ideas question. It is a question about story, imagery, and the imaginal realm itself.

Why Good Ideas Aren’t Enough

In many ways, we already know what needs to happen. If you go into the libraries of any serious thinker working at the evolutionary edge — the answers are there. The cognitive component of the third attractor largely exists. But the cognitive component does not make something attractive. The technocratic dystopia has been fed relentlessly — through media, technology, decades of imagery. Chaos and collapse get fed every day in the news cycle. The third attractor has been poorly articulated, poorly resourced, and — critically — never charged at the imaginal level.

The Missing Cosmology

The integral, metamodern, and evolutionary spiritual communities have made enormous contributions. But there is a significant blind spot: the loss of cosmology.

Most people in these communities awakened out of modernity or postmodernity — awakening to the ground of being, to the evolutionary drive, to systemic and meta-systemic perception. All necessary. But the awakening happened from the heart up. The lower three notes — the ones thrown out with modernity’s bathwater — remained offline. Three colors are missing all the way through the developmental stack. And what those missing colors represent is a living, structured cosmology: the sacred dimensions of reality, the subtle realms, the ancestral field, the soul-level reality of what a planet actually is.

Without that cosmology, spirituality gets reduced to psychology — a quadrant, a line of development. And the danger of making it a psychology is that you lose the battlefield. You lose a sense of the mission that we are here to serve.

Concretely, this means understanding that the subtle realms — heavens, hells, the imaginal dimensions — are real structures, not merely psychological metaphors. Because we no longer believe these realms are real, we haven’t been able to clean them out. The tissues of the planet are gunked up with a vast accumulation of unprocessed karma.

The Third Attractor Is Already Here

The perennial traditions describe a technology of manifestation in which cultures are designed and already operating in the interior before they crystallize outward into the manifest world. The direction is not just ascent — it is descent and opening into matter. This reframes everything. The third attractor is not something we need to build from scratch. It is already operational in the soul-realm, in the Sambhogakaya. It just hasn’t yet managed to bring itself fully through.

This matters practically because as long as all we’re doing is thinking about how to get there, we’re not tuning to what is trying to arrive. Part of the work is a refinement of what could be called telepathic capacity — the ability to pick up what is already happening in the deeper dimensions of sacred world. The Anima Mundi is attempting to do this with us. The synchronicities that arise as we deepen in our practice — that is the world system responding to our alignment. To the extent that we take this view, some of the static blocking the signal gets cleared. It doesn’t mean we don’t have to do things. But the signal becomes clearer.

The Technology of Manifestation: From Thinking to Being

The process of co-creating the third attractor follows a developmental arc that moves through four phases. Each represents a deeper level of embodiment and a greater degree of attractive power:

1. Thinking

This is where most of us start and where most of us remain. Much thinking has happened. Much cognition. This is necessary but insufficient. Ideas alone are too dry to manifest anything.

2. Feeling

You have to start feeling that world. Not just understanding it conceptually, but letting the emotional body engage with what it would feel like to be in a civilization that has bloomed into a planetary garden of truth, beauty, and goodness. The process of feeling creates a different chemistry than thinking — a greater degree of embodiment.

3. Seeing

At some point, the practitioner must actually see what that culture looks like in the imaginal realm. Not in an abstract, fuzzy way, but with specificity: How does it organize? What do the communities look like? How do people relate? What does the art look like, the architecture, the governance? You go into that imaginal space and see it, and you articulate it, and you share what you see with others.

To the extent that this vision begins to come into the brain — out of just ideas and into the imaginal capacity — it pulls the third attractor down into a more tangible reality. Because the world isn’t “out there.” The imaginal body is a real body, just as the physical body is a real body. The question becomes: What is your imaginal body populated by right now? Is it populated by dystopian fear and chaos? Or are you already sitting in the mandala?

4. Being

The final phase is being it already. This is what the Tantric tradition calls deity pride — the recognition that you are already that Bodhisattva, you are already in that world. How would that feel? And if you can maintain how that would feel, you create a certain kind of pressure and attractive capacity.

That is the third attractor in your life. Each person who has created this in their own imaginal body, their own emotional field, their own way of being, becomes a node of attraction.

As more and more people are thinking the same thing, feeling the same thing, seeing the same thing — the third attractor slowly crystallizes closer to manifestation. The imaginal is not merely psychological. It is a real realm, a tissue that connects. And as you populate it with the vision of sacred world, you are helping to bring something through into the collective imaginal field.

Story as Sacred Technology

Everything sits inside a story. Story is technology — part of the Tantric, esoteric, adamantine tech of manifestation. This is not metaphor. It is operational.

