evolutionary enlightenment
September 2007 
On the Matter of Pure Being & Human Conditioning
Soulplex
In a comment left in response to my post of an Andrew Cohen video clip below, Craig Persel voiced an idea that is very popular in enlightenment circles, which contends that when one is grounded in a state of enlightened consciouness, one's actions and behavior are inherently "unconditioned." As someone who's written 10-page articles critiquing this idea in WIE, I felt compelled to take issue with it, once again. (Hey, I'm as conditioned as the next guy!) You can read Craig's original comment here, and here is my somewhat, ah, verbose response:
Hi Craig,
Regarding your comments, I’d ask you to read my response to Michael, if you haven’t already, since he made a similar point. But I can see why you might conclude that Andrew hasn’t experienced “pure consciousness” based on watching him in that video. Unlike Adyashanti, Eckhart Tolle, and many other teachers of enlightenment who tend to speak in a calm, peaceable manner, Andrew’s on fire with the Authentic Self, which is the creative force or evolutionary impulse itself—a very different state/stage of consciousness from the nirvanic stillness of the Ground of Being. And the difference between these two modes of egoless consciousness, or two types of enlightenment, is the same distinction that Andrew’s making in the video.
Traditional enlightenment is based on the realization of the Ground of Being as one’s deepest Self beyond mind and time. That’s what Adya and Tolle teach, even when they use “evolutionary” language (which is a critique I’m currently working on for an upcoming issue of What Is Enlightenment? —which, btw, is a very good question...). The qualities of that traditional state of enlightened consciousness include “silence,” as you said, as well as peacefulness, equanimity, ease of being, etc. (think Ramana Maharshi, or the Buddha in meditative repose). And that was the kind of enlightenment that Andrew initially began teaching, back in 1986, as transmitted to him by his guru, H.W.L. Poonja (which Andrew recently reflected upon in a blog entry titled “Overwhelming Gratitude”). Andrew still teaches that, but now it’s in a much bigger context, and it’s only a small—yet foundational—part of the full picture of what he believes “enlightenment” really means for life in the 21st century. If you ever attend one of Andrew’s retreats, he often spends the first few days focusing on nothing but awakening participants to that state, transmitting it through lengthy, powerfully still and silent meditation sessions (as well as by simply directing individuals’ attention back to the effortless, rock-bottom primacy and immediacy of their own consciousness as they listen to him with open eyes). I’ve been in sessions with Andrew where he’s said not a word, just plunging a roomful of students into profound stillness for three hours straight (which seems to go by in the blink of an eye). On my first retreat with Andrew, in France in the summer of 2000, he spent a whole week having us do nothing but dive into the stillness and depth of the Ground of Being by “letting everything be as it is.” Nowadays he seems to be giving most participants a taste of that state within the first day, which is amazing, and also allows him to devote more time to the bulk of his teachings, which aren’t about experiencing pure consciousness, which is easy; they’re about living it, which is hard.
And that’s when all of the tremendous complexity of the human condition enters into the picture, with all its cultural, biological, psychological, karmic, etheric, economic, chemical, gravitational, temporal, and spatial conditions and limitations. There is no such thing as a human being—enlightened or otherwise—who isn’t subject to conditioned limitations (legends of Babaji notwithstanding...although even he, to whatever degree, would presumably be subject to at least some conditioned restraints on the gross, subtle, or causal manifest planes of existence). What traditional, Ground of Being enlightenment gives you is some space and distance from your conditioning, so you can begin to see it, and see through it, as not being who you ultimately are. But no matter how frequently you return to that stillness, and spontaneously act from it, your behavior, actions, and expressions will be conditioned to some degree. The stillness of pure Being is unconditioned; the human being is not. If you’re a Jewish man from New York, you will, after your enlightenment, still tend to look, act, and sound like a New York Jew, to whatever degree that generalization has merit. If you’re British, you will tend to look, act, and sound British. If you’re a medieval Japanese Zen monk, you will tend to look, act, and sound like a medieval Japanese Zen monk. And if you’re a postmodern, green (in Spiral Dynamics and Ken Wilber terms), mild-mannered German-Canadian, you will tend to act that way and express that conditioning, no matter how frequently you seek refuge in the primordial stillness of the Now. Conditioning, in and of itself, is neither good nor bad. It’s just the way the interconnected Kosmos works, the “chain of dependent origination,” as the Buddhists would say.
The thing is, while I have no doubt that gaining some distance from the conditioned mind and ego by profoundly awakening to the Ground of Being does enable one to act “spontaneously,” with radically unpremeditated freedom, it does not—in and of itself—guarantee the moral or philosophical or cultural beneficence of such action. The Ground of Being is not human-hearted. It is not human at all. And that’s where Andrew’s teachings about Ego and the Authentic Self come in, which is what the two models in the video represent. The Ego and the Authentic Self can both be “vehicles” for the human expression of the Ground of Being; they can both be expressions for the “silence” that one spontaneously acts from and immediately returns to, as you put it. But only one of them, the Authentic Self, can be considered—at this point in our species’ development—a universally wholesome, moral, and beneficial expression of that primordial Ground. The Authentic Self is Eros, the evolutionary impulse that is driving the whole Kosmos forward. It is a passionate, spontaneous, wholly engaged, life-positive energy and intelligence that has no interest in the past and is only interested in creating the future in its own nondual image, from moment to moment to moment. The Authentic Self is radical God-Consciousness, and its “flavor” is 180 degrees opposite that of the Ground of Being (though the stillness of that Ground tends to still underlie it, experientially). (Think: Jesus overturning the money-changers’ tables in the temple, or Zen masters whacking students with big sticks—though those examples of awakened passion perhaps lack the Kosmocentric perspective that seems inherent to the Authentic Self as we understand and experience it today.) You could say that the Ground of Being enlightens the human experience, while the Authentic Self enlivens it. If the Ground of Being is God “the Unmanifested,” as Eckhart Tolle puts it, then the Authentic Self is God the Manifested. And awakening to both of those parts of the self together, simultaneously, is what Ken Wilber has called “incarnational nonduality.” It’s what Andrew’s teaching of Evolutionary Enlightenment is about, and it’s what you see fueling his passion and excitement in that video.
Anyway...my point (if I have one!) is: Even the Authentic Self can't be considered unconditioned as soon as it’s expressed through a human being in any way, shape, or form. But I think it is less conditioned, limited, and constrained by past karma than the expression of a more traditionally-enlightened person, who, in turn, is less conditioned than a purely ignorant person, who would be someone who’s unawake to either the Ground of Being or the Authentic Self and identified primarily with the ego. So there are degrees of freedom. Yet, once again, all human expressions—enlightened or otherwise—are inherently conditioned, because the human body-brain-mind-soul-sociocultural-interlinked-cosmic-system is one big, conditioned, evolving Process, never the same from moment to moment and always constrained, at least in part, by what came the moment before. The Ground of Being is free of all that, but the Authentic Self IS that process—totally one with it—and embraces it all wholeheartedly as not being an obstacle to total freedom. It just wants to evolve the whole thing, so that freedom and divinity shines through the world of conditioned form with ever-increasing clarity.
Is any of that clear? ;)
Let me know if I should try to explain any part of my ramble here. It’d be easier for me to write more than try to edit this...
Best,
Tom
p.s. There’s also a whole discussion of the “Wilber-Combs Lattice” we could get into, which shows how different mystical states have different expressions at different stages of individual and cultural development, but I wanted to try to explain this without reference to states and stages, at least for this round.
Access: Public
Tom,
Great post.
A few questions, and forgive me in advance if I’m misusing the terminology (I’m a little conditioned by my Zen training):
1.) How might we best differentiate between the Authentic Self and the Universe’s natural impulse to evolve?
2.) Would you say that “tasting” the Ground of Being for brief periods of time readies students in the same way as a practiced, and continual, “sourcing” of themselves from the Ground of Being?
3.) If we are authentically “sourced” from the Ground of Being, aren’t we then already living as conscious, purposeful, intentional expressions of the Authentic Self? And how might we best discern this?
4.) How do we guard against egos that think they are enlightened, and call themSelves “Authentic?â€
Best,
M
Tom,
Great explanation.
Well … I'll start from the top (conditioned v. unconditioned) to explain myself more clearly. It is true that pure/soul-consciousness (whatever label you would like to use) is speaking through a physical form. This physical form can be of a variety of shapes, forms, ancestery, nationality, gender, age, etc. The physical form is the instrument through which the soul-consciousness communicates and acts. The instrument is of secondary, minimal importance. It's just an instrument. As a musician may play an oboe, guitar, flute, piano, etc. The instrument is only the conveyor of the vibration. If Beethoven is playing one make of piano it is going to sound different from playing another make of piano … but it is still Beethoven playing the piano. It is what is playing the instrument that matters. Our physical form and personality are instruments of either an animal/nature consciousness or soul consciousness. A transformed state of consciousness is the goal. What happens with that transformed, soul consciousness will happen automatically and outside our ego's control.
