October 19, 2009
Spiritual Transformation Is Not a Psychological Process (Quote of the Week)
Authentic spiritual or mystical transformation is not a psychological process. Mystical teachings go deeper than that—they refer to the nature of consciousness and the structure of our deepest interiors. They are not just helpful psychological principles and practices invented by the human mind—they point us to the discovery of natural or inherent laws that become apparent to anyone who awakens to the deeper and more subtle dimensions of the interior of the cosmos. All authentic teachings that come from mystical insight are really describing subtle principles, structures, and laws that already exist in your own deepest interior, which is the interior of the evolving cosmos we are living in. Most people don’t awaken in such a way that they are able to perceive these subtle laws or structures, so when they hear mystical teachings they interpret them as injunctions or instructions. And they can be used in that way. But they really represent a deeper and more subtle dimension of reality itself. And when you begin to look at mystical or enlightenment teachings as laws and subtle structures that actually exist, your relationship to them changes significantly. You realize that if these are actual laws or structures, rather than ideas that someone came up with, then they represent an absolute truth, and if there is any integrity in your self and soul, you have to deal with them. So then these principles become the path, and you walk in a straight line. And you will see development occur. If you adhere to them, you can’t go wrong.
[To receive these weekly quotes by email, or to read past quotes, visit spiritual teacher and EnlightenNext founder Andrew Cohen's website
|
Join Andrew's email list
Sign up here to receive a free excerpt from Evolutionary Enlightenment, an exclusive video, weekly quotes, and much more.
|
|
|
We hate spam just as much as you
|
Andrew Cohen is a spiritual teacher, cultural visionary, founder of EnlightenNext, and the author of 
I just have a little problem with the word “law” as it’s used in this context. Isn’t law a rather Western concept (I’m recalling a teaching by Alan Watts, I think) that conjures up words strung together by humans? The word structures, also used above, seems more appropriate. Structure or design are more comfortable here to me.
It’s oft said that there are thousands of ways to reach the top of the mountain, becoming Awakened. I mention two: 1) through intellect and 2) with your heart. The intellect can be helpful in finding out about the experience and giving an idea of what it’s like and how others have experienced it. I submit that the way through your heart is more likely, as the experience is always an emotional one, life-changing. Desire is often warned against but in the case of wanting to be Awakened, I submit that the desire is motivational, and like all aspiring, if your aspiration is sincere enough, your chances are better. Sometimes the intellect can be a hindrance to being Awakened, surrendering to your desire I believe is necessary.
Best wishes, Aloha,
Could you elaborate on the nature of the laws and structures?
thanks.
Is this directed to me? May I be so bold to offer a response?
The term law is often applied to the Law of Karma because it seems so inexorable and inescapable. I’m not sure in what context you refer to “laws and structures”, something in the lead-in?
The term “law” often rankles, many objecting to its use when they don’t concur with it’s truth. In the case of another incontrovertible code, the Perennial Wisdom, I prefer the term “tenets” to describe what it promulgates.
Best Regards,
I am much surprised to read this from Andew Cohen; I find it either confusing or misleading. Why refer to psychology as “just helpful psychological principles and practices invented by the human mind” in contrast to “natural or inherent laws” and to “subtle principles, structures, and laws that already exist in your own deepest interior, which is the interior of the evolving cosmos we are living in.” Psychology is merely the study of the human psyche, and the psyche (Greek for “soul”) certainly participates in the evolving cosmos at the least and many would argue that it is also part of what exists in one’s own deepest interior. There is an apparent docetism (dualism between materiality and spirituality) here that surprises me. Moreover, what Andrew goes on to say is even more disturbing. It borders on an extremism that sounds cultish — something like, “you don’t really need to evaluate your life and experiences using the human intellectual faculties (psychology) because true mystical/spiritual experience is so “other” that it cannot be integrated into the thinking and observing human faculties. The result of such teaching is that only the guru who has had these exeriences and can therefore lead one into them needs to be listened to if you want to be truly spiritual. If you want to be truly spiritual, Andrew seems to aver, disregard psychological paradigms and just follow the teaching from my awakened experiences … really? I seriously doubt that Andrew thinks this way …
Jim,
I advise you to reread Andrew’s message very carefully. He is making one very simple initial comment – spiritual transformation is not a psychological process. This will remain a confusing statement to many folks until they have visited the zone of meditation often enough and deep enough to experience the spiritual truths and knowledge that reside within the experience. Mystical teachings draw from the natural laws revealed during profound meditative states.
