Evolutionary Enlightenment: Spirituality for the 21st Century / WIE Voices from the Edge Lecture Series / EnlightenNext
Sitting uncomfortably in a medium sized room overflowing with the middle-aged well-dressed upper middle class, I notice that a circular window symmetrically framed the podium for this evening’s lecture on Evolutionary Enlightenment. The room is normally used for these sorts of presentations when it’s not bathed in the silence of a group meditation. As most of us realised that the newly installed and recently broken down air conditioner would not relieve the swelling heat of a particularly hot spring evening, one of Andrew Cohen’s long-term devotees gave a noticeably long introduction – he was obviously filling time. Andrew Cohen was introduced as a man who never stops questioning, as someone who is always moving on to the next thing. His tardiness introduced him as a busy man from America.
As he slowly and calmly walked on stage, you couldn’t help noticing that he too was a member of the middle-aged well-dressed upper middle class in his dark navy velvet suit and blue tie with white polka dots.
He began his talk with a description of two experiences that shook the foundation of his understanding of life – two experiences of cosmic consciousness that literally brought him to his knees. One occurred at age 16 and the other at 22. After travelling to India and eventually finding a guru to make sense of his experiences, he asked his teacher, “Do you have to make any effort to be free.” When his guru said “No.”, he realised he was never unfree. With a wry smile and his characteristic New York nasal laugh, he clarified his point by suggesting that we all create our own problems (at least in the West). When some people laughed and others didn’t, Andrew pointed this out, “Some of you found that funny and others gave me a rood look!” which made everyone laugh! He talked without a script and from his easy and confident demeanour, it was obvious he has done this talk countless times before. He probably made that joke countless times before.
Andrew presented two sources for his philosophy of ‘Evolutionary Enlightenment’. They are (1) the ancient wisdom traditions of the east and (2) the contemporary notion of evolution in the west. Evolutionary Enlightenment implies that the ancient wisdom traditions of the world are lacking in two ways. Firstly, they are outdated because they exclude the notion of evolution and secondly they treat the ‘reality experience’ as inherently bad.
Moreover, Andrew generalised eastern and western religious trends into: monotheism (Christianity and Judaism – he did not mention Islam once) and Buddhism. He then equated these two by placing their idea of salvation outside or beyond life. Andrew then offered Evolutionary Enlightenment as a philosophy that addresses these two main contentions with traditional religions. His philosophy says that reality is good and not something to be saved from (“this is where the action is.”) and his philosophy is not outdated because it includes the idea of evolution.
Andrew supported his philosophy by questioning some of the major assumptions of what happens after death (the post-mortem experience!): “What if there is no reincarnation or heaven?” He implied that by asking such a question, we realise how important this life is. Andrew also supported his argument by an appeal to authority: “I was talking about this with my friend Ken Wilber…” (you can be sure that everyone in the room has read Wilber). Wilber describes the type of spirituality that excludes the religious assumptions like heaven or nirvana as a “post-metaphysical spirituality.”
I thought Andrew did a good job of appealing to our collective angst – the existential problems that most westerners face: the loss of meaning and purpose. Andrew felt that he had the authority to suggest that human experience is pretty common. He described the western condition as a spiritual void.
Andrew then went on to describe his western audience as the luckiest people that ever lived – not because we were listening to him (although that’s what I thought he meant at first) – but because we have the freedom and dignity of modernity. To Andrew, our problems are less valid than the ones facing other people in the world. For support, Andrew cites the fact that we have almost infinite available choices where people in the past have had limited available choices. Furthermore, given the option, most people would not choose to live during any other time in history.
While suggesting that growth in intelligence comes from intra-cultural friction, Andrew described each member of his audience as having a strong sense of our individuality: “We are all individuals.” he says. Even still, according to Andrew, western man is suffering from the “post-modern condition” of a loss of meaning.
“Imagine you were God before the Big Bang, resting forever in timelessness.” commanded Andrew. He was trying to describe his notion of the “God Impulse.” I wasn’t sure if Andrew’s suggestion represented his belief in the power of the imagination or a futile attempt at empathizing with the absolute. He suggested that the Big Bang was the cosmic manifestation of the God impulse, of an ecstatic compulsion to create. To Andrew, this is the spiritual impulse and it manifests itself on the physical level as the sexual impulse.
