Calling the Enneagram “sacred” causes more problems than it solves.
No single, untouchable Enneagram
What is often spoken of as “the Enneagram” is not one fixed revelation but a family of evolving models.
Ichazo’s early work was already a constructed system, and since then Naranjo, Palmer, Ochs, Almaas, Maitri, Rohr, Riso & Hudson, Chestnut and many others have added, removed, and reframed elements in quite different ways. If any of this is “sacred,” which version gets that status, and why that one rather than the others?
Even core pieces such as the passions/vices show how improvised the tradition is. The historical seven deadly sins were retrofitted to a nine‑point diagram; an extra “Fear” was created for type 6, and type 3 oscillates between “Vanity” and “Deceit” depending on the author.
Each term then needs a list of caveats: Lust “but not mainly about sex,” Gluttony “mostly about experiences,” Sloth “but not simple laziness, more a sleep to oneself.”
Language shifts over time; if the words do not clearly say what they mean any more, updating them would be the responsible move, not a betrayal.
Sacred status blocks scrutiny
Some try to defend “sacred” language on the grounds that the Enneagram reveals deep truths about the self or even strips away illusions separating us from the divine or from a so‑called “true self.” These are extraordinary claims and would require extraordinary evidence, which is never actually provided.
In practice, “sacred” often functions as “beyond questioning”: once something is framed that way, criticism feels like sacrilege rather than normal, necessary scrutiny.
That is precisely the danger. A model that cannot be questioned cannot be improved. Descriptions that do not fit lived experience, historical stories that don’t hold up, or categories that need refining all get protected instead of revised.
Useful, yes. Sacred, no
The Enneagram can be a powerful descriptive tool: it highlights recurring patterns, blind spots, and instinctual focuses of attention in a way many people find practically helpful.
That is its value. Treating any part of it as sacred, symbol, passions, stories, or “original teachings”, does not make it more true; it simply makes it harder to correct.
It is more honest, and more productive, to say: the Enneagram is man‑made, modern, and still evolving. It is a map that can be sharpened, tested, and updated, not an object of reverence. Calling it sacred gets in the way of the critical thinking that keeps the work alive and genuinely useful. It can also repel secular people, who otherwise would be interested in this powerful model. Not to mention that it may confuse the enneagram with religion.
Comments
Post a Comment