In addition, there is nothing in this post wherein Andrew claims that a person does not need to do “psychological” work. Both spiritual and psychological work are necessary for evolving consciousness. Again, please read his post very carefully. If you have sat with Andrew during his teachings you will find that the thinking capacity is one he uses to a high degree. If you engage with him you will be forced to use every capacity you have, from critical thinking skills, discernment skills, listening skills to emotional and psychological clarity. In short, your cognitive abilities will get hammered and refined by a very evolved man. I encourage you to go to one of his extended retreats. Then, all his posts will make greater sense and you will find that he is not encouraging cult mentality.
Thanks, Lisa. I appreciate your response and the dirction to which you point. I, too, am a long time meditator and am modestly familiar with some mystical texts and traditions. So though I am far from an expert, neither am i new to these categories of practice and thought. It’s the inherent dichotomy between spirit and matter to which I object. To refer to one as the interior deep universal structures and to the other as seperated from these deep structures and merely the constructs of human precepts is, in my opinion, a dangerous bifurcation. Moreover, to then make the kind of absolute claims that lead us to presume a level of objectivity as a result of these mystical experiences that transcends evaluation from any other aspect of the human experience is, in my opinion, even more dangerous. I did say that i don’t think Andrew wants to encourage a cult mentality, but read carefully, i don’t see how this statement leads to anything but that. I don’t disagree with spiritual experiences being of a different nature than the psychological aspects of our humanity — just like seeing is different from hearing. What i disagree with is seperating the spiritual experiences from other aspects of being human so that they are not understood as in continuity with all of the human experience, which i think is to affirm the continuity of spirit and matter. I don’t think the “evolution” of the cosmos is the dis-integration of spirit and matter but rather the integration of spirit and matter … something akin to Wilber’s “transcend and include,” which is a refinement of the developmentalists . I think what you understand Andrew to be saying needs to be said more carefully. Statements like, “You realize that if these are actual laws or structures, rather than ideas that someone came up with” suggest that the only “laws and structures” in the comsmos are the ones coming from deep mystical experiences. Surely Andrew thinks that everything in the cosmos partakes of actual laws and structures and not just the mystical dimension to which one awakens in mystical experiences. Surely psychology is addressing “laws and structures” of the cosmos just like mystical experiences are discovering different, albeit more profound or more immediate, “laws and structures” of the cosmos. Thanks, again, for your thoughtful reply. With warm regards, Jim
This is so interesting! I think I am starting to ‘get’ some of it. Could we say that we will get more ‘integrity’ in our doing when we let a more evolved person engage with us to ‘straighten us out’ so to speak? So the person responding to a more evolved person is challenged to look beyond their limitations. I am experiencing some insights over ‘winning’ as a violent streak of the ego-self. But as a positive impuls if it is geared towards greater understanding. The contracted and defensive ego self will experience this pressure as a threat, while the authentic self arises victorious in creating a higher we (?). Krishnamurti also talks about the sacredness of competetion. But isn’t there something strange and unhealthy in creating a teacher- student relationship where pressuring and pushing is involved? My experience of creating pressure is that it always creates resistance in the other, more contraction in stead of evolvement or expansion. Is this really the only way to evolve spiritualy together? Or is it impatience, violence and abuse of power? In nature, pressure is sometimes needed to create the next stadium or stage, but is it really the same in consciousness?
I do agree that there is tremendous abuse amoung people, also in spiritual circles. But isn’t adressing the mistake exactly the pitfall we sseek to overcome? I agree that to make a point I have been abusive in my entries… That is another insight. I apologize.
Wow, Peter, what a vulnerable, authentic, humble response. Thank you and bless you.
Some comments on the particulars: I think we get “more integrity” whenever we truly listen to virtually anyone not just someone more “enlightened” (who can determine who is “more” enlightened?). The act of listening to the other “authenticates” the sacredness of the other, and the act of listening necessitates listening to one’s self, for I don’t think we can truly listen to the other unless we are willing to be aware of our own self. This self listening you wonderfully demonstrate.
I think healthy student – teacher relationships involve the student giving the teacher the “authority” to teach (not just any authority but the specific authority to teach and, of course, at times the authority to mentor). If the teacher “takes” authority over the student, this generally is abuse by definition. Even when authority is given, the one to whom it is given needs to be ever mindful to serve rather than to usurp.
