July 18, 2012
The Case for Certainty
People with deep spiritual conviction—from religious fundamentalists to high Himalayan mystics—possess the greatest existential gift of all: certainty. But these days, it’s not a gift that we find it easy to appreciate. And for good reason. For the last 60 years or so, ever since the unthinkable devastation of the two great conflagrations of the twentieth century (World War I and World War II) certainty has been seen by sophisticated intellectuals as being inherently dangerous and a sign of blatant ignorance. Communists were certain, as were Hitler’s fascists.
Certainty, sooner or later, inevitably leads to death and destruction—or so the most thoughtful and reasonable among us understandably tend to conclude. And when these thoughtful souls are sympathetic to spiritual realities, they generally will go only as far as agnosticism. An agnostic is one who is open to the idea of higher and deeper truths, but who resists and mistrusts anyone who is absolutely certain about just about anything. As a matter of fact, “not knowing” is considered by many philosophically sophisticated men and women to be the highest and most spiritually evolved position one could take in relationship to life’s deepest existential questions.
I went to India as a spiritual seeker when I was twenty-seven years old and I came back when I was thirty brimming with certainty and spiritual conviction. But as I began my newfound vocation as a spiritual teacher, I soon found that my powerful certainty about metaphysical truths often couldn’t help me to come to terms with the confusing multidimensional complexity of postmodern life in a rapidly changing world. Because of this, I started a magazine called What Is Enlightenment? to help me bridge the gaping chasm between my existential conviction and my intellectual clarity. After many years of dialogue with some of the brightest and most illumined minds I could find, countless hours of thought, and endless discussion with my peers, I began to understand that certainty without intellectual clarity is sloppy at best and dangerous at worst.
Because of this, spiritual seekers often accused me of being “lost in my head.” But agnostics were pleasantly surprised at the complexity of my thinking. I also observed that many spiritual seekers seemed to be afraid of acknowledging the incredible complexity of life because it threatens the reductionistic simplicity that they’re often so identified with. At the same time, I saw, underneath all the open-mindedness of the agnostics, how terrified they seem to be of the unimaginable and unqualified freedom experienced in spiritual illumination.
After being a teacher of Enlightenment for more than twenty-six years, I’m convinced that it is only the profound discovery of certainty that has the spiritual power to liberate human consciousness at the deepest level—the level of the soul. Indeed, it’s only in those moments when we are absolutely sure that we can finally let go—let go of the relentless distortion of duality, the endless pain of division, and the haunting presence of doubt. That’s why men and women of spiritual conviction, from high Himalayan mystics to religious fundamentalists, experience an ease of being that most of us don’t have access to (for better and for worse!).
At the same time, agnostics and intellectuals tend to possess a well-developed capacity to recognize and embrace complexity, subtlety, and nuance. And as we continue to evolve at the level of consciousness and culture, we desperately need this cognitive ability in order to more skillfully negotiate the ever-challenging and always-changing world that we live in. While there are indeed many exceptions, too often those of religious persuasion and spiritual conviction lack the intellectual and philosophical flexibility to hold more than one perspective at the same time—whether it’s the fundamentalist worldview of Osama bin Laden or the compelling naiveté of John Lennon’s statement, “All we need is love.”
My hope is for a new spirituality that is based equally on the attainment of existential certainty and the ability to embrace complexity, subtlety, and nuance. For this profound higher synthesis in human consciousness and culture to arise within and between us, we need to do the hard spiritual and philosophical work that will actually make it possible. Most importantly, we need to transcend the predictable limitations that are almost always the consequence of human certainty, without losing the certainty itself. It is the spiritual conviction that comes from certainty alone that will give us the courage and heroic spirit to take big and creative risks with our imagination as well as with our actions.
_________________________________________________________________
This post was originally published on Andrew Coheh’s BigThink.com blog, The Evolution of Enlightenment
Join Andrew Cohen for a free series of monthly broadcasts. The next one is on July 22nd and will be focused on the topic of meditation. Register here.
|
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 couldn’t agree more ! all spiritual teachers I have met have disappointed me at some point ( including you , dear Andrew … ) and I am fighting like crazy now with the usual scientific doubt on spiritual attainment.
How do we do this? How do we merge the depth go intellectual nuance and the depth of spiritual illumination. Is it even possible ?
