Beliefnet has posted an interview with controversial "enlightenment guru" Andrew Cohen. Cohen is the founder of What Is Enlightenment? a magazine dedicated to covering the cutting edge of enlightenment practice, research, and theory. In recent years, Cohen has aligned himself and his magazine with Ken Wilber (founder of Integral Institute) and Don Beck (Spiral Dynamics creator). He now espouses an approach he calls Evolutionary Enlightenment. But just how enlightened is Andrew Cohen? He often comes across in his magazine as a pompous, ego-ridden power seeker. Even his mother has problems with her son and former guru.
Q: For those who aren't familiar with your work, how would you describe yourself?
A: I'm a spiritual teacher, first and foremost. I teach what I call "evolutionary enlightenment." Traditionally, in the pre-modern or ancient notion of enlightenment, the spiritual experience or revelation called enlightenment was considered to be the end of the path. Someone who was supposedly an enlightened human being was no longer developing. They had reached some kind of final end point.
I'm saying that kind of awakening really is the beginning of awakening to the fact that we're part of a developmental process. We're part of the evolutionary process where human beings, I believe, ultimately, will function at the level of consciousness and recognize that we are that very process that started 14 billion years ago with the Big Bang. That we are that very evolutionary process that has the capacity to become conscious of itself.
The traditional notion of enlightenment was the attainment of a state of consciousness that freed us from the world, it freed us from the time process. In the traditional notion of enlightenment one was trying to experience nirvana or achieve a nirvanic state or enter into a nirvanic realm which would free one from the experience of embodiment. It would free from one from being embedded in the world process.
Read the rest of the interview for yourself here.
"The traditional notion of enlightenment was the attainment of a state of consciousness that freed us from the world"
ReplyDeleteOf course, he is describing only the Eastern notion of enlightenment. The Middle-Eastern religions don't talk at all of a "state of consciousness" or of "escape from the world". The JudeoChristioMuslim notion is not of escape from the world but of fulfilling the world by knowing its Creator.
As for the rest of his thesis, he's confused. He rejects the idea of enlightenment as an end point, but replaces it merely with a different endpoint (awareness that "we are that very evolutionary process"). Interestingly, it looks scarily like he's replacing a moral, spiritual enlightenment with an intellectual one. That is, he is talking about awareness of something, rather than the Eastern awareness of nothing (put crudely). He's talking not about exceeding the self but about elevating the self.
However, I know it would be unjust to draw too many conclusions from such a short interview.
I do wish, though, that he'd stop using "evolution" in this sense. It's completely the wrong word - as I've said before, he should be using "develop" or something similar. He only uses "evolution" in order to tag onto the sense of scientific truth and respectability that that word brings with it.
pax et bonum
I think part of Cohen's agenda is to replace the idea of enlightenment as content, i.e. a state of consciousness, with enlightenment as process. I could be giving him too much credit, however.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with your concerns about his approach being too intellectual. I think he has built his identity around being a "guru" and has constructed a worldview that doesn't reject (as strongly as it needs to) the elevation of self.
Your distinction between the Eastern approach (transcending the world) and the Western approach (knowing the Creator through Her creation) is largely irrelevant. The most profound writings of the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic mystics describe experiences indistinguishable from experiences described by Buddhists, Hindus, and Taoists. They all describe non-dual consciousness, i.e. the loss of distinction between self and Other.
Finally, the problem with using "evolution" in this context. It seems, and I could be wrong, that the defintion you want to hold up is one most often identified with science, which is ironic in that it rejects Spirit. The way Wilber and Cohen and others are now using the word allows for something that Christians might recognize as Intelligent Design.
In my Webster's Dictionary, only one of the six main definitions fit the Darwinian version of the word's meaning. One of the meanings given is "a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena," while another is "a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state: growth." Evolution, as employed by Integral theorists, is a combination of these two definitions. They would likely distinguish between Darwinism and evolution; one being a scientific theory and the other being a Kosmic process.
Mystics do often report very similar experiences, it is true. However, the interpretations that they place on those experiences are very different. And those interpretations are crucial. To discount them is to discount at least half of the experience itself - for interpretation is a crucial human activity. So, if we are talking about the loss of distinction between Self and Other, it is absolutely crucial to understand what that Other is.
ReplyDeleteSecond, you're right, I want to keep "evolution" as far as possible within the sphere of science. I want to do this because failing to do so produces misunderstandings both in science (when people think that evolution talks about "progress" or, indeed, says anything at all about the existence or nonexistence of "spirit") and philosophy (because there is inevitably a crossover from the scientific idea, which may be inappropriate to a greater or lesser degree). When there is already a perfectly good English word that means exactly what is intended in this context (and actually has better connotations in that context) - development.
pax et bonum