At this point, one woman behind me tried to ask a question. She tried three times and each time Andrew refused to answer, telling her to ask after the lecture. The flow of the address was obstructed. It was like a wall came down in front of Andrew that would let no question pass. It was both humorous and shocking. “I’m from New York,” he said “I won’t play ball” as he took the opportunity to sip from his spring water.
Nearing the end of his two-hour lecture, Andrew quickly realised that he had not talked sufficiently about his system of perspectives. He suggested that we all have stages of consciousness that begin small and get successively more inclusive as we grow spiritually. Man starts in an egocentric mindset eventually moving on to an ethnocentric, nation-centric, world-centric and finally cosmo-centric mindset. The latter should be the goal of all those dedicated to Evolutionary Enlightenment.
Andrew lightly and humorously admonished the British audience for their anti-Bush mentality and suggested that if Bush were world-centric and not just nation-centric, the world would be a better place. Most people nodded agreement with this sentiment.
In his rather rushed conclusion, Andrew quickly presented his view that consciousness has developed in a linear way. While inferring that the “Final Truth” is an affirmation, Andrew tried to explain that God takes one of two forms: God is either being or becoming. Evolutionary Enlightenment emphasizes the becoming. Lastly, (and I particularly like this visual analogy) Andrew likened humanity’s state to someone who is walking up in the back of a moving car and realising that no one is driving.
While chatting kindly with another attendee named Irfan after the lecture in the lobby, I noticed how many books and items were available for sale. Even this evening’s recorded talk was up for grabs. I also noticed with mild irritation how Andrew sidestepped me an Irfan three times so he could talk with his benefactors or devotees.
I sat next to a devotee who had worked with Andrew for six years. Although he described Evolutionary Enlightenment as an “immaculate philosophy,” he left the movement because the demands of the guru-disciple relationship that Andrew exacted were too much. Apparently, this is a common complaint.
Finally, I had a chance to shake his hand and look him in the eye. Andrew is fairly short and seemed to possess an impressive amount of focused energy. He was kind and willing to share. We talked of a now dead Toronto centre and if he had visited the west coast of Canada. What are you supposed to say to these people? Small talk just doesn’t seem to fit.
Andrew is a honed public speaker. He was clear and concise. He avoided the contentious issues of contemporary religious fundamentalism or his government’s actions in the Middle East. But he seemed to gloss over a number of points, as time grew short.
First off, his description of western religion as exclusively monotheism and eastern philosophy as exclusively Buddhism was an oversimplification. I will concede that this could have been a product of the short talk and not simply a basis for the philosophy.
His notion of evolution was simple too. He didn’t mention “Darwin” once and I wondered if he has actually read any of his work.
Andrew emphasised that we all feel as if we are individuals with a capital “I”. He would say this in conjunction with the proposition that we all suffer from the post-modern condition. Wouldn’t most philosophers agree that we are past post-modernity? Furthermore, isn’t the idea of individuality very much a modernist notion?
At times Andrew was thorough in his analysis and observation of experience, specifically during the beginning of the talk while he recounted his background and history. However, at other times, he snuck in more hidden ‘Cohenian’ assumptions without the same analysis, specifically during the end of his talk. He expected some points to be taken for granted and others – which were easier to explain – were discussed.
Andrew suggested that consciousness has evolved linearly. Is this really the case? Doesn’t evolution have many branches that do not possess a linear direction until reviewed in hindsight? Isn’t this a type of historicism where Evolutionary Enlightenment becomes the goal of an imposed teleology on the evolution of consciousness?
I found it ironic that Andrew wanted to be a jazz drummer. I too have aspirations to be an amateur musician. As most of us do, he soon realized that this career was not going to be totally feasible. But to his credit, he has still made it work. Now you can go see his jazz-fusion band performing the day after his talk. Not everyone likes jazz but a whole lot more will pay money for someone to tell them how to find meaning. I didn’t go and hear him play but it probably wasn’t too bad.
The whole event was served on an intellectual platter. Andrew knew how best to reach his target audience. The talk however gave no sense of a place for bhakti (devotion). I left unsure of where love fits in his Evolutionary Enlightenment.
Tags: London, spirit