I would say humbly that I am at kilometer zero : no clue how to do this job and getting quite desperate. The only little light I see is to try to open the heart. And also there is a small but deep wisdom from my country France. Kilometer zero in France lies on the Parvis ( the place ) of Notre Dame de Paris. If you stay there contemplating the cathedral a small miracle happens : you face the Opus Magnum of the Alchemists. Twelve medallions are here to remind you that kilometer zero, or Kenosis is where the real path starts. It is where one is truly desperate that a real change can occur. That s atnleastbthe secret of the Alchemists ! Love to all
Catherine, je pense que nous en sommes au même km0. Et je pense que le courage héroïque dont parle A.C. est ce qu’il faut avoir pour passer de l’agnosticisme (l’humble position de ceux qui doutent) à la certitude de la foi, dont les chrétiens font une grâce, qu’il faut accepter…Mais pour des intellectuel(le)s élevées chrétiennement, éduquées à la comparaison des religions, dressées à la science, c’est TRÈS dur!
Janie en fait ce n est pas si dur su ecela puisse paraître il suffit d essayer.
Je crois qu il faut arrêter de pleurer sur de fausses blessures;c est mieux débattre un intellectuel qu un idiot et ce n est pas inconsistant avec la spiritualité. Cela ne demande pas du tout ucourage insurmontable ( c est la partie de toi qui n émeut pas faire le travail qui dit cela) et les grand intellectuels chrétiens ont été parmi les plus influents dans l histoire à marier la raison et l esprit.
Je ne crois pas que cela demande un courage heroique de marier raison et Esprit simplement un peu d’ouverture. Si tu es sur Paris l an prochain tu devrais venir à mes petits cours de physique dans un contexte spirituel.
Je te souhaite tout bien dans ta Quête !
It remind me a story I discussed with my first teacher Steven Jourdain at the beginning of my quest. As a scientist I was always fascinated by clarity. How clearly can one think ? Is there a limit to clarity of thinking ? Is ckearer than clear a meaningless concept ?
So I decided one day to experiment in this. I chose a particularly difficult math problem which I was not sure was even solvable and I tried to see how clear I old get via attempting to solve it. Here I am sitting on my chair trying trying trying to see clearly. At some point I am getting completely confused with the math ; my mind has lost its path and doubt sets in. Like I am able to solve this thing ? Don t I presume on my strength here ? I am getting more and more and more confused and strts to lose self confidence completely over the math. Then at some point I Start to see something. I see that the only thing I see clearly is that I am confused. Not only this but I see this fact itch ultimate clarity not with relative clarity. ” I am confused ” is the Absolute Truth about the situation and clarity about this truth is alo Abolute.
It was a moment of illumination.
15 minutes later the solution came of the math problem as a bi product, as a gift from God. I didn’t t expect it anymore but the relative solution came anyway. My first teacher told me this was a very important moment. He called it ” the loop of consciousness ”
In one word Love for Truth saved the day here. My motivation to see clearly was apparently genuine so that it produced in a Kosmic way some locution of the math problem. There was a loving order in all those events above but no direct causation.
That s why I say the Heart somehow has to make the link between the two Realms of the Absolute and the Relative.
By the way iwhen I said ” I am confused” it was an Absolute Truth about a relative situation ( solving the math problem ). That s an important point.
Actually I am Absolutely certain that this works : namely there is always an Absolute Truth about any relative situation.
That s very important. When one finds this Absolute Truth it changes our perception of Life completely.
Somehow the finding of this Absolute Truth about relative situation always involves a pure Heart.
By the way you claim that spiritual seekers see you as an intellectual lost in your head and agnostics re surprised by the complexity of your thinking. Why separate agnostics and spiritual seekers ? I am a spiritual scientist. Where o I fit injis classification ? Am I a spiritual seeker ? Yes. Am Zi an agnostic ? Yes and no, not completelybI hope.
I confirm that the complexity of our thinking is gret and it is hat attracted me to ou in the irst place as a teacher. It is great but it could be even greater on one sides. On the lower right quadrant and epistemically thinking you HAVE to make serious progresses unless you impair your message. You have to get out of the intubation where ou address he post modern world with a true true if your Shanga working in a pre modern fashion, like a roman army, like a mafia or like the nazi system.
Not to see this is a lack of intelligence on the lower right quadrant.
My personal disappointment with you is that you have never talked to me as a scientist. In all those years you never interacted with me on my gift. As if it didn’t t interest you to help to make it grow together. Hence the net result is that afther four years you still have no clue what is the extend of my gift. You simply didn t recognize me. We never talked about quantum physics, we never talked about system theory, about Bergson and Pascal and all my passions, about the physics of emergence, about what it means at this junction our evolution to want to be a spiritual scientist, about the eroticism of equations, about the mathematical mind, about clarity. I have begged you to talk to me and you answered that although what I want to do is very interesting you don t have time for me, that you are too busy reading your book ad giving public lectures.
Then I left to find other people with whom to share my gift my vocation and my destiny. It still is a very big disappointment.
I have to agree with your point regarding the separation of spiritual seekers and agnostics. Agnostics ARE spiritual seekers.
Sorry some typos above are corrected here ( I am not very good yet with the tablet)
“I confirm that the complexity of your thinking is indeed great and it is what attracted me to you as a teacher in the first place. It is great but it could be even greater on some sides. On the lower right quadrant ( Ken Wilber classification), say in systemic thinking,you are very weak. You HAVE to make serious progresses unless you will impair the impact of your own message. You have to get out of the situation where you address the post modern world with a pre-modern Shanga structure, which is functioning in a very basic, hierarchic and tyrannic fashion, like the roman army or the sicilian mafia or even the nazi system. Namely the structure of your Shanga is a static power one, where the lower levels are exploited by the higher levels, and the lower levels don’t know what the higher level are deciding, they don’t have the right to participate to decisions, they just have the right to obey. Precisely like in the roman army. Of course you are at the top like the general in chief of this army. This power structure is stable for more than 20 years, the structure itself is not evolving a damn bit( although the particular people in charge are changing). It is very static and it castrates the creative potential of people at the lower levels ( not everyone has the time, or even desire to enter it and to grow up the scale; I never wanted this myself, and at the result I could never be close to you).
To keep a structure like this one with an evolutionary teaching like yours demonstrates an important lack of systemic intelligence . You have to grow up on this side or your teaching will never be credible in the long run.
On the upper left quadrant I consider you as an authentic genius. You are extremely strong and hence your transmission as a teacher is extremely strong as well.
With Love from a spiritual scientist. And, by the way, I still didn’t’ find where I fit in your classification : am I a spiritual seeker or an agnostic…? I am afraid this dual classification is not working for people like me.
Tackling the matter from the wrong end ? God could not be the subject matter of the mind, otherwise all the intellectuals and scientists of the world would be enlightened masters….It’s in the nature of the mind to be confused and be in a doubt……The only thing that can give us some revelation on the Divine is feeling emanating from the inner self, or Heart, whatever one may say…Only deeper and deeper withdrawl into our Heart can end the confusion and doubts and provide some glimpse of the Divine………Religion is a matter of almost different dimension of existence…
I had a little bit of a struggle to read your piece once I hit your definition of ‘agnostic.’ I can only speak from my experience – but I do not agree that agnostics are necessarily resistant to trusting those who are certain in their spiritual path. I find that I often admire those who have found their way – I simply have not yet found mine, and so I am agnostic.
How about the spiritual nature of what has just happened in Aurora, by a derailed intellect……
For me, we are order producers. We wallow/wander in confusion until an answer/fusion comes to/through us. And beyond each answer, is another question, more confusion. The only certainty is that there always is an answer, if we are granted enough time to work through to it; and then another question. We are a process, not a product; hopefully, we can enjoy it.
I am not certain I understand what you are saying. but reading the blog, I feel a sense of relief that I can believe in the certainty of the existence of God, even though I do not know how to define God.
Back when I was 8 and first questioned the existence of God, I was being reared in the devout confines of a protestant religion home. As the years went by, I realized it was not God I questioned but the definition which that religion believed to be truth. At the same time, I began to wonder how to define truth because it seemed to be more in the eye of the beholder rather than an established fact. Somewhere during those years, I developed a habit of talking to God, and when I decided I needed to shed God altogether, I missed my conversations with God. Still I knew with certainty that at the core of my being, physically speaking in the area of the heart, is a force that incrementally, step by itsy bitsy step, leads me to practices that open both the good and bad parts of my shadow to enable me to develop a belief system to better and better lead a life of unconditional positive regard toward myself, the saint, and the headline grabbing sinner in Aurora Colorado. Now, after reading the above blog, I will continue my conversations with God in line with the truth of my definition of God, and even though I may have made no sense to you, I am grateful your words came to my attention.