It is my understanding (but I'm willing to be corrected on this) that Mr. Cohen and yourself are stating that consciousness grounded in the fundamental state of being is incompatible with an enlightened consiousness capable of action in the field of manifestation. This evolutionary, enlightened consciousness is transmitted through the “authentic” self. A “less” conditioned self as you put it. To start with both Tolle (I assume) and myself would say that a person living in a state of consciousness grounded in the fundamental state of being … can … live from that consciousness in the field of manifestation. Yes … speaking, acting, behaving, etc. are being carried out in a so-called “conditioned” instrument, but the source behind it is “unconditioned”. What is conveyed through the instrument will vary to some degree based on the instrument's character, but - and this is important - the vibration that it is conveying will not be different because its source is the fundamental state of being. The source of the vibration will be either from the field of manifestation or the fundamental state of being. The “conditioned” instrument will only alter the flavor/accent, but not the fundamental vibration. It is a “being in this world, but not of this world” phenomenon.
As for the “authentic” self that is - accourding to Mr. Cohen - the next evolutionary step toward enlightment in the field of manifestation there is a danger. At the subtlest levels of nature consciousness there resides the Higher Self. It can ingeniuously imitate an enlightened consciousness. It is the great adversary, the guardian on the threshold. It knows every strength and weakness of our ego and operates in the highest aspects of our microcosm. When I was listening to Mr. Cohen speak about the authentic self a lot of red flags were going up in regards to his description and the possibility that he is speaking of the Higher Self. Many New Age groups focus their teachings on connecting with this Higher Self and it can many times lead to a type of cosmic consciousness that is very powerful. However, it is a consiousness that is ultimately not liberating and in the end ties one ever more tightly to the wheel of birth and death.
Lastly, Mr. Cohen spoke at length in the video about transcendent consciousness being outdated, not of our time and that evolutionary enlightment was the post-modern spiritual path. Universal Wisdom is not bound to time. Yes, it manifests in different ways, languages, methods, etc. at different times in man's history, but it is always the Universal Wisdom and can be immediately recognized as such. It doesn't matter if it was spoken by Lao Tzu, Buddha, Jesus, Mani, the Cathars, Krishnamurti or Tolle … it is always very clearly the same message and vibration, from the same source, spoken in the language and way of the its time. I am not a follower of Tolle (whatever that might mean), but I immediately recognized him as a fountain/instrument of the Universal Wisdom. On this same issue there was something Mr. Cohen stated in his video that - for me - illustrated the difference between he and “sent ones” like Krishnamurti and Tolle. He often referred to “my” teachings whereas Tolle always refers to “the” teachings. A very subtle, yet profound statement and difference. “My” teachings is personal and “The” teachings is impersonal. Tolle and Krishnamurti never equate “the” teachings with themselves. They recognize true Wisdom is only being conveyed “through” them and not “from” them. The source (ground of being) and instrument (Tolle/Krishnamurti) are never confused. The impersonal power, vibration and love of the Universal Wisdom is manifested.
Regards,
Craig
Perhaps it was Jiddu Krishnamurti who inadvertently started a trend in what I see as a movement within a movement, that is, as the “common-place” truth seeker tended to always have been somewhat closeted out from his (integrally charted, or SD/AQAL charted/leveled) amber/red/orange community, was linguistically and cognitively adept to a competent degree, and had at least one taste of One Taste, the newer and somewhat more exclusive seeker seems to be characterised by the degree in which he pursued a degree, that is, if he had aced it in college and was on his or her way to a Masters or doctorate. The older kind of seeker just had to be smart (and fairly well-heeled - New Age workshops cost a small salary ), the newer one also had to be wholly educated in the formal sense, now that would exclude the likes of me -
I have had One Taste in my young young days, and have been a truth researcher ever since, yet find myself neither relgious nor new age and finding a not very secure foothold in integral and the kind of teaching Andrew Cohen forwards, which are integrally informed. I find that disturbing but anyway this is my two cents worth:
It (tasting Ground) is an experience that has an no actual pinpoint ontological reference, and a community always interpreted that in the context it is familiar with. One walks with it, if possible - this is what you all mean by Authentic Self I take it. Another cannot - then it wont be considered evolutionary then? If so, then how different is that from earlier teachings where it is imperative the realizer brought the realization back with him or her into the marketplace of life?
Good question.
Experiencing the “ground of being” is different from being enlightened or self-realized. One can experience this state without it becoming a permanent transformation of consciousness. If it does become a permanent “soul-consciousness” does it need to be brought back to the marketplace of life? Another good question. I'd have to say … that depends on the enlightened human being and his task according to the divine will. The task of one englightened being may be to radiate the light into the world without being part of the world. Another may need to put that soul-consciousness into action in the “marketplace of life.” I don't think it is predictable, definable or a different type of enlightment. One isn't more “authentic” than the other. This is one of the many points on which I differ from Mr. Cohen in which he postulates that there are two types of enlightenment: the stillness of the ground of being type and the new, post-modern, authentic “evolutionary” type. A human being is either enlightened or not. Self-realized or not. There isn't a more “advanced” type of enlightement and the task of an enlightened person, to either radiate in stillness or to paticipate fully in society, is not knowable, predictable or definable. Doing that is nothing more than our ego and will trying to understand, label and categorize the divine.
Craig
Hullo cbpersel, yes I agree that the experience of the Breakthrough Consciousness (a term I use for myself) is not the same as living as that Breakthrough. As to your observation that there might be not be as much as difference in the “stillness” model and the “evolutionary” model, that made me think : I know not of any guru that does not advocate or suggests some form of socially-conscious yoga or charitable action, nor have I heard of many Realizers who sit in Bliss and nobody finds out! Somebody seems to always find out, and pretty soon that one solitary Realizer is moved into the teaching role, without any personal volition or desire to do so. Ramana Maharishi was such a case.
I maybe should have clarified myself a bit further. I'm not sure if you mean by “guru” someone who is necessarily enlightened. I think there are many teachers who are not self-realized. So, while it is true that most or all spritual teachers advocate socially-conscious or charitable action that doesn't mean it is being directed by the divine will. Those actions can be wholly ego-driven. Humanitarian action currently abounds and has throughout history, but has not led us one step closer to an earthly utopia or enlightenment. A self-realized individual will automatically act in a way to help humanity in the most effective manner possible. More than likely he/she will be very charitable and socially-conscious. It is a right-action that will occur spontaneously and not be mistaken for the path itself.
While many self-realized human beings are moved, like you say, without personal volition to teach (eg. Tolle) I do personally know a number of self-realized individuals who's task it is to impersonally radiate the light into this nature to help and assist seekers on the path. That is their task. They live everyday lives and would not necessarily be noticed as being different from any other individual. They don't teach or write or make themselves known publically as anybody special or spiritually advanced.
Because of the every increasing problems in the world (e.g. global warming, war, etc.) spiritually seeking people are looking for answers and action, but I think most are still caught in the web of old thinking. They are looking externally before looking internally. They are putting the cart before the horse. They are expecting gurus to advocate for social action and take a stance on cultural, political and environmental issues, but the right-action to solve these problems can only be approached by first walking the path of liberation from within. Only then can the world be truely transformed and changed.
Hi all–I'm sorry I haven't had a chance to jump in here, but will as soon as I meet an article deadline…should be just a day or two.
best,
Tom
When I read about the cosmology of “evolutionary enlightenment” as presented here, I can't help but being struck by the proliferation of “selves” in this view of the universe. Let's see–we have the (presumably unenlightened) Ego self; we have the (presumably enlightened) Authentic Self; and I suppose we have the (presumably enlightened one with the Ground of Being) Big Self that new age and neo-advaita also speak about. Evolutionary enlightenment seems to be some kind of new trinitarian theology. Is this an improvement over the subtle dualism of Self vs. self we find in neo-advaita? I have often thought new age and neo-advaita's self vs. Self duality inculcated a kind of schizophrenia. Is evolutionary enlightenment's cosmology of ego, Ground of Being (Self), and Authentic Self cosmology inculcating a form of tri-zophrenia, to coin a new term? Really, how many selves are there?
Part of the problem being discussed may come from “evolutionary enlightenment” being a critique of forms of nondual sprituality that are based on a limited understanding of nondual traditions. This is understandable in that many of the nondual philosophies being presented today are relatively superficial renditions of traditional nondual thought.
Traditional nondual philosophy, such as Advaita Vedanta (not neo-vedanta or new age neo-advaita), points to one self. There can only be one self, of course, in a nondual view. Further inquiry reveals that that one self is not separate from the universe. That is the point of the Upanishadic maxims (or mahavakyas) such as “Thou art that.” The teaching in such traditions is that although as embodied human beings we are conditioned by our karmic circumstances, including our limited minds and sense-perceptions, those are not who we are. It is taught that we as conditioned beings are only a part of the changing (evolving) universe (which is God), and yet we are identical with the self of God. (By the way, traditional Advaita Vedanta views the universe as already a conscious being; it does not need to “evolve” to a state of consciousness). In any case, there is only one self. That's why it is called nonduality.
Traditional nondual thought is not necessarily quietistic, as “evolutionary enlightenment” philosophy seems to imply. All of the traditions speak of common ethical norms that are the result of realization in the liberated, and that, for seekers, tend to foster the objectivity and purity of mind necessary to become realized. A mulitiplicity of selves–be they ego, Authentic or Ground of Being Self–are completely unnecessary as a foundation for a life that is authentic, compassionate, loving, wisely concerned about others and realized.
Another issue implicated here, and elsewhere in discussions of “evloutionary enlightenment,” is the apparent glorification of big cosmic experiences. Spiritual experiences are nice and inspiring, of course. But the inquiry into and the understanding of the nature of reality is not dependent on any big spiritual “high.” The inquiry traditionally is directed at this very self you are experiencing right at this very moment already, and your relationship to the world. Experiences of the descent of the Oversoul or such into a room of seekers are fascinating but are probably more of a distraction than an aid to genuine inquiry and understanding.
My 2 cents.
Warmly,
KKDas
Very nice analysis KKDas.
I'm also confused by the multiplicity of selves and other related aspects of “evolutionary enlightenment”. All of the matrices, colors, categories, lattices, etc. seem to be a sticky conceptual web that cofuse more than clarify. Spiritual depth replaced by obfuscation. Enlightenment is simple. Yes, the path is rife with powerful self-created barriers, but conceptually it is not complicated. The Tao Te Ching, possibly the greatest spiritual text ever created, is extremely simple, poetic and powerful. It contains everything required to become self-realized. No categories, selves, lattices, etc. The danger is that these conceptual frameworks can become a way to serve and gratify the egos of their creators and result in confusing and misleading seekers.
Craig
Yet, cbpersel, the Tao Te Ching could not support the animist tribal level magical thinking religion that took Its name in vain :)
TO understand the complexities of the different stages of psycho-historic development that something like Spiral Dynamics chart helped me alot in comprehending various truly difficulit people and societies, like my own, where and why they are like the way they are. These lattices and graphs however weird they look do help clarify.
Good point. I understand what you are saying and how these charts, lattices, etc. can help construct a framework for analyzing historical and current sociological or psychological developments. But … does this truely help us on the path of liberation? Can't they easily become an intellectual substitute for … and distraction from … the actual requirements for self-realization? More mind-made hurdles and barriers? This is my concern.
Craig
Boy, I managed to back out of this one good. :-| Sorry, guys! I vacated Zaadz as things at work got more hectic than ever, and your daunting comments (to my even more daunting post) kept “reply to Zaadz comments” perpetually at the lower end of my to-do list. I'll learn my lesson and strive to better finish what I get started! If any of you are interested, I'm up for still responding (about time, eh?). But you may all have long since forgotten this discussion, so let me know. The internet, like life, is a fast-moving place…
Best regards,
Tom
[Edit: 151 days later! Yeesh… Well, considering some karmic momentums transcend lifetimes, I guess I'm nipping this one in the bud relatively early. :) ]
Sure … it would be great to continue the dialogue. I'll have to go back and re-read everything though to get up to speed. :-)
Craig
Yeah, me too!! :)
Cool, Craig! Fire away–or tell me if anything (everything?) in your comments above still stands, and I can try to respond to those…
Tom
Hey fella hope ya don't mind if I throw my 2 cents
yer all obviously smart guys read all the books - practiced some of em - teachers ect
we can all talk the talk - and even walk the walk (some of the time=))
but that don't mean shit right?
cuz from time to time it still all fucking sucks - flat out suffering - right? so whatta we do how to get rid of this suffering?
seems like cohen and tolle are going about it kinda…
- somebody once said to me in that the universe aint human hearted
and I guess that this person was really loving and spiritual so it suprised me that they would say something like that - seemed kinda mean and wrong - so I looked at it - and I'm still looking into it - it is really powerful
I had a lotta assuptions
One of Buddha's 4 Noble Truths is that life is suffering. Tolle would say that suffering is one of the great teachers. Suffering is what breaks down our crystallization and opens us up for something new. It creates space for the growth of the new soul.
howz about suffering MAY break us down and open to simple REALITY - and in discovering that this reality doesn't have our best intersts at heart many of us well intentioned human hearted egos try to make lemonade outta what we/ego percieves to be a real lemon
while seeing true reality eliminates the nightmare (which is great if yer suffering)
but it also eliminates the dream - the dream of growing a new soul lets say =)
and that is a real bitch
people don't wanna suffer but they want thier nice cozy wonderful dream - so lets just eliminate the nightmare!
but of course the nightmare and the dreams of a better future are dependant upon oneanother - heaven needs hell and vice versa
your dream of a better soul - a better future… keeps you suffering