I agree that “pressure” tends to create resistance, and there can be healthy pressure and healthy resistance. For by definition isn’t genuine new truth resisted at first? Because genuinely “new” truth upsets the status quo that has provided one’s security. So some pressure and some resistance is often part of the process. Abuse, however, as indicated above is problematic. One way I am helped to identify what is perceived as abuse (and isn’t perception primarily what counts?) is to realize that power begets power. So when I see power responses coming back, I look for what power initiatives have created the power response. Something else I look for is serving pressure rather than power pressure. Often this can be discerned by noticing who or what is being “served” in the exchange or in the relationship.
And finally, I didn’t experience your posts/points as abusive. I did not experience them as “power” assertions but rather as searching and inquiring. The humility of this last response of yours is truly winsome. Thank you for being my teacher.
Lisa,
A P.S. to my post of 10.23. I just reread Peter’s post below. I rest my case on the unintended result of a cult mentality. The subtext of Peter’s post, for me at least, is that only following Andrew’s teaching leads to true enlightenment. Now I think Andrew doesn’t intend to teach this, but read Peter’s post … Peace, Jim
Hi Jim, isn’t it complicated to be writing about this in the right way? How can you say “peace” and mean it when you say that Andrew has no intention to teach the ‘cult’ way, and at the same time being sure that he does. Because you KNOW that Andrew would not write something unintended! ..Our integrity sure is a stake isn’t it!
I wrap it up it in this way:
When people read Andrews blog as a “cult” message, it reflects where they are at. Then this “teaching” is not for them (or not yet). It is importand to know that, before one engages in this kind of endeavour, this is not about enlightenment in the traditional sense, this is about something completely different.
The original enlightenment is too simple for words:
Once you have seen through the mind and realised one is empty for the world, that’s it. Finito basta. Nothing more to figure out. The end of seeking.
Andrews teaching I understand is about creating the future together.
I can also see why some people decide to turn against it, after they have been following this method. I can see why anyone inside the group can or could stop and step out any moment. It is a deliberate choice to be in it and once you are in, there is no more choice in what to do, there will be a constant pressure to go beyond the comfortzone. It is a human endeavour with rules and laws that are present in our inner cosmos if I understand it correctly.
Turning against it, or stepping out, after one has made a commitment for the teaching starts with a small seed somewhere in the mind that is not shared, worked on or overcome (or whatever method one uses to get over doubt). Once the seed starts to grow and becomes a reality, and the new grown understanding is not pulled out with root and all, the student leaves and needs some years to created new referencepoints.
The more evolved person (Andrew) will do anything he can to stop these seeds from growing in the minds of his fellow evolutionaries. It sure is an interesting concept!
This is not so in traditional enlightenment. Because there is no pressure, no resistance in Oneness or presence. The separate self has no reality value and there is endless tolerance towards any manifestation and nothing to be done as there is no do-er. that seems to be much more comfortable. But..is it?
Interesting response, Peter. It seems to me you confuse “an” experience of “awakening” with completion of the human journey or the evolution of the self/soul/spirit/body — however one might choose to describe it. I do not understand the “awakening” to happen all at once nor to be completed “quickly.” the spiritual masters i know tend to say just the opposite. That is, that they haven’t “arrived” at the “completed/perfected” state. This means that they, too, can sometimes say things imperfectly. I thought my comments on Andrew’s post indicated that I don’t think Andrew intends to suggest a bifurcation of materiality and spirituality (or the material and spiritual dimensions of the cosmos) nor a cultish mentality, but that this particular post leads in both of those directions. Moreover, I think your responses indicate an allegiance to Andrew and his teaching that suggest a kind of absolute truth that is THE seedbed of cults. I could be wrong about Andrew’s post, and i could be wrong about your responses. These are just my observations. I would certainly hope that i could offer these observations and bestow peace at the same time. If not …. whoa … for it seems we would be suggesting a new totalitarianism. Blessings and Peace to you, Jim
I don’t think we get answers from Andrew on these blogs. In trying to find them, I saw many entries an discussions on his teachings and a ‘compelling’ text where Andrew makes his position clear. His students are like the ‘Navy Seals’ of the spiritual world. They are engaged in an experiment that is beyond everything known. Most people don’t make it because they don’t want to make the change they intend to make.
