A quote from an e-mail I received today from Andrew Cohen of EnlightenNext on Spiritual Maturity:
Spiritual maturity is not a matter of how long you have lived or even how much life experience you have. The important question is: how much does any of us actually learn from our life experience? Those people who are more spiritually developed are people who have been deeply paying attention, who are sensitive and awake enough to truly learn, and grow, and significantly evolve as a result of the life experience that they have.
This has got me thinking about a theme I have often thought about - what am I waiting for to start to apply all that I have learned, seen, heard and read about spirituality??? When will I finally assimilate even just a smidgen of all that I "know"? Those who don't know have an excuse, but what about all of us who have taken the time to inform ourselves about being, acting, thinking, reacting differently and in a more spiritually-evolved manner? No excuse. None.
So, when do I start?
What about now?!
Yeah right...
Showing posts with label EnlightenNext. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EnlightenNext. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Being and becoming
This post was inspired by an article read in EnlightenNext magazine (formerly What is Enlightenment?) - my favorite magazine over the last 6 years since I last discovered it.
The article was a discussion in a series of discussions between Ken Wilber (an 'integral philosopher') and Andrew Cohen (a 'spiritual leader' and founder of the magazine) on vertical and horizontal development.
It is actually one of their best discussions and one that is particularly a propos for 'our' generation in which there is a lot of confusion, I find, about what becoming a better person actually means - which is something I imagine most of us strive for (some more or less actively and/or consciously).
Without rewriting the article, the main idea in their words is that horizontal development is about being a better you, i.e. improving (without getting into what that means). While vertical development is about becoming a new 'you' (quotes mine, as the you changes I figure it merits something to show the before-after element). Wilber differentiates between the two as horizontal pertaining to being and vertical dealing with becoming. Both agree that both are necessary.
My own take on this, as I try to explain it to myself, is that horizontal development is about improving or personal improvement. Something I think every one of us sees as a goal at some level. Vertical development, I see as evolving into something new.
Now I see this also as a wonderful goal, and share at some level the belief of the authors that this is possible. At the same time I wonder if this is not simply human hubris. Let me explain.
A major element/theme in EnlightenNext magazine is evolutionary consciousness, levels of spiritual development and the belief in the ability of human beings to evolve as a race and as people. Now the first part, evolving as a race, from one generation to the next is something that appears clear and, thanks to Darwin et al., not too difficult to see over the history of our planet. The second, being able to evolve within our lifetimes, and to consciously evolve (i.e. something that does not happen by accident or mutation) requires a bigger leap of faith. Can we really change in the sense of becoming something or someone new or can we only become "better" or "more" of what we already are?
Most of the faith-based religions would say the latter. Even Buddhism shows enlightenment as an awareness of something you already were (and forgot), i.e. a reconnecting with not a reinventing of.
In other words, can we give credence or, better yet, experience the idea put into words by Cohen, "we're not simply making the self, as it is, better. We are engaging with the spiritual process in such a way that the result is going to be the emergence of some quality, ability and capacity that was not there before"?
I tend to think so and I hope so. But maybe that is just my own hubris...
The article was a discussion in a series of discussions between Ken Wilber (an 'integral philosopher') and Andrew Cohen (a 'spiritual leader' and founder of the magazine) on vertical and horizontal development.
It is actually one of their best discussions and one that is particularly a propos for 'our' generation in which there is a lot of confusion, I find, about what becoming a better person actually means - which is something I imagine most of us strive for (some more or less actively and/or consciously).
Without rewriting the article, the main idea in their words is that horizontal development is about being a better you, i.e. improving (without getting into what that means). While vertical development is about becoming a new 'you' (quotes mine, as the you changes I figure it merits something to show the before-after element). Wilber differentiates between the two as horizontal pertaining to being and vertical dealing with becoming. Both agree that both are necessary.
My own take on this, as I try to explain it to myself, is that horizontal development is about improving or personal improvement. Something I think every one of us sees as a goal at some level. Vertical development, I see as evolving into something new.
Now I see this also as a wonderful goal, and share at some level the belief of the authors that this is possible. At the same time I wonder if this is not simply human hubris. Let me explain.
A major element/theme in EnlightenNext magazine is evolutionary consciousness, levels of spiritual development and the belief in the ability of human beings to evolve as a race and as people. Now the first part, evolving as a race, from one generation to the next is something that appears clear and, thanks to Darwin et al., not too difficult to see over the history of our planet. The second, being able to evolve within our lifetimes, and to consciously evolve (i.e. something that does not happen by accident or mutation) requires a bigger leap of faith. Can we really change in the sense of becoming something or someone new or can we only become "better" or "more" of what we already are?
Most of the faith-based religions would say the latter. Even Buddhism shows enlightenment as an awareness of something you already were (and forgot), i.e. a reconnecting with not a reinventing of.
In other words, can we give credence or, better yet, experience the idea put into words by Cohen, "we're not simply making the self, as it is, better. We are engaging with the spiritual process in such a way that the result is going to be the emergence of some quality, ability and capacity that was not there before"?
I tend to think so and I hope so. But maybe that is just my own hubris...
Saturday, September 12, 2009
[Thoughts on] EnlightenNext magazine
One of my favorite magazines of recent years, or at least one of the only ones that I really try to read cover to cover is EnlightenNext (formerly What is Enlightenment). Recently it appears that they have had financial problems, like much of the printed press, and are now calling for donations, financial support and the like. I am kind of worried about them as most people in a delicate financial situation only make those kinds of requests/announcements late in the game and when they have to.