When the ancient city-states were built, the priests and leaders designed a reoridion — a subtle structure — and then wrapped it in stories and songs. The people would begin to inhabit that shared imaginal space, and a mandala would form: a sacred city-state whose coherence operated on both the gross and subtle levels simultaneously.

We lost this technology. It was suppressed — partly because sacred science is neutral, usable for good or ill, and partly because the forces of control have always understood the power of story better than the forces of liberation. When people go on psychedelic journeys and shamanic quests today, they are reaching back for fragments of this lost tech. But what is needed is a reintegration — the shamanic, the contemplative, the relational, the cognitive — into a tantric or Vajrayana technology that includes how story is used to synchronize, to manifest, to create coherence.

The language itself is psychoactive. The code — the specific words and concepts of a teaching — carries morphogenic charge when it has been empowered through contemplative experience. When a teacher uses a word that has been saturated with meditative realization, the content of the word carries something more than information. This is why spelling matters, why grammar (grimoire) matters. We are literally casting the imaginal structure of a world through the precision of our language.

(Speaking of codes that carry charge, consider the code LUCKY-ME. The first person to enter it at checkout for the Heartmind retreat gets the whole thing free, and will be emailed another free seat to the retreat for a loved one they desire to bring into the field. A golden ticket, for whoever uses it first.)

What Must Be Built: The Sacred Secular Operating System

To operationalize the third attractor, several things must happen simultaneously — like moves on a board:

The Architecture

A Sacred Secular Operating System must be articulated — a cultural operating code that integrates the three main drives of healing, awakening, and growing up into a simultaneous operating system. This is the next generation of integral tech: not just the maps and models, but the actual code by which groups of people can coordinate meaning, authority, power, care, and learning without ideological capture or charismatic centralization.

This code operates at three levels of cohesion:

Agreement — the Nirmanakaya level. What do we agree upon as physical, embodied beings? What are the ground rules, the shared commitments, the practical structures? This is personality-level coherence.

Coherence — the Sambhogakaya level. Do we feel the soul-connection? Do we feel the interconnectivity, the we? This is heart-field coherence — the felt sense of shared purpose and sacred belonging.

Alignment — the Dharmakaya level. Can we put power through the system? Alignment involves pure purpose, strong energy, and resources. It also involves confronting the shadow around power, money, and hierarchy. Alignment is the most difficult because it touches survival, control, and the deepest structural shadows of the human system.

Temple Tech and Village Tech

There must be two versions of this code. The Village Tech is an open-source, simplified version for secular people who aren’t embedded in any particular tradition — a minimal viable operating system that creates shared coordination without requiring metaphysical agreement. The Temple Tech is the full-stack sacred version — the esoteric architecture that shows how all of this works at every level, and that can be translated into any of the existing wisdom traditions without replacing them.

The Bards: Art as the Way Through

Politics often feels blocked. Finance often feels blocked. Consciousness and religion — stalemate. Science alone won’t break through. The way through, perhaps, is art.

The musicians, the filmmakers, the storytellers — these are the Bards in the Druidic initiation sequence (Bard → Ovate → Druid). You take the sacred secular teaching and put it into songs, films, stories, images. You show people what the world looks like. The arts create the emotional charge, the imaginal field, the juiciness that makes the third attractor attractive enough that people want to run toward it.

The question is: Are our Bards ready for a revolution, or are they still sucking on the tit of empire?

To the extent that the Bards get behind this — to the extent that sacred finance supports them — the dissemination of a technology of love-wisdom becomes possible at cultural scale. Imagine a global music event with a portal embedded inside it: a way for millions of people to encounter, through beauty and feeling, the deep architecture of sacred world.

Sacred Hierarchy and the Problem of Leadership

One of the deepest obstacles to the third attractor is the problem of hierarchy. Guru is a four-letter word for good reason — it has been catastrophically abused. And one of the shadows of the metamodern/Teal community is that it can replicate postmodern flatness at a higher cognitive level, making it nearly impossible to get agreement on who leads and how.

But here is the dilemma: the adversarial forces have no problem using command hierarchies. Hierarchy allows for power — like a lens focusing light. Without hierarchy, you cannot focus energy. The question is not whether to have hierarchy, but how to do it — how to combine centralization and decentralization so that the network is resilient and distributed while still being capable of coordinated, powerful action.

The communities that carry the signal must be linked. On the backend, this requires Temple Tech — the subtle coordination. On the frontend, it requires the Sacred Secular Operating System — the shared code. Neither centralized control nor flat, leaderless consensus will get us there. What is needed is a new form of sacred leadership — purified, accountable, and held within structures that prevent the accumulation of unchecked power.

The Fire and the Two Wheels

We began our tool-making journey rubbing sticks together. Everything we see around us — all civilization, all technology — is the harnessing of fire. And part of the mythology of the Kali Yuga is that we displaced that fire outward, externalizing our technology rather than internalizing it.

Now, with artificial intelligence, we are about to light a match and throw it into kerosene. Fire everywhere, all at once — the whole field alive with power. There are two wheels here: the wheel turns either toward sacred world or toward prison. Either we get sacred time or we get prison time.

The next fifteen to twenty years represent the critical firing period — an alchemical moment in the planetary Kalachakra process that will determine the trajectory for centuries, perhaps a millennium. It is going to get more intense. The pressure will build.

And within that pressure, we are being cooked. All of us. The prayer is that we continue to do the purification work — personally, interpersonally, intersubjectively — and that we take this seriously not just for ourselves but for the next seven generations. Not just human generations. The children of the daisies, the oaks, the lizards. The whole of life itself.

The Bodhisattva Imperative

What is needed is not transcendence in the traditional sense — not an escape from form into the formless. What is needed is the full development of love as it unfolds through stages of the Bodhisattva path.

Development up to the integral level — even 5.5 in Terri O’Fallon’s STAGES model — can still be contaminated by self-absorption. Cancer develops too. You can have stage 5.5 cancer: very sophisticated, very complex, and still fundamentally self-referential. The developmental stages, without awakening, are just increasingly elaborate expressions of separation.

The Bodhisattva path is different from a simple developmental path because what’s understood is that the developmental process represents levels of compassion. And the capacity to manifest that compassion is inseparable from awakening. You don’t get one without the other. The higher stages are not actually those stages without the awakening component. They are stages of awakened love — not stages of cognition to which awakening is appended.

This means the model John works with maps development not as colors on a spectrum but as jewels — Diamond, Emerald, Ruby, Sapphire — each of which must be purified. This is the Bodhisattva path as opposed to a mere path of development.

The target is not the highest possible perspective. Seventh-person perspective is needed for architecture — for seeing the whole. But the goal is the heart: fourth-person perspective fully purified into Emerald — a planetary civilization that has reached the heart center. A civilization of love.

The developmental sequence moves from communion (with self) to communication (between beings) to community (shared life) to commons (shared world). That is the developmental arc we are trying to walk — not overshooting into rarefied abstraction, not undershooting into therapeutic psychology, but landing right in the heart of the matter.

The Plea: Purify Your Motivations

We are seeing the same thing. The people drawn to this conversation — whether listening, reading, or working at this edge — are seeing the same pieces of the puzzle. But our motivations are still contaminated.

How do we know? Because if they weren’t, we would already be there.

How much contamination do you want in your champagne? One percent? Two? This is where honesty becomes non-negotiable. There are two wheels: the wheel of multi-generational trauma, and the wheel of liberation. Wherever we are still grasping at insecurity, still holding on, still driven by unexamined self-interest — that is the contamination that slows the crystallization of the third attractor.

So let us look at our motivations. Deeply. Honestly. Let us be aware of the depth of our intersubjectivity — that in the very act of sharing these ideas, our awareness fields are already intermingling like water. Let us explore how our interpersonal communication can shift more into the we — using the royal “we” not as pretense but as developmental practice, because the Bodhisattva level is a real level of development, and communicating from we is how it stabilizes.

And let us not overshoot the mark. If you’re reaching for a realization you haven’t yet stabilized — if you’re treating this as a state experience rather than a developmental stage — then you’re building on sand. The awakening alone is not enough. The story alone is not enough. What’s needed is the awakened story — because story is what turns the wheel. Understanding the full story — including that part of it is a war story — is what creates the urgency for military-grade awakening: the kind of stabilized realization that can hold steady under the pressure of what is coming.

The Invitation

The third attractor will not be built by consensus. It will be built by those who are willing to build together — who can move from agreement to coherence to alignment, and who can do so with purified motivation, sacred finance, and an unflinching commitment to the work of our time.

The fire is coming regardless. The only question is which wheel it turns.

Best story wins.

John Churchill is the founder of Planetary Dharma and the architect of the Sacred Secular Operating System (SSOS). His work integrates Buddhist, Vedic, and Druidic wisdom traditions into a contemporary framework for planetary transformation. He teaches through Planetary Dharma’s cohort programs and retreats.

Learn more at planetarydharma.com

Sign up for our next three-day online retreat, Awakening the Heartmind, April 24-26, 2026.

If you missed the golden ticket, there’s still luck. The code THE-WORM gets the first three early birds who use it 50% aka $200 off the retreat.

And, if you are late to the worm, do not despair. The code OPEN-MIND takes 20% ($80) off the retreat for the first ten people who use it.