That’s where the ‘problem’ starts. Methods and or practices that are usually frowned upon in most spiritual circles (like most people frown at the Navey Seals programm) are (sometimes) needed to reach the higher WE.
Tthe position is clear, the teaching is clear. If there is something inside you that wants it, go for it, or recognize the impuls as an illusion.
Depending on how you look at it, You will be Awake or Asleep.
The advaitist would say…Is there reality in the you that looks at it?
The evolutionary would say: do you have to courage to change, leave eveything behind to become an expression of the evolutionary impuls?
I understand it is a different kind of ‘enlightenment’ we are talking about.
our understanding, interpretations, and expressions evolve in response to a living universe. the laws of the universe reveal themselves and we respond. an evolutionary dance with a compelling beat to be sure.
Instead of the term “law” I prefer to say “tenet” re: The Perennial Wisdom. Though incontrovertible, what is set forth there is immutable, IMO, words for the wise. Perennial Wisdom can be accessed online for those not familiar with it.
THIS PRECIOUS LIFE IS MY CONSCIOUS CREATION BY BEING AWARE FROM MOMENT TO MOMENT:
“BE HERE NOW— DO HERE NOW”
IT LOOKS SIMPLE BUT IS NOT EASY !
DO I MAKE A MISTAKE? YES ! AND SO WHAT! MY COMMITMENT IS AND ALWAYS WILL BE TO:
BE HERE NOW DO HERE NOW
GOD – UNMANIFEST – AUTHENTIC SELF MANIFEST A FUTURE
VESNA
Lovely, Vesna. Thank you. As one of my teachers says, “Celebrate your mistakes! We all make them every day. Rejoice in them for they are your teachers.” Oh blessed mistake, I welcome you for you show me the way … to the well being of all things.
Peace, Jim
Ho ho ho.
There is very old psychology called Abhidamma invented by buddhists scholars almost 2500 years ago. That’s a very strict study of our cognition, senses and how the thing co-arise. Saying that” Spiritual Transformation Is Not a Psychological Process ” is already mistake.
Beside — let’s pose simple question: does anyone thing that psychology came to this world of “real” form from different source than spirituality?
I bet absolutely not.
Any attempt to make differentiation and validation spiritual above psyche-logical is already spiritual mistake. Simply – one can not attain spiritual insight without psychology.
Dear Andrew Cohen: Being new to EnlightenNext and a computer novice ’twill take me some time to figure out your website. I have comments on two other blogs so here is another to sum up my work. As a college senior in 1966 with 9 semester hours to graduate I dropped out of school because I was being taught to be just another Zombie. After a few years in the business world I began to drop out of society because I could see what an upside down society these Zombies were building. As family and friends started to avoid me I began feeling much better about myself. I know not exactly when this happened during 20 years of living one treshold from the streets but somewhere along the way I encountered Gandhi’s Quote, “We must become the change we wish to see in the world” and that’s exactly what I’d been doing for years. This saved my life. So now in the winter of my life I have a few dear friends, a cat that loves me and a beautiful story that nobody wants to hear but, ” I’ve got the world by the tail, sitting on a rainbow”. I just wish y’all were here. IN PEACE and LOVE Michael Kelley
If we can say that spiritual awakening is has a holistic effect, totally transforming individuals who experience it, then psychologic effect is just one part of the Awakening. The mind is greatly affected, in my own experience and others describing theirs, but if the heart is also not affected, the transformation hasn’t been fullly experienced. Awakening is a life transforming event, totally and wonderfully.
Re: spiritual laws
I understand Yoga means “yoke”, something that harnesses beasts of burdens and also those who adopt yoga practice in a mindful way. It’s not to say it’s onerous, though discipline often does exact its rigor, but any who become committed to spiritual practice and esp. the commitment involved in the spiritual ways will accept the wisdom offered.
Re: “And you will see development occur. If you adhere to them, you can’t go wrong.” from the leader by Andrew
For most, even those who’ve attained high levels of consciousness in their Awakening, “mistakes” still can be made but as consciousness develops the mistakes occur less and less. This is due maybe to the careful consideration or an instinct that knows how to behave in accordance with spiritual tenets that pretty much preclude making bad moves.
I read once where enlightened folks don’t make mistakes.
In my personal experience, my mistakes are not necessarily mistakes but cause friction when misinterpreted or misunderstood. When that happens, apologies should neutralize the acrimony, negating the negative karma.