Already, in the last few years I noticed the increasing use of advertising in their pages and started to wonder about that. Although, to their credit, these have usually been (more or less) spiritually-oriented ads. Which brings me to the real subject (sub-text) of this post: how can you reconcile spirituality with commerciality? (I know that that's not really a word, or at least a regularly-used word, but I am sure you know what I mean). How can you be discussing enlightenment on page 1 and asking for money on page 2? Then again, maybe it is a modern form of (the somewhat medieval) alms - people on a spiritual mission depending on the generosity of strangers for their survival.
And here I go off on another tangent. Alms and living off other people's generosity reminds me of St. Francis of Assisi, one of my favorite religious historical figures. God's little pauper, as Kazantzakis called him, was one of the first well-known (or at least well-documented) renunciates. While he had absolute faith, his acolytes probably had a more difficult time dealing with the day-to-day. As I see a personal letter from the founder of the magazine calling for financial help I must admit I hear more concern and realism than the irrealism born of absolute faith. Which probably means that the rest of the staff is a lot more worried... I do hope that they figure out a solution.
What I read (past tense) between the lines is what got me thinking and what eventually led to this post. It is not easy to reconcile "doing the right thing" (or a good thing) and getting paid for it. We are now in a world in which we expect a lot of things to be free, open source, 24/7, available, shareable, etc. So how can spirituality not be all of that too?
While I don't know if they are considering this, I have a feeling that many of their readers would be willing to pay more for their subscription to see the magazine survive. How much is too much to pay for a unique magazine? Not sure I know the answer to that one, but I do imagine that the price sensitivity of their readership will be less elastic for this magazine than for others.
Finally, getting back to the ads I mentioned earlier. One of the phenomena I have seen on the internet in financial advising, commercial websites, blogs (but not mine, otherwise there would be more than a dozen of you reading this) and now spirituality is something I call "closed-circle expertization". A handful of experts mention a handful of experts, write the testimonials for their books, blogs, courses, conferences, show up as guests in the books, blogs, courses and conferences of each other, are present on the same panels, roundtables and speaking circuits. A kind of cartel in which each boosts the interests of the others in order to boost their own interests. It is a great business model and one that probably evolves more naturally (organically to use the parlance) than most business cartels, but it not less present nonetheless. Such it is with most of the spiritual leaders we read and hear about today - and EnglightenNext's panel of spiritual leaders is not much different.
Nevertheless the quality of the writing, the breadth and depth of articles and spiritual leaders, as well as the themes they explore does make it a magazine well worth reading and thinking about and, now, supporting.
Enjoy! and tell them I sent you ; )
Already, in the last few years I noticed the increasing use of advertising in their pages and started to wonder about that. Although, to their credit, these have usually been (more or less) spiritually-oriented ads. Which brings me to the real subject (sub-text) of this post: how can you reconcile spirituality with commerciality? (I know that that's not really a word, or at least a regularly-used word, but I am sure you know what I mean). How can you be discussing enlightenment on page 1 and asking for money on page 2? Then again, maybe it is a modern form of (the somewhat medieval) alms - people on a spiritual mission depending on the generosity of strangers for their survival.
And here I go off on another tangent. Alms and living off other people's generosity reminds me of St. Francis of Assisi, one of my favorite religious historical figures. God's little pauper, as Kazantzakis called him, was one of the first well-known (or at least well-documented) renunciates. While he had absolute faith, his acolytes probably had a more difficult time dealing with the day-to-day. As I see a personal letter from the founder of the magazine calling for financial help I must admit I hear more concern and realism than the irrealism born of absolute faith. Which probably means that the rest of the staff is a lot more worried... I do hope that they figure out a solution.
What I read (past tense) between the lines is what got me thinking and what eventually led to this post. It is not easy to reconcile "doing the right thing" (or a good thing) and getting paid for it. We are now in a world in which we expect a lot of things to be free, open source, 24/7, available, shareable, etc. So how can spirituality not be all of that too?
While I don't know if they are considering this, I have a feeling that many of their readers would be willing to pay more for their subscription to see the magazine survive. How much is too much to pay for a unique magazine? Not sure I know the answer to that one, but I do imagine that the price sensitivity of their readership will be less elastic for this magazine than for others.
Finally, getting back to the ads I mentioned earlier. One of the phenomena I have seen on the internet in financial advising, commercial websites, blogs (but not mine, otherwise there would be more than a dozen of you reading this) and now spirituality is something I call "closed-circle expertization". A handful of experts mention a handful of experts, write the testimonials for their books, blogs, courses, conferences, show up as guests in the books, blogs, courses and conferences of each other, are present on the same panels, roundtables and speaking circuits. A kind of cartel in which each boosts the interests of the others in order to boost their own interests. It is a great business model and one that probably evolves more naturally (organically to use the parlance) than most business cartels, but it not less present nonetheless. Such it is with most of the spiritual leaders we read and hear about today - and EnglightenNext's panel of spiritual leaders is not much different.
Nevertheless the quality of the writing, the breadth and depth of articles and spiritual leaders, as well as the themes they explore does make it a magazine well worth reading and thinking about and, now, supporting.
Enjoy! and tell them I sent you ; )
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)