The best definition of what we call “God” that I have come across is: “The One about whom naught may be said”.
To me that means that the moment I try to give a meaning/attribute to the One it is no longer the One, because the One can not be defined from our limited state of mind.
However from my personal experience asking for clarity I know the One with certainty. I can not explain to you or anybody else what the One is, and why I am certain. What I “know” is not of any explanation offered by religion/philosophy/science.
My certainty does not give me a resting place. It gives me a foundation for asking more questions, and for supporting others, who want to connect, in their way, with the One. That is, if they want support.
To connect does not mean giving up using intellect. It means connecting my heart with my head. It all leads to the higher synthesis.
To a seeker from east the debate appears laughable! As was the case with Andrew.Knowledge… Mind is the barrier.
As you enter the realm of inner self, as velocity of thoughts is reduced, stillness deepens. Just remain with it.
There it is all the end of debate .
There it is all you wanted to know or prove.
To a seeker from east debate appears laughable!. As it appeared to Andrews when he came back from India.
When you enter realm of I nner self, velocity of thoughts become less
Stillness surrounds you.
Deepening Stillneess you realize that knowledge. …Mind is the barrier.
Being with Emptiness all debate has ended . All answers are.
Well said, Andrew! I believe we can raise young people capable of both delving spiritual depth and complex reasoning if we educate them properly, which includes a thorough encouragement of the scientific method. The scientific method is still the only process of inducing knowledge that maintains integrity: it depends upon 1–independently observable phenomenon/reproducible experiment;2–bending to the data/ evidence rather than our hopes, wishes and preferences;3–is predicated upon the seeker’s willingness to be wrong and possible need to abandon a [perhaps beloved] hypothesis;4–the understanding that science can disprove a hypothesis but never completely prove one, so requires the humility to tolerate uncertainty.
Its a challenge to converse effectively with anyone anyone who is not plugged in to the science of the last 2 centuries. I tried talking to you as a scientist in 2009 but you were dismissive in your arrogance. Clearly YOU were the MASTER.and I could only learn by SUBMISSION. to YOU. I made the point that your THEORETICAL approach was INEFFECTUAL and that EVOLVING is EXPERIENTIAL. You just didn’t get that., but that’s where the human race has been since NIETZSCHE told us THAT GOD IS DEAD in 1878. I share my own SCIENTIFIC EXPERIENCE of ENLIGHTENMENT in a 52 page email which I am happy to share with your AUDIENCE. But the old problem of APOSTASY still blights THE WORD OF GOD. YOU SHALL HAVE NO OTHER GOD TO RIVAL EVOLVING. AMAZINGLY, the FINAL POSITION is SCIENTIFIC.
Dear Patrick please send your scientific experience of enlightenment to me : I am always curious about enlightened scientists and how we could describe this phenomenon.
physimagine@gmail.com
By the way I am a pro scientist expert in quantum field theory. So with me you ll have no barrier of expertise on this front.
I don t think Andrew is arrogant but I will agree with you that it is difficult to commune with him as a scientist.
Dear Patrick: Please also send me your scientific experience of enlightenment.
jfclarke108@gmail.com
Thank you
His fires of grandeur burn in the great sun,
He glides through heaven shimmering in the moon;
He is beauty carolling in the fields of sound;
He chants the stanzas of the odes of Wind;
He is silence watching in the stars at night;
He wakes at dawn and calls from every bough,
Lies stunned in the stone and and dreams in flower and tree.
Sri Aurobindo – Savitri
Dear Patric, Will be obliged if you send your Sciencnfic Menlightenment mail.
Kishor Mehta…….tarkish@hotmail.com
Dear patric
It invites ridicule if one talks of certainty in spiritual matters , particularly in asserting one’s belief in God. Scientists of all hue rise up in declaiming something which can not be substantiated through empirical evidence or rigorous logical abstraction. However, like a man infatuated , I see Him in His manifestations / creations, in insentient and sentient beings, though in only those who reflect His godliness in love, purity, innocence and humility. It is difficult to find a combination of all these qualities in a person in modern age, but thank God, Nature still retains these pristine qualities, in places far removed from polluting touch of man kind. Jesus Christ said to the effect that those who are pure in heart, shall see God. I believe him.