On Being and Becoming

Or, on emptiness and appearances, on Suchness and dependent arisings... Here Andrew Cohen speaks of the need to update the notion of enlightenment, a notion that's been around for several thousand years as "awakening to the Unborn" or something to that effect, and recognize the evolutionary drive inherent in the very fabric of our relative being. Recognize, in other words, that samsara is not just circular, that there's an eros and a telos to that circularity, namely growing complexity and further perspectives. Buddhist masters may have been talking of Wisdom and Compassion, but since we've become aware of evolution at all levels from biology to consciousness, we cannot pretend that never happened, and there's a fresh perspective available in the way we understand and practice "Compassion", namely, as passsion for evolving together, not just helping others to be saved from the dreadful existence in samsara. Indeed, an evolving samsara is not that dreadful - or, it's just become potentially dreadful in yet another way - since conscious evolution is now not only possible, but imperative. Looking the other way won't make it go away. But that's my take on it, looking from within my own lineage, and I believe each wisdom tradition has the capacity to evolve a mature post/modern expression giving due emphasis to evolution and multi-perspectival thought. At present, however, most traditions, as well as most popular "contemporary" spiritual teachers, are effectively discouraging their students from doing just that.

The person asking the question is obviously lost in a one-step approach to awakening, and Andrew does him a great service by suggesting a two-step framework, wherein an awakened return to time and manifestation may complement the first step of dropping into the Ground. I would suggest, however, that another step is necessary before even the first step is made, namely, developing a wise and constructive relationship to self, small "s", the conditional self that Andrew keeps calling ego, as many teachers wrongly do, apparently for no reason whatsoever. Explaining that such "ego" is the treacherous infatuation with illusion is, again, recreating what is missing in the bare relative/absolute approach, so typical for premodern spirituality: a potent way of not just being, but going onward in this world, with this world.

Also, you don't need to love or even like Andrew Cohen to appreciate some of significant points he makes. Still, awakening to the unborn, not just for a moment, remains a challenge for anyone interested in "enlightenment", evolutionary or not. Making fun of "Om" won't help either. Zen master mentioned in the talk is not just laughing at your illusions, but also at your attempt to escape the flow of time, so Andrew gives his audience only a partial meaning of that guffaw, mimicking it with a giggle. As some Zenists would rightly argue, "You have to say something!" Also, in other profound/esoteric traditions, the flow of time is given due respect as an equally important half of reality, as a gesture of the Unborn, but first you better awaken to the Unborn, and not just for a moment. Then, find the right way of expressing this realization in every thought, word, and deed, in accordance with your context, and the context is today - yes, yes - evolutionary to the core. So, listening to Andrew Cohen usually leaves me with a certain aftertaste, as if an opportunity is squandered to really make a good case for a post-metaphysical spirituality. But he does use a dual mandala, and that's simply too endearing for my taste... Duration 27:23

Some discussion with Bruce Alderman is available at the zaadz cross-post.