static enlightenment vs. evolutionary enlightenment

i've been interested these days in the concept of "evolutionary enlightenment" brought forth by Andrew Cohen. Cohen is best known as the founder of EnlightenNext magazine (formerly known as What Is Enlightenment?), and he seems to get somewhat of a bad rap in certain spiritual circles, i think because he's often seen as something of an egotist.

watching some of his videos on youtube, i can certainly understand why people would feel this way. he displays a certain intolerance towards ego-based perspectives and seems to think quite highly of himself and the work he's performing. simply put, he comes across at times as kind of arrogant.

does this mean he's full of shit? maybe, but i don't think it's necessarily that simple.

writing Cohen off as pompous may be easy to do because we've been conditioned to believe enlightened spiritual teachers should look and act a certain way. but the reality of it is that individuals who have realized their absolute nature wake up, experience what they are utterly beyond any conditioned thing, and then keep on being individuals. they know that what they are is not limited to whatever body they happen to be inhabiting, but they keep inhabiting a body. they understand mental identifications and preferences represent what they are as much as any random shoebox at the nearest Foot Locker does, and yet they go on exhibiting relatively unique personal characteristics.

what i'm trying to get at is that no direct relationship exists between enlightenment and the idiosyncratic expressions of a personality. realizing truth entails acknowledging one's freedom from conditioned existence, but it doesn't erase that conditioning. you're no longer a prisoner to it because you realize it's not what you are, but it goes on operating all the same in some fashion or another. and while it's true that an experience of awakening will have a profound effect on how consciousness manifests through the conditioned expression of a human being (often resulting in the expected increases in peace and compassion), i suppose this doesn't always have to be the case.

or, more likely, qualities such as peace and compassion don't always take on the form we expect them to. someone like U. G. Krishnamurti, for example, whose behavior is nothing close to what most people would expect from an enlightened individual, expresses compassion through a confrontational, even scandalous style that - if it works - shocks the listener into coming to a more realistic reconning of what the ego is and how it functions. a thickly padded ego will look at an unconventional spiritual teacher like U. G. and think, "what a dick." but for someone who's just ripe enough, his approach has the potential to push consciousness towards a direct encounter with itself. and what could be more compassionate than aiding in the process of spiritual awakening?

criticizing the validity of spiritual teachings from people like U. G. and Cohen based on the emotional responses they elicit is probably not too great of an idea, because it is the ego that gets offended and makes value judgments. of course, this doesn't mean we should look up to anybody that displays offensive characteristics as a spiritual master. but neither should we look to how comfortable the ego feels in response to a spiritual teaching as our sole criterion for judging its effectiveness, because powerfully transformative teachings and enlightened perspectives are necessarily expressed through imperfect personalities.

why is this? because the relative and the absolute coexist. the perennial spiritual statement that "all is one" is true, but that doesn't stop the relative universe from expressing itself in all of the glorious diversity that every day presents itself before our eyes. reality is inherently and perfectly complete, and at a less fundamental level it's also taking form as an expression of diversity and process. both things are true; they don't cancel eachother out. one who realizes this is said to be enlightened, but when they draw from this unconditioned source to express their understanding, they do so through inherently conditioned channels. this seems to be an inevitable aspect of formlessness translating into form.

so while Cohen's personality may at times be off-putting, i'm not convinced this means he fails to bring a valid perspective to the table. what i find interesting about his teaching is that it emphasizes how to contextualize enlightenment in the world we currently live in. he acknowledges the importance of coming into contact with one's absolute nature (what he and others call the ground of being), but he also addresses how this realization can be applied to our current existence in the relative universe.

basically, i think Cohen is saying: "so you get enlightened. great - now what?" that "now what?" constitutes the "evolutinary" aspect of his "evolutionary enlightenment" teaching. he calls it the "new enlightenment," which i think is kind of gimmicky. neverhteless, the concept behind it is interesting because it suggests that rather than merely focusing on becoming free from conditioned existence, we should be asking ourselves how to completely engage in the process of consciousness evolution that constitutes the very hearbteat of the universe.

Cohen calls this drive to participate in the universal evolution of consciousness the "ecstatic compulsion of the authentic self." he contrasts it to what he refers to as "premodern" enlightenment teachings that only emphasize realizing the ground of being and becoming free from conditioning, but fail to contextualize this enlightenment within one's continued participation in the phenomenal world. with his "moral imperative" to the evolution of consciousness, Cohen asks us to become absolutely committed to our life experience not for the individualistic ends that are so common in contemporary society, but to establish higher structures of consciousness that will allow for the flourishing of new and higher cultures on Earth.

here's an interesting video on the subject: