There's Something About Andrew

I have to confess:  there's something about Andrew Cohen that disturbs me and triggers red flags for me.  I've been thinking about this, and considering whether my reaction to him is reliable, or whether it's weighted down by shadow.  I have heard disturbing stories about him from ex-disciples, in person and in print, that have likely prejudiced me against him.  And I've had my own experiences with elevating a teacher to superhuman status, and then having to go through the painful period of disillusionment, so I am suspicious of those who sell themselves as god-men.

Andrew has written a number of articles that resonated with me.  I recall reading an article he wrote on the necessity for integrity and purity in the teacher, and back when I was still in the middle of my own star-struck love with a guru, this was a welcome refrain.  I regarded my own teacher as exemplary at the time, but was disturbed by the number of gurus who had recently fallen under the weight of one scandal or another.  Even now, I think there is something to be said for valuing a high standard of impeccability, as long as it is rounded by grace, warmth, and humor. 

Andrew is also one of the few prominent spiritual teachers who has actively embraced Integral and is seeking to apply its insights to his spiritual community.  Theoretically, this should make him interesting or attractive to me, since I also value AQAL and I am looking at ways its insights can be applied to various transformational, educational, and therapeutic paths. 

And yet … I do not trust him.  Before I sat down to write this, I spent an hour viewing various blog entries – positive and negative – about him.  I'd seen some of them before, but other stories were new.  I had a general feeling of distrust that was the impetus behind my desire to write this post, but I wanted to review what was out there before actually putting anything in print, and to consider whether my misgivings were well-founded or not.

I can't say with certainty that they are.  But they are persistent.  As far as I know, Andrew has not been accused of any sexual misconduct, so he seems to be living up to that part of his ideals.  But there are numerous accounts of cruel, manipulative, aggressive behaviors and “interventions”; there is an apparent need to remain uncontradicted and unquestioned by anyone in his community; there are questions around money mismanagement and coerced donations from (often weak or gullible) followers; there are the “practices” he encourages, such as performing 1,000 prostrations daily to his picture, or apparently sending people to rooms painted symbolically with his splattered blood for them to do penance; etc.  Many of these techniques are actually par for the course in traditional spiritual circles.  You don't have to look far to see stories of Japanese or Indian or Tibetan masters making extreme demands of their students, inviting them into “dangerous” and purificatory relationships, and so on.  I can think of spiritual reasons to rationalize these behaviors, and I expect many people in his “movement” engage in just this sort of rationalization.

And yet people are also defecting, breaking out of the communities of enforced silence and rigid, unquestioning conformity to his austere, ego-killing program of evolutionary enlightenment.  From what I have read, a number of people who have emerged from his community remain open to the possibility that good work is taking place there, even if the leader is dealing with unacknowledged shadow.  But they also felt it was important for them to get out.

I don't have first-hand experience with Andrew; I've never attended one of his retreats or visited one of his centers.  If anyone here has, I'd love to hear your thoughts (if you care to share them).  I'm writing as an outsider – but an interested outsider, since Wilber has yoked Integral so heavily to Andrew's movement.  Personally, I'm uneasy with this marriage, and fear it will do harm to Integral in the long run.  Maybe I'm wrong about that, and I'm willing to keep an open mind, but speaking from where I'm at right now, I have to say:  I don't think this looks good.  Wilber's tendency to associate himself with these sorts of teachers – Adi Da, Marc Gafni, Andrew Cohen – is troubling to me.  From my vantage now, it doesn't bode well for the Wilberian Integral movement as a whole.

I don't like to say this, since I just invested basically a life's worth of debt repayment into getting a degree in Integral theory.  But there it is.

~*~

Some of the blog entries I was reviewing:

http://www.andrewcohen.org/andrew/biography.asp

http://whatenlightenment.blogspot.com/2005/03/shame-guilt-and-gurus-blood.html

http://essentialwhatenlightenment.blogspot.com/2005/06/travesty-of-enlightenmentwendyls-story.html

http://essentialwhatenlightenment.blogspot.com/2005/06/breaking-code-of-silence.html

http://www.rickross.com/groups/face.html

Re: There's Something About Andrew

You're quite right, Bruce. Wilber, being nothing if not cerebral, is going to be attracted to such punk luminaries, but at least he has the good sense not to set himself up as they do.

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Caroline Franklyn's story is quite disturbing, and it breaks my heart …

Re: There's Something About Andrew

I have to say that the entire 'guru' thing is repulsive to me.  It is one thing to have  a person offering  wisdom, love and kind regard  and  honest feedback, but this 'devotion' to another human, regardless who it is and especially in a way that abnegates the common sense of heart/mind/body/spirit, is abhorant.  These stories about Andrew Cohen indicate to me that the guy is a creep.  Any subjugation of another human for any reason is crap.  Any human who willingly or intentionally puts themself in the position of subjugation is learning the 'it is time to tell buddy to fuck off' (iitttbtfo)lesson.  This is true whether it is an abusive spouse, parent, partner, teacher, employer, and most certainly a spiritual mentor.  Learning iitttbtfo while keeping the heart open with love is an even deeper lesson.  As my father taught me, and my grandfather taught him, “God gave you pain to keep your hand out of the fire, and your finger out of your eye.”

Sometimes it is difficult to figure out what 'pain' is, especially when it is so intoxicating….
“if it tastes like honey and it is pure shit, why would you go on eating it”(Ramsses) 

To be sure, there are charismatic folk who are intoxicating to be around.  This makes for an opportunity to get intoxicated by the charge that they serve up, and then learn to witness the 'charge' in oneself that is responding.  It is like the opportunity to witness yourself in a deluded romance.  'The feelings' are so intense and addictive that it is hard to sober up and get real about what is really going on.  But, nevermind how hard it is!  It is what is any of us will eventually have to do, and the sooner the better, in my opinion. The iitttbtfo lesson inevitably goes along with, shadow work.  AND it is a huge shadow, whatever that personality element is, (rock-botton,low self-esteem, I imagine) that buys a system that puts somebody else, regardless of whether they are a sweetie or an abusive asshole, in control of your own life.—. And I suppose, if nothing else, truly learning the iitttbtfo lesson does create some muster to boost this flagging self-esteem…..ahhh, perhaps it all serves enlightenment, even all the events that don't…,such a paradox.
Jane

  

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Jane wrote: “I have to say that the entire 'guru' thing is repulsive to me. It is one thing to have a person offering wisdom, love and kind regard and honest feedback, but this 'devotion' to another human, regardless who it is, and especially in a way that abnegates the common sense of heart/mind/body/spirit, is abhorrent.”

What Andrew and others like him do is a corruption of 'the guru thing'. Buddha, Christ, Krishna, Ramana and Amma are gurus. There is a difference.

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Quote from the story of Caroline Franklyn:

The first hint of what was to come for Caroline appeared in January 1998 when, during the Rishikesh Retreat in India, Andrew Cohen unleashed a vitriolic attack on the formal women students in the community. He accused them of being insufficiently devoted to him, manipulative, untrustworthy and therefore in need of a deep and complete inner change. The women were pushed into an endless series of meetings in which they were asked to declare their faithfulness to Cohen, confess to the charges of manipulation and repent their sins in order to come clean. Over the following weeks and months many of the formal female students (including Caroline), verbally battered and emotionally broken as a result of those meetings, were forced to step down and become lay students. Even some of us formal men, well used to intense meetings in which one could be verbally attacked or reprimanded by the group for his perceived egotistical tendencies, privately considered those meetings to be just too severe.

This Andrew Cohen guy needs a good old-fashioned punch in the face.

My guess is that Ken associates with the guy to avoid spiritual starvation. It's lonely at the top.

Re: There's Something About Andrew

I agree, Pelle, and I would applaud and cheer any of the men in the group who really actually stood up and put a stop to this appalling and abusive behaviour.  It is total utter bullshit.  It is like watching child abuse and doing nothing.  This kind of crap is everybody's business, and witnessing it without action, being a bystander, is silently colluding with it. It does not matter if any of us is crucified for standing up–there are worse things in this life than dying. as Rumi said, “He who does not die for love is carion.”

Re: There's Something About Andrew

I’m not sure why it was you that said it, Pelle, but I’m going to jump on it because I’ve seen it going around as a false ‘integral’ meme (not to be mistaken with vmeme).

It's lonely at the top.

Bullshit!!… it’s not lonely at the top.

Anyway, I’m not too connected to this Andrew Cohen stuff, but he does sound like a wing nut…

I, like Arthur would like to further digest the experience of him through my own lens before I kick his ass… but he does sound like he needs a good ass kickin’! :)

(Not saying Arthur intends to kick any ass…)

Did any of you receive that message in your mail box a month or two ago from, Will, asking for donations so WIE could reach it's $25,000 mark of donated funds before the new year.  I thought it was a very odd message to receive… I'm just going on my memory of it.

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Balder: “I'm writing as an outsider – but an interested outsider, since Wilber has yoked Integral so heavily to Andrew's movement.  Personally, I'm uneasy with this marriage, and fear it will do harm to Integral in the long run.  Maybe I'm wrong about that, and I'm willing to keep an open mind, but speaking from where I'm at right now, I have to say:  I don't think this looks good.  Wilber's tendency to associate himself with these sorts of teachers – Adi Da, Marc Gafni, Andrew Cohen – is troubling to me.  From my vantage now, it doesn't bode well for the Wilberian Integral movement as a whole.”

It is interesting to note that Andrew Cohen is not a part of Integral Spiritual Center - it seems possible that Ken could be keeping  him “at arm's length” due to his controversy; this is pure speculation on my part of course.

arthur


see also Good Old-Fashioned Virtues for a New World

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Re: ongoing Andrew controversy that I seem weirdly attracted to…probably part of my own push/pull resistance to deeper unfolding…my understanding is that Ken invited Andrew to be a part of ISC but Andrew declined the invitation.  From a good source, as far as I can tell.
Anyway, I am sticking with Ken and ISC as a “middle path” for integral.

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Anyone interested in this topic might enjoy the dialog between Bert Parlee and Adyashanti, which I point to in the thread Shadow, Responsibility, and the Great Indifference.  There's a lot of relevance for the kind of issues that are being brought up here and elsewhere on the pod.  I loved Adyashanti's emphasis on keeping one's “bullshit detector” in mind when dealing with any spiritual teacher; he bemoans the fact that many people turn off their perfectly well-functioning BS detector in the presence of a spiritual teacher.  BIG mistake!

arthur

Re: There's Something About Andrew

For those interested, there's a huge “heated” thread on this topic on the WIE zaadz pod. It took place a few months ago…

It was hot and I think the question has been seen from a lot of angles.

Here's the link:
http://pods.zaadz.com/wie/discussions/view/60278#67616

Patrick

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Thanks for the link, Patrick…I'll peruse it later if I feel like it  and have time (if anybody feels like it they can quote some “greatest hits” from that thread here). 

I'd like to say that I'm open-minded about this.  The whole hero-worship/guru thing totally turns me off, and I don't trust that dynamic at all - so on that basis alone I wouldn't likely ever join a community such as Andrew's.  However, if I heard that he was giving a lecture somewhere I could easily attend, I'd almost certainly check it out to see what his vibe feels like in person.  There have been lots of allegations about him, and like I said, there he's popping some significant red flags for me, but I don't have anything personal to go on one way or the other.  Still, it's an interesting topic, and a significant issue for our time.  It may well be the case that the “age of gurus” is essentially over.

spiral out,
arthur

Re: There's Something About Andrew

 Arthur wrote: “It may well be the case that the “age of gurus” is essentially over.”

I know you know that I'm waving the flag for Amma, but that really isn't the point here. This applies to any authentic guru, and there will always be such. The age of the gurus is never over. Tell me something, Arthur. If you would go and see Andrew, would you go and have darshan with Amma? How would it change your thinking if you experienced her as God? She doesn't demand anyone to change their religion and follow her. In some cases she advises devotees to keep their religion.

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Ramsses: “I know you know that I'm waving the flag for Amma, but that really isn't the point here. This applies to any authentic guru, and there will always be such. The age of the gurus is never over. Tell me something, Arthur. If you would go and see Andrew, would you go and have darshan with Amma? How would it change your thinking if you experienced her as God? She doesn't demand anyone to change their religion and follow her. In some cases she advises devotees to keep their religion.”

I'd love to do darshan with Amma.  I think she was in Vancouver some time ago, but at that point I didn't really know what she was all about.  If I experienced her as god, hopefully I would retain (or regain, following the state experience) my integral perspective and recall that she is also a human being, and that she doesn't know everything that is relevant to my life.  If she advised me to keep or not keep my spiritual path, I would consider that, but make up my own mind. 

When I say “the age of guru's is over” I mean that the age where a guru would be treated as some all-encompassing wise exemplar who knows everything and can make all decisions for your life etc. is - in my opinion - over, and good riddance to it.  With everything that modernism and postmodernism brings to the table, and with the incredible complexity of our world today, I don't think that it's a good idea to put someone in total control like that; not in that kind of all-encompassing way at any rate. 

If someone has a level of spiritual attainment - in the sense of some spiritual line of development, say, or in terms of ability to attain and stabilize certain states considered spiritual - that is high above my current level of attainment, then I would be willing to put myself in a subordinate position and learn from them.  But that wouldn't necessarily mean, for example, that they could competently advise me about my employment, or my relationships, or shadow issues etc. - and that is the kind of total control that I see happening in the guru game as traditionally practiced.  As we move forward in human cultural and spiritual evolution, I anticipate that the “guru” will exist as a kind of archetype, for sure, and people will embody that in various ways and to various degrees; I also anticipate that the role of the guru will be contextualized in something like an integral framework.  I would say much the same thing about the “shaman” archetype - it's going to continue to play an important role, but in a much bigger context.

It sounds like Andrew Cohen exercises the kind of total control over his followers that is a feature of traditional guru-disciple relationships as I understand them - and the kind of abuses that are alleged to take place in his community are the kinds of problems I would fully expect to arise in such a social matrix.

spiral out,
arthur

Re: There's Something About Andrew

First, a few comments on devotion to the Teacher.  As I understand it, this is intended to be devotion to the Self, the Path, the Truth, which are all the Same, and it has nothing to do with whatever human may appear to be transmitting the Truth.  I employ devotion to my teacher, whom I sometimes refer to as Master, not because I have assumed a subservient position, but because from my experience, I see that he has a level of mastery that I do not.

Next, a funny story (I think so) about Jesus and the Apostle Thomas.

The Acts of Thomas

(Tradition tells us that Thomas the twin was a carpenter, and proselytized India.)

All we apostles were in Jerusalem, and we divided the regions of the world, and cast lots for the region each of us world go to.

India fell to Judas Thomas, also known as Didymus, according to the lot. He did not want to go; he excused himself as being too weak for travel. “How can I, a Hebrew, go and preach truth among Indians?”

At length he considered his plight, and the Savior appeared to him by night, and spoke, “Fear not, Thomas. Go to India and preach the Word, for my grace is with you!” But Thomas was adamant not to go, and said to the Lord, “I am not going to the Indians. Send me wherever else you want, but not there!”

Soon after, an Indian merchant passed through named Abban, having been sent by King Gundaphorus. Abban was to purchase a carpenter to return with him to India. The Lord saw him walking through the marketplace at noon, and called to him, “Do you want to buy a carpenter?” Abban answered “Yes.” The Lord said to him, “I have a slave who is a carpenter, and I want to sell him to you.” He pointed out Thomas from a distance, then they agreed on the sale price of Thomas as three pounds. The receipt was written thusly:

I, Jesus bar Joseph the carpenter, confirm that I have sold my slave Judas to Abban the merchant of Gundaphorus the king of India.

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Keith: “First, a few comments on devotion to the Teacher.  As I understand it, this is intended to be devotion to the Self, the Path, the Truth, which are all the Same, and it has nothing to do with whatever human may appear to be transmitting the Truth.  I employ devotion to my teacher, whom I sometimes refer to as Master, not because I have assumed a subservient position, but because from my experience, I see that he has a level of mastery that I do not.”

Fine, as long as we (neither the guru nor disciple) confuse the “Self, the Path, the Truth” with the particular “human [who] may appear to be transmitting the Truth.”  And like you, I could employ devotion to my teacher because she has a level of mastery that I do not - in a particular line of development.  But even then, I would hope to keep my bullshit detector functioning in fine form, because the master I see before me is also human, and therefore fallible, and may have serious pathologies - or blindspots, or deficiencies - in other areas of her being, which need to be taken into account.

arthur

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Patrick, thanks for that link; I'll check it out this evening, when I have the time.  I'm interested in hearing multiple sides of this story, and I'm sure there are many points of view to consider.  From what I can see, as a spectator on the sidelines (reading stories of those involved in with Andrew), the dynamics of that community do not seem healthy.

I agree with Jane that if the stories we're hearing about the abusive treatment of women are true, that needs to be roundly and fully denounced.

Pelle, you may be right that Wilber associates with Andrew because it's lonely at the top.  I don't know why he does so, and I'm not saying he shouldn't befriend someone like Andrew.  But if these stories are true, then I believe linking I-I to that community (via Wilber in his professional role as “pandit”) is going to be damaging to I-I's credibility and integrity.  I agree with Arthur that the apparent problems of that community (or the potential for scandal) may be one reason why Andrew is not part of ISC.

In some recent conversations with Andrew, Wilber has expressed support for the experiment Andrew is doing, and that he believes this collective “shift” may be occurring.  I am not in a position to comment on the validity of these claims, but Wilber's support for them appears to be an implicit endorsement of Cohen's methods.  And if his methods involve abuse of women and some of the other things alleged in these blogs, then that's problematic.

Re: There's Something About Andrew

IMO:

Guru yoga is a perfectly legitimate and efficacious path to STATE training and “horizontal” enlightenment - until you remove it from an Amber context.  Once you set Guru yoga within the context of Orange and higher,  all kinds of dis-ease is going to emerge.  It is not suited to the modern world.  The role of teacher is still valid,  to be sure,  but within the context of modernity, post-modernity,  and post-post-modernity,  the nature of the guru role must be continuously re-evaluated.

GURU YOGA MUST DIE.  Maybe after that it can be reborn,  at least in part,  but it's traditional (amber) form must be cast aside.

As to Andrew (I refuse to call him Cohen - he is unworthy of the name) - he appears to me to be a Vampire and a Sorcerer.  He should and must be destroyed - or at the very least quarantined. His poison should not be allowed to spread. 

He is a depraved cult leader,  exalting his own Ego in the name of ego annihilation (newsflash - you can't destroy the ego.  Attempting to destroy it prevents you from rising above it);  his asshole has taken control of his being.  It is impossible to “reach” or heal a “black adept” - largely because their ego forms an impenetrable carapace.  Andrew cannot be “saved” - he can only be isolated so that he doesn't do any more harm.  This is what I mean by “destroyed” - his position as guru must be completely and utterly compromised.

I can only hope that Wilber associates with him out of a desire to “keep your enemies closer.”  Perhaps Wilbers' intention is that integral ideas will accelerate the dissolution of Andrews' organization (black lodges are notoriously unstable,  rarely surviving the death of their “vampire king”).  When the whole thing collapses,  the infusion of integral ideas may provide a life boat of sorts for those who were suckered by Andrews' spiritual shell game.

yours truly,  in disgust and contempt (for Andrew and his cult),
Enkidu

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Enkidu: “As to Andrew (I refuse to call him Cohen - he is unworthy of the name) - he appears to me to be a Vampire and a Sorcerer.  He should and must be destroyed - or at the very least quarantined. His poison should not be allowed to spread. 

“He is a depraved cult leader,  exalting his own Ego in the name of ego annihilation (newsflash - you can't destroy the ego.  Attempting to destroy it prevents you from rising above it);  his asshole has taken control of his being.  It is impossible to “reach” or heal a “black adept” - largely because their ego forms an impenetrable carapace.  Andrew cannot be “saved” - he can only be isolated so that he doesn't do any more harm.  This is what I mean by “destroyed” - his position as guru must be completely and utterly compromised.

…

yours truly,  in disgust and contempt (for Andrew and his cult),
Enkidu”

No, seriously - what do you really think?  :p  Assuming there is much truth to what some detractors say about A.C., it sounds to me like he's a well-intentioned cult-like leader with some heavy unresolved shadow issues which are likely to totally undermine the worthy goals to which he is dedicating his life, and which in any case seem to be causing a lot of “collateral damage” to various people along the way.  Your post, OTOH, makes him sound like a consciously evil exploitative monster, which I think vastly overstates the case.
 
spiral out,
arthur

Re: There's Something About Andrew

“[Enkido's] post, OTOH, makes him sound like a consciously evil exploitative monster, which I think vastly overstates the case.”

I agree with Arthur.  I think he is confused.  At the same time, I also believe he cannot be “saved.”  I'm not sure anybody can.  I think that part comes from within when the tension that Andrew describes becomes unbearable and something loses it's grip.  As long as people hold him up to the standard of guru, that just reinforces his own belief in his status.  If his community does dissolve, then he might be in a position to do the work that he seems to have neglected.

Keith

Re: There's Something About Andrew

I was hoping someone would mention something so I didn't have to display my ignorance, but oh, well:

Who was it who said that the next great guru would be a community?

I feel very strongly that this is true. The era of the lone male guru teaching the followers needs to end now. It's past its usefulness. I understand that one doesn't toss out thousand-year lineages without so much as a backward glance. But it's time for evolution. It's time for a community of leaders to hold each other accountable in a way that is impossible with one guru.

There's no lineage that is immune to the hazards of setting up a man who has too much power. We keep giving men too much power and then crucifying them for it. Here's an idea: let's stop giving up our power and decide instead to move on and create something better, instead of sitting around bitching about it.

Does anyone know of such a thing that already exists?

Liz

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Liz: “There's no lineage that is immune to the hazards of setting up a man who has too much power. We keep giving men too much power and then crucifying them for it. Here's an idea: let's stop giving up our power and decide instead to move on and create something better, instead of sitting around bitching about it.”

Great idea - criticize by creating something new that works better.  :) I don't know of an example personally, but I do think this is what we need to think about and hopefully create.

Liz: “Who was it who said that the next great guru would be a community?”

Thich Nhat Hanh. In the Robert Augustus Masters Q&A part six, a related question was raised; in his answer he refers to the guy/community concept:

adastra: Having been a guru, and then given that up, how do you now feel about the guru-disciple relationship? Is it helpful? Harmful? What is the role of guru in the modern context?

Robert: I wouldn’t go so far as to say that I was a guru; I had students, not disciples (blurry though the line between the two often was). I did, however, hold an authority then (that I have no interest in holding now) that certainly had guru-centric qualities.

How do I feel about the guru-disciple relationship? Well, first of all, I think that it’s plagued with transference issues, power imbalances, and parent-child concerns that all too often go unaddressed (especially in settings that don’t value psychotherapy). Those who haven’t explored and dealt with their psychological patterns, including unresolved parental issues, may benefit in some ways from having a guru, but in other ways will only obstruct and postpone their growth. Those who are more mature will do much better with a guru, being far more capable of making wiser use of him or her.

The role of the guru in a contemporary context? To serve as a guide, inspiration, and awakening presence, but with far less authoritarianism than before. I think that we as a culture are in the process of outgrowing the need for traditional gurus; this doesn’t mean, however, that we should not be cultivating and deepening our relationships with gurus/spiritual teachers with whom we have a deep fit or connection. For example, I don’t view Ramana Maharshi as my guru, but he does serves as a spiritual beacon for me, for which I am very grateful. Thich Nhat Hanh once said that the next Buddha would not be an individual, but a community. I resonate with that. A group of spiritually mature peers, and not necessarily all from the same spiritual path, is far less likely to abuse power and lose touch than a single individual.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Overcome by a narcisisstic rapture, the link I provided on the WIE pod falls on one of my post. I suggest you read the thread  from the beginning, though. A lot has been covered, although sometimes in a long  and not so clear way.

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Liz: “Who was it who said that the next great guru would be a community?…Does anyone know of such a thing that already exists?”

I don't know, but when I listen to various teachers or read or work with my primary teacher, what really strikes me as important is that we practice unconditional love towards everthing.  And since this is the Andrew thead, maybe you might want to check out this.  It seems that for a guru to suggest that students be devoted to them specifically, it removes the possibility of unconditional love.  And when a guru humilates his narcissistic students, it seems to not be particularly loving.  The community that accepts everybody in loving support, in my view, is the most transformative.  I just strongly feel that love is healing, and community is all about love.  No attacking of others' weaknesses allowed.  Open discussion, sure, but not in such a way that compounds the problem by encouraging resistant posturing or self loathing.  The idea is to get rid of that shit, not create more of it.  I think love in a community setting does this, with as many perspectives as are available.

Keith

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Absolutely, Keith. And I don't think it has to be a community specifically geared towards spiritual growth at all. My community had a profound transformative effect on me, and there was certainly no conscious act of humiliation or anything degrading on the part of the members of my community. It was simply an opportunity for me to see different prespectives. Broadening my awareness. There was no need for bullying. In fact, if there had been any of that, I probably would have become more entrenched. But I'm not guru fodder. I can barely do what I tell myself to do.

Liz

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Andrew Cohen used to be based near Totnes (Devon, UK) in the ‘80s, and he attracted quite a following there. It was before I moved to the area, but I was regularly visiting friends there and we non-sympathisers referred to him and his students as “Andrew and the Androids”.

I never went to any of the satsangs and didn’t hear any first-hand accounts of abuse … but I did get to hear of relationships breaking up, which included partners with children, because of the radical line being taken at and around the satsangs.

I’ve always been more than a little sceptical about  KW’s endorsement of Andrew Cohen, I’d find myself surprised over and over by it … until I’d remember it’s a mutual endorsement …. you scratch my back, I’ll massage your ego …. 

And I find the “Guru : Pandit” double-act a bit hard to take sometimes …. so I had to chuckle when I read this review of Andre Van de Braak’s “Enlightenment Blues” on Amazon:

What IS Narcissism? Cohen supplies the answer!, 2 Jun 2004

I recently went to the website of Andrew Cohen and viewed an “engaging” clip of him and Ken Wilbur “in dialogue”. Cohen just sort of stammers with big, silly words he doesn't understand, trying to impress Wilbur, who sits back nodding in his best Foucault imitation. Two guys who've got it all figured out – except for the part about desperately needing the other guy to stroke his own ego. And it's perfect really, because each can tout the other – saying “he's revolutionary” or “Cohen is a rude boy teacher and you simply can't deal with that” – and in doing so, avoid actually having to practice anything themselves. Even selling water by the river, one dies of thirst without at the very least an occasional sip.

Given the mutual infatuation of these two characters, one can imagine the following dialog actually taking place:

What is Narcissism?

The Scene: A seaside café table for two, overlooking the Riviera. Ken and Andrew sipping champagne together, looking out at the sunset.

Ken: Why, Andrew, you're looking awfully fetching tonight. Is that the glow of Enlightenment I'm seeing? (He winks.)

Andrew: Oh Ken, you know I'm always in the same state - hot for you! (They titter.) But seriously, you know how frustrating it is with these wimpy devotees. People get a glimpse of the mountaintop, and think they own it. They don't realize it belongs to Me!

K: Don't I know it! Why just this morning, I had a momentary lapse in my cosmic consciousness, and I'll tell you, it was a total bummer. I mean, how do people live in just ordinary states?

A: Ken, you don't know that half of it. Day in, day out, I have to bear the silly antics of students who have basked even briefly in the light that is Mine, and then when they slip back into the shadows of ignorance, they start whining. Why can't they just shut up, and write me the goddamned check?
By the way, have I ever told you that you're the one who made shaven heads sexy?

K: Oh Andrew, how I wish I had your hair (ruffles Andrew's head).

A: (Giggles.) Yes, but your gift of words! These canned dialogues are pretty tough on my vocabulary. Let's just insert my usual rehash of your and Don Beck's original ideas and have my editors do the rest, eh?

K: Deal! (They clink glasses.)

Re: There's Something About Andrew

hehe…that is kinda funny actually.  :)

I like to refer to Andrew's followers as “Cohen-heads” - in the most affectionate way, I assure you…

…and whereas that reviewer spoke of their “mutual infatuation,” sometimes it has looked rather like “mutual masturbation” - but then even god needs a good wank now and then, eh?  ;)  They do seem to enjoy their talks.  :)

Anyway it can't be easy being the “Kirk and Spock” of the integral world!

http://www.mundoblaineo.com/kirkspock.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors." />

arthur

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Heh. What I love about these sorts of digressions is how wonderfully they demonstrate how similar all groups are … no matter the community, there's always that same draw toward gossip and teasing. :)

It's funny, but I've never felt any interest in the whole guru thing. (Or, to put it another way, ideally, I'd see everyone I meet as my guru. It's a bit of a twist, perhaps, on Liz's “community as guru” statement …) I'm pretty impartial on the matter; it's my sense that people who are, for lack of a better word, guru-prone are going to find someone or something to deify regardless, and that attempting to end guru yoga by “destroying” the gurus themselves isn't going to help much. In any case, I'm certainly not going to join a crusade on the matter.

But speaking less generally, I am pretty close to a few people who'd fall under the category of Cohen's disciples, and they've all seemed to be sweet, grounded, reasonable individuals – a little in earnest, perhaps, but sensible in their understanding of other 'paths' and endearing in their generally nonjudgmental natures. I've never met Cohen (though I think we've spoken on the phone), and can't comment, but he sounds, as you mentioned, Arthur, like a sincerely well-intentioned human being. (Not that I haven't known many truly good-hearted people whose unresolved issues have caused all manner of damage to those who loved them … ) Frankly, I'm not really any more worried about the danger of his community turning into a disaster than I am I-I becoming a cult.

Anyway, in my heart of hearts, I feel a tremendous amount of sympathy for those in anything resembling guru-like positions. It can't be easy, and while - sure - they might have brought it upon themselves, it's also a situation from which, I have no doubt, it would be treacherously difficult to extricate oneself from. If disciples have a rough time leaving the fold, imagine how hard it would be for a guru to escape. Life of Brian, much? ;)

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Arthur,  you're right - I get a little melodramatic sometimes (if you havn't noticed).  I'm sure Andrew is well intentioned,  if profoundly wrong and misleading his slaves, er, I mean diciples.  (Come to think of it,  I think Jim Jones meant well - though I don't think it is as bad as all of that in this case).  I've been thinking about it on and off all day,  and I think the problem is more about stages than anything else.

Guru yoga developed within the context of amber.  It doesn't really work within an orange or higher setting,  so would-be-gurus try to re-create traditional amber societies.  These re-creations,  or faux-traditional societies,  are usually refered to by the public as “cults.” Genuine amber societies are generally thought of as “religious” or “fundamentalist.” 

What makes these attempts at re-creations (read “romantic regressions”) faux is that more often than not the guru & his/her desciples are at a post-amber stage of development.  This requires that they repress,  to some extent, all of their post-amber consciousness.  And while I have no doubt that there have been abuses of power by gurus in the past,  it seems that the repression of higher capacities,  combined with having transcended the restrictions of tribal taboo that come with actually residing at amber,  as opossed to regressing there, exascerbates everything. 

And of course there is the broader modern and post-modern world flowering just beyond this intentional communities' threshold,  a World that the guru rightly perceives as a threat to the (amber) community - a threat that cannot be kept out precisely because it is also inside the members of the community,  however much they attempt to repress and deny it.

In short,  if not a complete recipe for disaster, it is certainly less than ideal.  Practicing guru yoga in this day and age is like trying to perform open heart surgery with a stone axe.

I have no sympathy for Andrews “predicament.”  He got himself into it.  But I will detract my disgust and contempt,  and put forward,  with some reservation,  the kind of pity often extended to the mentally infirm.

Sorry,  the whole “guru” subject is a trigger for me (if you didn't notice).  I instinctively perceive all such people as spiritual tyrants.  It has been said,  and is perhaps true,  that the best system is a benevolent tyranny - but I will resent it all the same.  Caligula or Gotama - I will always side with Brutis.  The ides of March are always at hand.

revolutionarily yours,
Enkidu

P.S. You ever screw with a cat using a flashlight or laser pointer? The cat keeps trying to catch something whose nature it has completely misjudged - and no matter how many times it fails,  it keeps trying.  This is how idiotic it is to try and “kill” the ego.  This is what a moron Andrew Cohen is.  Yeah,  I'm just not gonna be able to play nice on this one.  Hey,  he screams and curses at his desciples right?  So, um, fuck 'em.

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Hey Enkidu and Siona,

I was invited by Terri into a private pod where, we were promised, our questions would be answered by Andrew’s students (I think they prefer that term to slave lol). At first, I felt hopeful that it would be an opportunity for Whitewave and me and others who had participated in that bloodbath to which Patrick refers as the thread in WIE a few months back to get the real scoop.

At the time that thread began to unfold, I was a newborn babe here on zaadz and very reluctant to begin by really getting into all the dirt that was flying around.

Now I’ve been here a while though and have become more familiar with the scenery and players, I became genuinely troubled at what Andrew wrote about his wife. His disciples (sorry, students is too neutral to seem accurate to me) were so puppy-like pleased, all tails wagging (as Siona says, they are sweet dear people, very sincere and enthusiastic!) about this latest offering. But it sounded to me like there was only room for one person and one ego in the marriage - guess whose? Apparently they lived separately for a few years while she painfully learned to align herself better with him, or as he and his followers would say, as she learned to give up her ego to enlightenment.

My friend Don whom I invited here as a corrective :) had been invited to this private pod too, and was at least as uncomfortable as I was with the idea of only one teacher.

Liz and others have described it beautifully in more objective terms. I as usual am distracted by the personal, his mother, his wife, close friends, all demonised by him as “failed students” if they did not conform and spoke out, or embraced as beloved disciples when they toed the line.

So, Siona, I don’t believe this is a stable situation, however lovely the people are who are involved. At least in a church or other “faith” community, god is not the human leader so if there are imbalances or errors, the community can provide the balance. This is why I think Liz’s idea of a community where all are teachers is the best. Difficult to achieve because most people prefer to be sheep rather than co-shepherds! But worth aiming for.

Love

Nicole

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Nicole, I thank you for inviting me here.

When Terri invited me to their private pod right away I thought, “what is this all about?”  I could not understand why would they invite a person that not only believes we do not need a so called guru master but knows it.
 
I was in an Arkansas prison for 26 months and it was the best thing that ever happened to me. The things that I learned about myself …and without a so called guru master. There is a master but we can not see it .  I had a friend in prison that was 30 years older then me, and as he shared what he had unlearned and learned about himself he started learning. We both became a master student. It was the most  amazing time of my life. Lonnie was an English teacher in the free world for many years and taught high school and college students. And now he was teaching ( SHARING ) with me, a man with only an 8th grade education. If he was not teaching me then I was teaching him. When one was the teacher the other would be the student, we took turns talking and listening.

Lonnie helped me see that there was more to me then I ever knew.  Lonnie noticed the healer in me before I did. He could feel energy radiating from me before I was aware of it.  I don't know what would have became of me without my friend helping me to be aware that I am a spirit and this body is only  a house for me to work out of. What ever Lonnie shared with me I took it farther and I learned or 'remembered' more. I mean more of what I as a spirit can do. One sunday morning I went to the little chapel that was at this prison and listened to what  the chaplin had to say  which really was nothing. When I returned, Lonnie asked where I went and when I told him he was not happy. He said, “Why would you want to listen to what God told another man to do? You need to find what God wants you to do!” Don't get this wrong… Lonnie and I were not  telling each other to 'do what I am doing', in a way we were but what we were both doing was learning to be 'who I am', not who somebody  else is but to find our own truth. I learned from Lonnie  “when you attach yourself to anything or anybody then you separate from everthing.”

I ask everyone to PLEASE understand that my awakening and my……… who and what I am today and what I am doing today is because I have been more interested and concerned about who I am then who somebody else is.

I think that Andrew is really  teaching others that they do not need a guru master, even though he may not be aware of this.  I mean look at how many of us have learned from Andrew what it is that we do not  need!  I have to say that I've learned many times what it is that I need by first learning what I don't need. Everybody  knows when the student is ready the teacher appears… what they don't know is the teacher will appear in everything and everybody. 

Your friend Don 

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Don: “I ask everyone to PLEASE understand that my awakening and my……… who and what I am today and what I am doing today is because I have been more interested and concerned about who I am then who somebody else is.

“I think that Andrew is really  teaching others that they do not need a guru master, even though he may not be aware of this.  I mean look at how many of us have learned from Andrew what it is that we do not  need!  I have to say that I've learned many times what it is that I need by first learning what I don't need. Everybody  knows when the student is ready the teacher appears… what they don't know is the teacher will appear in everything and everybody. ”

Hi Don

Thanks for sharing some of your story with us, I find it fascinating and inspiring.  Clearly for you and your friend looking deep within and relying on yourself (and peers) alone was the path to higher/deeper truth.  I do believe that for some people a healthy guru relationship might be what they need - whether that characterizes Andrew Cohen's scene is, clearly, a matter of dispute.  But even if he, or his scene, has problematic or even disasterous shadow elements, it has occurred to me that such imperfections/pathologies might serve particular people's spiritual growth. 

What if, say, I'm attracted to a spiritual teacher because I see an incredible spiritual depth in them, and I confuse that with the particular bodymind which is revealing it to me - rather than recognizing that he and I are both equally an embodiment and expression of that light at the deepest level.  This mistake may be almost inevitable on the devotee's part, especially if it is made by the spiritual teacher him- or herself.  However, later I may see that the teacher is a flawed human being, just like me: at that point, it may be that I can realize that the light I saw is not solely a property of that particular person per se, and I may more genuinely recognize it in myself (unfortunately another possible move at that point is to decide that the whole truth presented to me was complete bullshit all along, in other words throwing the buddha out with the bathwater).

So I think that your path is one possible way to the truth, and clearly it worked for you; but I do believe that there are many different routes up that mountain, and guru yoga may be viable or even essential for some people.

Either way, I'd say the best move is to make it integral and keep it as honest and open as you can.

spiral out,
arthur

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Hi Enkidu,

thought I'd jump in here. Haven't posted on zaadz much, but I saw this thread, and since I always take exception to being called a slave :), I thought I'd comment.

Actually, despite your feelings about guru yoga, I thought there was something else in your post that casught my attention. namely, this idea that guru yoga is a product of amber. I agree with that, but to me that's like saying science comes from orange, so in a integral world, we don't need science. Wrong. We need it, but it just needs to be practiced in a larger context. Otherwsie it proves all the worng things. It proves the world is purely material, just like trying to practice Guru Yoga with a postmodern worldview often ends up proving that hiearchy is bad. 

So I think guru yoga by whatver name we want to call it these days, needs to be practiced in a larger context. And let me tell you, I've seen lots of people practice it with a pre-modern mindset. it doesn't work. But that doesn't mean it can't work…far from it. I don't think most of the experiments with eastern teachers were very successful, partially because of this clash of worldviews. But I think the anti-teacher  craze that came out of that failure is equally flawed, and almost entirely reactionary. So what is a positive version going to look like moving forward. I'd be interested to see what people have to say about that…

“Caligula or Gotama - I will always side with Brutis”

Wow, that 's quite a statement. Honest, but you can't have a post in my cabinet. :)

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Carter: “So I think guru yoga by whatver name we want to call it these days, needs to be practiced in a larger context. And let me tell you, I've seen lots of people practice it with a pre-modern mindset. it doesn't work. But that doesn't mean it can't work…far from it. I don't think most of the experiments with eastern teachers were very successful, partially because of this clash of worldviews. But I think the anti-teacher  craze that came out of that failure is equally flawed, and almost entirely reactionary. So what is a positive version going to look like moving forward. I'd be interested to see what people have to say about that…”

Carter, thank you for jumping in and offering your perspective.  Would you like to say something about the particular “larger context” at work in Andrew's community?  I'm specifically interested in your “insider's” view on the formation of a higher form of group consciousness that we hear so much about.

spiral out,
arthur

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Arthur,

By “larger context”, I think I really mean that having a real teacher takes a lot of maturity and that personal maturity better be situated in a worldview that is likewise quite expanded. Now there are all kinds of teachers, so I'm generalizing, but I've seen a lot of people get into relationship with a teacher and either they adopt  1)a sort of pre-modern relationship of reverence and devotion with little interest in deep personal transformation and autonomy or 2) resist the hierarchical relationship continually and refuse instruction or 3) (and this is more common) some bizarre combination of the two. But what I've found with Andrew is that if people hang in there, and genuinely want to grow and develop, something else can happen, which is the beginning of a real individual development, autonomy and even independence within the context of a hierarchy (this is not speaking for a moment about the intersubjective dimension which can also be active). But this is delicate, because the ego, and by that I mean specifically the kind of narcissism and over-developed need to stand out as individuals that is part of our age, really will mess things up. You see, you have to be able to not need to assert your independence and at the same time not need to be have someone figure out the universe for you and constantly affirm you. And those are strong structures within all of us. It's a big challenge and I'm barely touching on it, but there is so much that's possible if you can walk a middle line, especially when authentic enlightenment is the context of the relationship. You start to feel like the student/teacher relationship literally starts to activate a kind of engine of development and evolution that really powerful. But that's not soemthing that happens everyday.  

I want to write a piece at some point soon about how one sign of development is the capacity to hold multiple hierarchies. And to be able to hold those hierarchies themselves within a larger hierarchy. By that I mean that Andrew is my teacher and there is no question about that. And yet, we are also friends and colleagues and we interact on many levels in many ways in many environments. Now if I'm true to the fundamental context of our relationship, then it allows for a lot of freedom when it comes to all of the various ways in which we interact. It allows for a real partnership, BUT… we aren't just partners in an inquiry into evolutionary spirituality or colleagues who may spend time together informally, he is also my teacher. And if I forget the fundamental context of our relationship, then other things get messed up. On the other side, you have many teachers who imagine that because they have such profound knowledge about one area then that means they are at the top of the hierarchy in all areas. That is equally problematic. 

That's a really short summary of a complicated issue, but I hope it helps to explain some of the dynamics. 

There are so many elements to this. Another aspect of this is that we have to begin to think about hiearchy in ways we haven't before, or postmodernism is going to have its way with us, and that won't be pretty. The context of a relationship with a spriitual teacher is one of the more powerful ways to pursue that and to activate some of the potentials that come into being when an individual starts to aknowldege that there are higher authorities in this universe than the cognitive mind and the superficial levels of the individual self.

Best,
Carter 

Re: There's Something About Andrew

In the flurry of slick phrases and smoke & mirrors, Balder raised a very important question to Andrew's students which has still not been addressed:

“…In this thread, we've been discussing stories – admittedly second-hand – about some of the tactics Andrew is employing to challenge his students, to “destroy” the ego, to encourage or enforce devotion to him, and to gather money.  Are these stories true, and if so, do you believe they are justified in the overall context of the pursuit of evolutionary enlightenment?  Or do you think possibly some mistakes have been or are being made in this cutting edge experiment?  Or are the stories altogether false?…”

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Arthur,

I realized after I posted the previous that I didn't really respond much to the specifc question about group consciousness you asked. That also is a BIG question :) and hard to address in a short post, but i'll try to get to it soon. Got to get back to work now. I'm writing an article about Zaadz… :)

best,
Carter

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Enkidu: “Sorry,  the whole “guru” subject is a trigger for me (if you didn't notice).  I instinctively perceive all such people as spiritual tyrants.”

I appreciate that you recognize this as partially involving a shadow issue for you; exploring shadow openly is part of my own operating principles and is a beautiful thing.  I also applaud anyone expressing their viewpoints strongly.  Please don't characterize someone's opinion on this or any subject as “bullshit,” however, which is getting pretty close to a personal attack.  I also personally feel uncomfortable with you calling Andrew a “moron.”  Please remember that we're working with the Road Rules for Transformation as our guidelines here.  Note added later: the response to the “bullshit” comment was actually in response to something Seth said, not Enkidu.  Sorry about that -adastra

I've been personally  and deeply involved with people doing serious spiritual bypasses, avoiding dealing with shadow issues while basking in the light they feel blazing through them.  It was heartbreaking and painful.  However, when I'm speaking from my higher self I can avoid referring to them as “morons” or “fucking nazi assholes” or the like, recognizing them as hurting and deluded, but on a deep level as beautiful and vulnerable souls - as very much like me in significant respects.  I don't think any of the people I'm thinking of get up in the morning thinking, “Who can I hurt/fuck over/manipulate today?”

I'm not saying any of this applies to Andrew, but can't we charitably assume that it might be the case?  And can we remember that fundamentally this is all based on hearsay (albeit a lot of it) at this point?

Enkidu: “Guru yoga developed within the context of amber.  It doesn't really work within an orange or higher setting,  so would-be-gurus try to re-create traditional amber societies.  These re-creations,  or faux-traditional societies,  are usually refered to by the public as 'cults.' Genuine amber societies are generally thought of as 'religious' or 'fundamentalist.'”

If I understand the Andrew Cohen's claim correctly, his community is developing modes of consciousness and being that are coming from trans-turquoise altitudes.  If that is correct then people (such as myself) who are more-or-less at turquoise (or lower) altitudes may not be able to even properly recognize what is really going on there - and that assumes that we have direct contact with the teacher/community, not that we're basing our assessment purely on what others have said or written about it.  Also, it seems to me, that if they are exploring such new territory, the potential to be undermined by shadow issues or otherwise “go off the rails” is that much higher - after all, in that hypothetical situation, they are actually laying brand-new tracks. 

It also seems possible to me that there may be people who perceive that Andrew's community is - or may be - creating new human potentials, and as a result are cutting him too much slack.  Kind of like, “Rather than help shoot him down at this point, let's watch, focus on what's good about this, and see where it goes.”  That may or may not be a huge mistake.  I do note that I-I appears to be keeping Andrew Cohen somewhat at arm's length, for whatever reason(s). 

Again, bear in mind that this is all very speculative at this point.  To me, from the outside all this looks very much like a spiritual leader who is not addressing shadow issues which will ultimately bring about the downfall of his community - we've seen that movie many times before, haven't we?  But I'm keeping an open mind and heart as best I can at this point.  And regardless of whether the shadow stuff is going on or is as heavy as we're surmising, it may also be the case that something far above amber is going on, even though it looks like retro-amber stuff to some of us.

spiral out,
arthur

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Seth:
“I'm not sure why it was you that said it, Pelle, but I'm going to jump on it because I've seen it going around as a false ‘integral' meme (not to be mistaken with vmeme).

It's lonely at the top.

Bullshit!!… it's not lonely at the top. ”


Seth, it is fine that you disagree with me, but calling my perpective bullshit is perhaps not the best way to conduct a discussion or debate. Please state why you disagree instead, maybe then we will all learn something interesting.

Moderator (Arthur), please give me some help here.

Pelle

Re: There's Something About Andrew

This place is cool… :)

Sure I can elaborate on my perspective. I do tend to take it for granted, no disrespect was intended.

The more aware a person becomes, the more connected they become… minus some dark nights of the soul which often lead to further growth. Spirit is at the top connected to everything. So how is being more connect lonely?

The more aware a person is the more connected they are.

If a person is actually near the top with respect to human consciousness at this time and makes the statement that it’s lonely at the top, they’re either coming from the shadow side of the victim archetype or they’re saying something that will be misleading to a small mind.

If they’re coming from the ‘feelings of sadness’ (poor me) part of the word loneliness, then they’re attempting to steal energy from others… whether they’re conscious of it or not.

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Hello Everyone,

 I have been Andrew’s student for 10 years now. The past ten years of my life have been the most challenging, clarifying, and down right profound. More then I could have ever imagined. And as a result, I am very convinced that the EGO is a mighty foe. A mighty, mighty, mighty foe! And because of what I know, I wouldn’t want to relax for a second and return to any prior view on what it takes to be truly vigilant and committed to my own Living Enlightenment in this life.

 And I do have Andrew to thank for this. I have no doubt that I know what I am talking about. I have no doubt that because of what has “gone down” over these past years as a result of doing REAL battle with the ego, that something has cracked in the ethos… and I would describe that crack as a number of individuals who, for themselves, know what EGO does to the soul, what havoc it reeks on our humanity, how devastating it is to the best part of ourselves. And in addition to seeing this, these same individuals also have seen what happens when someone, who under enormous pressure, makes the deepest choice to actually go beyond ego, we all know intimately what gets released in the world. The kind of true victory it represents for all of us. And it is beyond important that this happens…

 This is 21^st Century spiritual life, it includes a Guru who is more interested in our potential to live beyond ego, then any bargaining with the enemy in order to create something less then miraculous.

 Andrew is a living example of an uncompromising, fiercely compassionate soul. Given what I know he is up against, I wouldn’t want to trade places with him in a million years… He has taken on a mighty burden… and everyday that goes by, and I go deeper into the reality of what it takes to live with real integrity… I am honored to be with him in this endeavor, and very grateful for the stand that he has taken. This is not some fancy footwork or misguided passion. It is hard won knowledge of what it takes to endeavor to go beyond ego for the sake of something higher.

 Terri

Re: There's Something About Andrew

I had a feeling Terry would make an appearance on this thread. She’s Will’s wife by the way… or she was last time I checked. (I would talk to her directly, but she’s not a member of this pod at the moment.)

I feel the blind spot in a person’s psyche that needs a guru is intimately connected to the blind spot in a person’s psyche that needs a group of followers.

They’re just evolving together… but Andrew does sound a little on the dysfunctional side. I wonder what the ratio is between the people he’s influenced in a more functional way compared to the ones he’s influence in a more dysfunctional way.

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Hi Terri.  And thanks for joining this discussion.  Your perspective is definitely appreciated.  I'm not really sure why, but I just can't seem to reconcile some of Andrew's teachings with what I consider to be the primary concern of this whole endeavor of spiritual growth, which is unconditional love.

So many teachers that I have read, and a few that I have seen in person or heard over internet feeds, agree that unconditional love is vastly superior as a means of cracking the ego than is attacking it.  To attack it tends to make it put up a fight.  That is what the ego does, it takes positions, attacks from them and defends it's ground vigorously.  But by loving it, like a frightened, feral animal, one can eventually coax it out of it's hiding places and help it to realize that is has no reason to fight in the first place.  In the light of love the illusion of hate is dissolved, and along with it any need to defend or attack.  And there seems to be a  profound level of humility that goes along with the loving style of teachers that take this approach.  Again, they have nothing to hold onto or to present themselves as, so humility is just a natural expression of that freedom.

I see neither of those qualities in Andrew, the humility or the love, and instead see a vein of pridefulness.  That is, as I understand it, one of the key traits of the empowered ego, not the transcended ego.  And that pridefulness is, in my view, a sign of deeply repressed self-loathing or feeling of worthlessness.  It's like the puffer fish that, when frightened, blows itself up and projects threatening spines.  That's what I see in Andrew.  Maybe I'm wrong.

Now, this unconditional love does not mean total lack of discernment or tendency to tolerate egoity.  Rather, those who I see embody this kind of love will make their point, calmly, without threatening, without taking an offensive position that a student might then be inclined to defend against.  With the defenses off-gaurd the loving field of such a teacher, I believe, is able to deeply penetrate the soul and work from the inside out.

I am imagining working to combat terrorists or criminal enterprises.  The most effective ways to do so would seem to be to infiltrate the group, gain their trust, then wait.  It might be years before the right opportunity arises.  Once on the inside, it might be tempting to move quickly, but that would risk blowing ones cover and any further chances for future infiltration might be altogether shot.  But by waiting, and playing the game of the insider, and one would have to truly be in the game unconditionally, or risk being discovered, but waiting, then the right opportunity will come along.  It might mean going along with all kinds of atrocities in the mean time, but the end goal is more important than the little skirmishes.  In the end, I think this is the way the Master works best.  Not just throwing themselves in the front line of fire, but casually getting in behind the lines and poisoning the whole encampment.  For the ego, love is poison.

I'm not a dogmatic Christian, not really raised in any faith except having been around a lot of Christians of various denominations, but I really respond to the message of love that seems to be central to Jesus teaching.  And forgiveness.  That's what he did, unfailingly, unconditionally.  I'm less familiar with the Buddha's teaching, but I do recall that compassion is a key ingredient, not idiot compassion which I liken to coddling unruly children, but a totally transcendent compassion for the whole world.  I have read a piece of Andrew's writing (or a transcript of a speech) in which he disagrees with the unconditional loving approach.  I think maybe he misunderstands it as merely coddling the ego.  Or, perhaps, he thinks Buddha and Jesus were wrong.

That's how I see it.  I'd be interested in hearing how Andrew brings love into the hearts of his students.  We have probably been a bit disillusioned on the outside, hearing only the negative reports.  But some of his direct discourse is also telling us something.  Maybe we misunderstand.  Maybe it would be helpful, and I for one would be especially interested in seeing how if compassion (I gather you are passionate about your work and relationship, that's not what I mean) for the whole mystery has evolved in you after ten years of working with Andrew.

Regards,

Keith

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Hi there Keith,

I would like to respond to what you said about Jesus; I think that from the point of view of the moneychangers whose tables got thrown over before they were kicked out of the temple where they were only doing their job, Jesus wasn't very compassionate was he? They had wives to provide for and children to feed…
There he was, a long haired man, obviously deranged because he claimed to be the son of God, and because he made a big mess in a place where they had been changing money for as long as they could remember. But by doing that Jesus brought the sacred, God, back in the temple. It is a matter of perspective.

Now what I have found is that a real spiritual teacher like Andrew Cohen, who's job it is to free you from your compulsive belief in your seperate existence, looks, from the point of view of that seperate self-sense, like your worst enemy. 

And from that point of view it is very easy to come up with all kinds of things the teacher does wrong, like throwing over your table full of change, only because you were inside the temple instead of outside in the scorching sun. Apparently Jesus wanted all moneychangers to die of sun-stroke. Do you catch my drift?

It is a change in perspective, a shift of allegiance; from the point of view of the seperate ego, real gurus are the biggest threat, and from the point of view of the part of us that is already free and wants to develop to higher and higher expressions of that freedom, a real guru is the greatest blessing.

This is why I chose to become a student of Andrew Cohen 13 years ago, because I felt in me a deep longing for something that I could not understand, but that I knew I had to find. I have known for over thirty years that even if I would not find what I was looking for, it was still better to seek for that sacred mystery than to settle for an ordinary reality. Cohen helped me generously and incessantly to find that mystery, and demanded I would not betray my own desire live up to it. I did not give him an easy time, nor did he give me an easy time, but he never gave up and neither did I. 
As a result of this I am now witnessing in myself, and between my spiritual friends and me, a miraculous mystery emerge, a mystery that is much deeper and much more awe inspiring than what I had signed up for.

Glad you brought it up, Arjan

Re: There's Something About Andrew

I knew someone would bring up the money changers.  If that did actually happen (and bringing up Jesus is fraught with what-ifs, and I admittidely opened that can of worms), I think it is totally different.  People go to Andrew for spiritual help and pay him money, and I believe his antics actually slow the progress of well-intentioned seekers.  The money changers were quite possibly the “Andrew” in this case.  They were apparently more interested in their own needs and were demanding money from temple-goers, who were the well-intentioned seekers in that case.  Jesus was sticking up for the temple-goers and sticking it to the “egos” who were seeking only to satisfy their limited material needs/desires, at the expense of those who were genuinely interested in spiritual development.  Perhaps, Jesus saw that the money changers were selling God short, which is what I believe Andrew does.

With respect, I also believe Andrew is innocent of all charges in that he is likely not aware that he is doing anything wrong.  Maybe he isn't, and folks like you just might be a stong testament to that.  It is as likely as anything that the community around Andrew needs to be harassed into letting go of contraction.  That wouldn't work for me.

I have been working with my teacher for two years.  He seems to prefer not to be put on a pedestal at all.  All devotion to him, and there is quite a lot as many of my fellow students share email exchanges between him and us, he lovingly insists is not to be directed to the form of the teacher, but to the Teacher that transcends all forms.  This is where I see a big difference.  He does not demand 1000 prostrations to his body-mind.  He encourages holding the highest Truth in mind at all times, which can absolutely be done in any situation, though it takes much practice.  I actually did do a prostration in front of him at a retreat once, but it was not because I was surrendering to him, it was because I was surrendering to my Self in him.  I don't want to suggest that you should not love Andrew, but what I have found is that if it is demanded that you do so, then it may be wise to question who is doing the demanding.  I have read and/or heard other teachers I respect giving the same advice.

Keith

Re: There's Something About Andrew

'Prostrating to the Self in him' I like that Keith. If someone gives you enough faith in him or her over a long period of time, and you are a critical mind who was reluctantly convinced that the teacher, mentor or spiritual friend is for real, because they ceaselessly proved to choose love and care over selfishness and self-image, than that person can become a beacon that makes it possible for us, suspicious and cynical post-modern people, to put down our ego defences, doesn't it?
And I think for genuine development we do need to find the trust and the courage to put down our deeply ingrained protection system, and start listening to the faint voice of our own soul till it becomes a deafening roar.

The alternative is to keep going the way we have been going isn't it? Or, at best to make some relative improvements, like hanging a poster in a prison cell…

Turning around the example of the money changers the way you did is a bit silly, I find, it is a bit of a superficial gimmick but does not make sense.

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Arjan: “Turning around the example of the money changers the way you did is a bit silly, I find, it is a bit of a superficial gimmick but does not make sense.”

I'll take a page from my friend Julian's book:

An ad-hominem attack such as to call something a “silly gimmick” does not add credence to your argument.   Tell me, why does it not make sense?  If I was wrong in my understanding of that story, I'd like to know, rather than being called silly.  Is that the kind of thing that Andrew encourages?  Calling people silly?  I think I called Andrew innocent.  I suppose that was ad-hominem too.

Keith

Re: There's Something About Andrew

I didn't say you are silly, I said the way you turned around the argument was silly because it leaves the reason I used that example completely unaddressed and goes into the fact that the moneychangers make money, which in my example was irrelevant.

It was a side point, I thought you were onto something with what I you wrote and wanted to respond mainly to that. Did that part make sense to you?

Arjan

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Yes, Arjan, it did make sense when you wrote:

“If someone gives you enough faith in him or her over a long period of time, and you are a critical mind who was reluctantly convinced that the teacher, mentor or spiritual friend is for real, because they ceaselessly proved to choose love and care over selfishness and self-image, than that person can become a beacon that makes it possible for us, suspicious and cynical post-modern people, to put down our ego defences, doesn't it?”

And our little example in this exchange is a good example of the point I have tried to bring forward, which is that attack breeds defensiveness.  In our case, you made good point.  When I read the last comment in that post, I totally forgot that and the sub/unconscious defensivness took the stage.  So rather than holding that place of agreement/communion (which is a crucial step towards loving and healing, in my view), I responded to the part that was “a side point.”

Now, I will admit that as someone who is not a believer in Andrew's claims of enlightened consciousness (vertically stage-wise, that is…he likely does have horizontal mastery over higher states), it could easily be inferred that the case I make against his approach is an attack of sorts.  A devotee of Andrew would likely respond defensively, but being a good fellow, would first agree with the points being made, then, probably unconsciously, feel some need to put in a little barb and dismiss it as a “side point.”

I'm not saying that's what happened here, but it is an example of what might happen, unconsciously, when playing the attack/defend game of the ego.  Regardless of whether that dymanic happened here, maybe you can see my point that an aggressive style might be actually hinder “us, suspicious and cynical post-modern people, to put down our ego defences.”

Keith

Re: There's Something About Andrew

You have a point there Keith, I get so sick at times with all the dirt that people who have never even met Andrew Cohen throw out everywhere about him, usually based on the accounts of a very small group of angry and disillusioned ex-students with a vengeance. And that makes me a little edgy now and then. I guess that comes with the territory.

I keep hearing the same stories, that completely differ from my own experience, and even encounter accounts of events that I was physically present at myself, and find myself entirely unable to recognize that particular account of that particular event because it is all totally distorted or taken out of context. That is why I tried to look at Jesus through the eyes of an angry moneychanger, it looks different if you leave out the most important things and contextualize the story with some interpretations masquerading as facts to support your argument.

I find it hard to bear that Andrew Cohen, who has the intention to share something very precious and miraculous with the people who come to him for that, gets charged with all kinds of crimes he did not commit and gets denounced by people that take stories they have not verified (and maybe also not want to verify) at face value. I simply think he is entitled to more open mindedness, especially from intelligent, leading edge, integral people, that know that old vMemes don't make way for something new easily…

Arjan

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Aryan, I am borrowing this quote from ma rig pa on another thread:
“Rather it is through service to our brothers and sisters in the world that we encounter the great Mystery, the great Thou. The ego purification comes about not primarily in one's solitude but rather in one's ego being rubbed raw in the existential immersion in the pain of the world.The dark night of the soul comes about in the midst of the world as it did for Jesus and the prophets. As Abraham Heschel once wrote: “The more deeply immersed I become in thinking of the prophets, the more powerfully it became clear to me what the lives of the prophets sought to convery: that morally speaking there is no limit to the concern one must feel for the suffering of human beings.”

The idea of wasting a second of one's precious time in prostration to some guy who is colluding with you in destroying your ego, when you might just go down to the local shelter and volunteer to make dinner for some of the homeless, or pack up and head to Ecuador to work in the fields, or take the guy on the corner begging out for a coffee and a sandwich , or go visit your lonely mother or auntie etc, or send all your extra money to the world vision for children…well, the idea of protrating yourself to some guy just looks like a bad use of resources to me…..there is enough sadness and loneliness, poverty of spirit, poverty of material goods, the one need not squander the energy of ego reduction in the labratory of 'enlightenext'.  one might (dare I say “should”, as a moral imperative)boldly take the experiment of prostration out on the street, the real world, and be of service.  God knows, this little world needs all of us as allies.

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Hi Jane,

I so agree with you how much this little world needs us all as allies!

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Seth:
The more aware a person becomes, the more connected they become… minus some dark nights of the soul which often lead to further growth. Spirit is at the top connected to everything. So how is being more connect lonely?

The more aware a person is the more connected they are.

If a person is actually near the top with respect to human consciousness at this time and makes the statement that it's lonely at the top, they're either coming from the shadow side of the victim archetype or they're saying something that will be misleading to a small mind.

If they're coming from the ‘feelings of sadness' (poor me) part of the word loneliness, then they're attempting to steal energy from others… whether they're conscious of it or not.

Yes and no. While developing the spiritual line will certainly make you feel more connected to other people and to everything there is, it can potentially make you feel lonely as well. No matter how much of a connectedness you might experience on the one hand, you still retain your basic humanness and even a healthy human ego loves sharing its experiences with other human beings. So if you for example have profound non-dual experiences, it might be very hard to find somebody who will understand what fuck you're talking about, especially if you want interpret your experience using an integral or 3rd tier structure of consciousness.

Pelle

Re: There's Something About Andrew

I tried to cover your point above, Pelle.  Meaning it would be misleading to tell a small mind that it’s lonely at the top.  Loneliness will not be experienced as a negative at the level we’re discussing.

A person who has transcended and included in a healthy fashion will be able to communicate with the people they’ve transcended in a comprehensible connected way.  If they can’t, then they’re regressing and have a potential to learn from the people they perceive as being separate.

Also, if a person finds it lonely not being able to share their non-dual experiences with others, then they have some integrative processing to do.

“especially if you want interpret your experience using an integral or 3rd tier structure of consciousness.”

What a person wants and what actually is can be two different things, and what is always wins. :)

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Seth: “I tried to cover your point above, Pelle.  Meaning it would be misleading to tell a small mind that it’s lonely at the top.  Loneliness will not be experienced as a negative at the level we’re discussing.”

Hi Seth

I'm curious as to whether you yourself have experienced being at the level you refer to, and did not have a problem with lonliness, or if you've spoken to someone who's had that experience?  Or is this something you read about, in which case could you quote some of that here or point us to it? 

I tend to think the lonliness, if it occured, would be a function of unsatisfied communion even at such rarified levels of spiritual awareness, and that nondual awareness (if that's what we're talking about) could include lonliness along with everything else that occurs.

spiral out,
arthur

Re: There's Something About Andrew

I’m speaking from a connection with my own experience…

I haven’t maintained that level of awareness… I still have to do integrative processing…

I don't try to label my status in the realm of awareness…

I’m not quoting any books but the interpretation of my experiences in life is influenced by all that I’ve read.  Maybe this following thread might shed some more light on my perspective.  Integrative Processing

I’ve never sought enlightenment but I have felt cursed by it in the past.  Attaining such a status is not important to me.  Moving beyond and understanding my suffering on the other hand… well that’s just always been me.

I speak from myself rather than my ass. ;)

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Seth: “I’m speaking from a connection with my own experience…”

OK, thanks for the clarification.  :)

arthur

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Arthur, you singled out one small line of what I wrote, so do you mind filling me in on the conclusion you came to after I answered your question.

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Funny little pon:

Alone  =  All one

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Are you guys trying to direct the meaning of my words to mean something other than what I’m actually expressing?

Keith, can you fill me in on the placement of your funny pun… it appears to possibly be a reply to one of my posts.

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Balder wrote: “But if these stories are true, then I believe linking I-I to that community (via Wilber in his professional role as “pandit”) is going to be damaging to I-I's credibility and integrity.”

That's true in my case. I see Wilber and Cohen exchanging notes on their disciples in their WIE wankfests, and assume Wilber is as bad as Cohen.

In an intro to one of Cohen's books, Wilber recommended the tough love of a rude guru such as Cohen. Neither of them received tough love from anyone, rather they do the opposite by padding their worlds with believers and avoiding critics, so why do they recommend something they never experienced? Cohen received nothing but love from his guru then when the guru stirred him up he wrote a book denouncing his guru!

I agree with someone above who wrote that you can't get through to Cohen. When he doubts himself he asks his closest friends and disciples if he is making a mistake. He should ask objective outsiders.

Terri, you are a true believer. I admire your passion and idealism. But you appear to be blind to the shadow. Did you read my links to the enneagram in the WIE pod? Andrew Cohen has a giant perfectionistic ego that divides the world into good and bad. He mixes that up with enlightenment. I thoroughly demolished Cohen's anti-ego stand in the WIE pod in my unanswered reply to Robert. Did you read that?

I think you and your co-disciples are mixing up cause and effect. You think that because Cohen talks about destroying the ego, any spiritual experiences you have with him or in his group are the consequence of egos being destroyed. It's not true. Cohen's definition of ego is “badness”. But egos that are aligned with goodness are as deluded as egos that are aligned with badness.

I'll post more and some links soon.

Re: There's Something About Andrew

I see that differently Martin, I think it would be damaging for the integrity of I-I if Ken Wilber would not associate with Andrew Cohen. The theory only takes you so far, beyond that, it is all about practice. It is great to talk about states & stages and levels & lines of development, but what does it really mean? What does AQAL mean when you live it?

          Now living it is obviously not going to work if a teacher (or a student) does not want to take responsibility for the real life consequences of these distinctions. And any teacher making those distinctions in real people, is obviously going to get a lot of flack, because if you have the guts to distinguish high from low and limited from integral, you are going to have supporters and detractors, friends and foes. You can't keep ‘m all happy :)

          I think it is terribly easy to denounce someone who is going against the status quo to create something new, who is endeavouring to bring to life with real people, who have real egos, a structure that most philosophers can only write about. And I think the world needs more people that think deeply enough to see through allegations like the ones mentioned in this thread, and who have the balls to stand up for that.

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Hi, Arjan,

I appreciate and respect that you have found your relationship with Andrew, and the work you are doing with him, to be positively transforming.  I agree with you that the world needs people seriously committed to transformative work – not just to accumulating trendy new translations.

In this thread, we've been discussing stories – admittedly second-hand – about some of the tactics Andrew is employing to challenge his students, to “destroy” the ego, to encourage or enforce devotion to him, and to gather money.  Are these stories true, and if so, do you believe they are justified in the overall context of the pursuit of evolutionary enlightenment?  Or do you think possibly some mistakes have been or are being made in this cutting edge experiment?  Or are the stories altogether false?

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Hello Balder,

In my response earlier in this thread I said to Keith;
 

You have a point there Keith, I get so sick at times with all the dirt that people who have never even met Andrew Cohen throw out everywhere about him, usually based on the accounts of a very small group of angry and disillusioned ex-students with a vengeance. And that makes me a little edgy now and then. I guess that comes with the territory.

I keep hearing the same stories, that completely differ from my own experience, and even encounter accounts of events that I was physically present at myself, and find myself entirely unable to recognize that particular account of that particular event because it is all totally distorted or taken out of context. That is why I tried to look at Jesus through the eyes of an angry moneychanger, it looks different if you leave out the most important things and contextualize the story with some interpretations masquerading as facts to support your argument.

I find it hard to bear that Andrew Cohen, who has the intention to share something very precious and miraculous with the people who come to him for that, gets charged with all kinds of crimes he did not commit and gets denounced by people that take stories they have not verified (and maybe also not want to verify) at face value. I simply think he is entitled to more open mindedness, especially from intelligent, leading edge, integral people, that know that old vMemes don't make way for something new easily…

Does that answer your question Balder?
Cheers, Arjan

Re: There's Something About Andrew

With respect to this pod, and commenters who expressed concern for the discussion being hijacked by some kind of Andrew Cohen attack/defense, this thread was started with Balder's post ”There's Something about Andrew”, and it seems to me that this unfolding discussion is important for all of us who are really interested in weighing the real human questions and issues that arise in relation to our modern day “gurus”.  Andrew is a case in point with many question marks and issues.  Yet his students seem to consistently glide past specific facts in favor of context or “perspective” on those facts. This is also true of Cohen himself as seen in his now famous “Declaration of Integrity”. It makes it hard to try to assess what's going on when facts and events are left out in favor of  perspectives and meme-speak.

However now Arjan has said:

“…I find it hard to bear that Andrew Cohen, who has the intention to share something very precious and miraculous with the people who come to him for that, gets charged with all kinds of crimes he did not commit and gets denounced by people that take stories they have not verified (and maybe also not want to verify) at face value…”

Arjan, are you saying that the acts like slapping, paint-dousing, donation extractions, etc. that have been documented by first-hand accounts of students are “unverified” falsifications of events that have happened? If so you are the perhaps ths first to say this. Is this what you are saying?
Thanks.
Scott

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Martin Gifford said:
“I think you and your co-disciples are mixing up cause and effect. You think that because Cohen talks about destroying the ego, any spiritual experiences you have with him or in his group are the consequence of egos being destroyed. It's not true. Cohen's definition of ego is “badness”. But egos that are aligned with goodness are as deluded as egos that are aligned with badness.”

Ah, so Hitler is Gandhi is Saddam is Desmond Tutu and we are all together?  :)  How very pluralistic of you.  But then, maybe Hamlet was onto something: “There's nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so.”  He would've made a great Advaita Vedantin…

-Tom

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Here's a link to my reply to Robert (a disciple of Cohen's), which I think is a thorough demolition of Andrew Cohen's anti-ego stance:

http://pods.zaadz.com/wie/discussions/view/72933#80718

Here's a link to Andrew Cohen's ego type, which should prove to anyone who knows Cohen that he has an ego:

http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/TypeOne.asp

I know people don't like reading about personality typing because it seems to put people in boxes, but the enneagram helps you be free from the box you are already in but maybe unaware of (the enneagram is about our blindspots).

Martin Gifford.

Re: There's Something About Andrew

A general question about terms: I'm wondering if we're working with several definitions of “ego” in this thread. Many spiritually minded folks emphasize the significance of “getting rid of ego,” but what they often mean is “getting rid of egocentricity” or “transcending the ego-identified self.” This ego-identified self is sometimes referred to as a “false self” or a “small self” that tends to hold illusions about having an existence separate from “all else.”  To get rid of these illusions would not mean destroying the ego itself, but to destroy the tendency to make one's ego the center of the Kosmos.

Here's an illuminating quote on ego from Robert Masters' book, Darkness Shining Wild:

Ego as a concept has negative connotations for many spiritual seekers, for whom it is simply an impediment, an obstacle in need of eradication. On the other hand, many psychologically oriented self-theorists view ego more neutrally, conceptualizing it as a process of knowing, thinking, and adapting. For example, Jane Loevinger claims that “the striving to master, to integrate, to make sense of experience is not one ego function among many but the essence of the ego.” …Ego could be said to be a cult of one (or a self-enclosed coalition of survival-oriented habits that automatically refers to itself as “I”).

If we're defining ego in the way that Masters and Loevinger do, it seems it would be disastrous to actually annihilate the ego.

Cohen must be familiar with the developmental schemes that Wilber espouses, which claim that the ego emerges at a certain stage of development and is necessary. Yet Wilber says “transcend and include ego” while Cohen says “destroy ego.”  Does Cohen think that ego serves development but must literally be annihilated at some point in order to awaken or become enlightened? Or is “destroy ego” just a kind of shorthand for “stop placing your ego at the center of the Kosmos?”

Perhaps people who are heavily egocentric experience a kind of annihilation when they go through whatever it is pulls them out of egocentricity – it may really feel to them that their ego has been destroyed. And maybe these folks benefit from more hardcore “rude boy” or “tough love” spiritual work that “shocks” them out of egocentricity. But as some of the writings on the above-linked 'What Enlightenment” blogs suggest, this work could prove disastrous for people with other kinds of temperaments – i.e. people with less-than-healthy egos, low self-esteem, etc. (I recall a forum discussion on Integral Naked about how so-called “ego-destroying” tactics often work well with men or masculine types, but not so well with women / feminine types, who have often already been conditioned to “squelch” their egos. Self-strengthening practices that boost ego-health and agency may be the better choice for women.)

At any rate, it seems to me that a genuine spiritual teacher or guru would be able to recognize, at some point, who is likely to benefit from the kind of teaching they have to offer  – who would make a good student or disciple for that particular path. Teachers and gurus who are not able to do this lack the necessary levels of intuition and discernment – which makes them potentially, if unintentionally, dangerous.

Mary

P.S. Martin, I just saw your posts – I deeply appreciate the Enneagram so I'll be checking out that link!

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Hi Mary

Thanks so much for that excellent clarifying point, which I do agree needs to be made.  I have one quibble with something you said:

Maryw: “At any rate, it seems to me that a genuine spiritual teacher or guru would be able to recognize, at some point, who is likely to benefit from the kind of teaching they have to offer  – who would make a good student or disciple for that particular path. Teachers and gurus who are not able to do this lack the necessary levels of intuition and discernment – which makes them potentially, if unintentionally, dangerous.”

Ideally this would be so, but it is so often the case that someone will only recognize the way they personally awoke as valid - you know, the classic “if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail” type of blind spot.  What is really likely to avoid this problem is not if the teacher is really “genuine” but if the teacher is really integral - and that is what is so fucking awesome about integrally informed teachers.  :)

A point I've been meaning to make about Andrew Cohen's work is: by now people must have a general idea of what to expect from Andrew's teaching style - so I would think that his students are kind self-selected and anyone seeking out Cohen now doesn't necessarily have the right to say later, “…and then he was really mean to me!”  I'm not sure how long he's had this reputation as a hard-ass, but it's been a while, surely.  Anyway, something to keep in mind.

And to get back to Mary's point again, I wonder if Andrew ever says to people, “You know, I don't think my way of teaching is for you - better find someone else,” or if he thinks his way is the only valid way.  Would any of the Cohen students who have so kindly joined this thread care to comment on that?  Also, has Andrew Cohen ever clarified what he means by the ego which must be destroyed?

spiral out,
arthur

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Hi Arthur –

You wrote: it is so often the case that someone will only recognize the way they personally awoke as valid - you know, the classic “if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail” type of blind spot.  What is really likely to avoid this problem is not if the teacher is really “genuine” but if the teacher is really integral

By “genuine” I mean “effective, authentic, and highly skilled” – which integral teachers certainly should be! But I suspect that there are also highly skilled teachers / gurus who are not integral …

Another afterthought: Even if seekers want Cohen as their guru (and thus “self select” him), in my opinion it would still be up to Cohen to determine who would be suitable for his more rough-edged “inner circle” teachings. But I really am interested in your question of whether he thinks his way is the only way –sometimes he really comes off sounding like that's what he thinks, but paradoxically he also runs a magazine which profiles teachers and teachings from a wide spectrum of spiritualities…

Re: There's Something About Andrew

I'm wanting to edit my post above but, dammit,  the time has passed so this will have to do:

By   Even if seekers want Cohen as their guru (and thus “self select” him), in my opinion it would still be up to Cohen to determine who would be suitable for his more rough-edged “inner circle” teachings

I really mean: even if someone seeks out a particular guru, a skilled guru (or teacher, or mentor) should usually be able to discern who is and who is not suited for that particular path. The student may not know any better; a skilled teacher would.

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Mary: “A general question about terms: I'm wondering if we're working with several definitions of “ego” in this thread. Many spiritually minded folks emphasize the significance of “getting rid of ego,” but what they often mean is “getting rid of egocentricity” or “transcending the ego-identified self.” This ego-identified self is sometimes referred to as a “false self” or a “small self” that tends to hold illusions about having an existence separate from “all else.”  To get rid of these illusions would not mean destroying the ego itself, but to destroy the tendency to make one's ego the center of the Kosmos.”

This is a great line to take.  I think it could use it's own thread.  I'll start one and link to it here.

Keith

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Hi All,

Yesterday I was tipped off about this very, um, interesting thread.  It's always fascinating to see the kinds of things wild speculation and abstract reasoning can conjure up–and how they often bear zero resemblance to anything passing for reality.  I've been a student of Andrew's for about seven years now, and I'm consistently amazed at the intensity of controversy generated around him, often from people who have never met him.  I think it says more about our postmodern culture–and its concomitant cynicism and narcissism–than anything else.

Keith said:
“I see neither of those qualities in Andrew, the humility or the love, and instead see a vein of pridefulness.”

I think this sentence sums up a lot of what makes this whole discussion suspect.  Because, Keith, when do you “see” Andrew?  I spend hours with him, just about every day.  I've never seen you around… :)  My point is: who, exactly, are you referring to?  Andrew is unequivocally the most humble, loving, compassionate, caring human being I've ever had the honor to know.  Granted, my testimony as a student is biased, but that's my actual experience–and it was my experience before I became a student…which is the reason I decided to leave my not-so-humble life as a young Integral punk behind and ask to be his student.  And believe me, I spent three years checking out teachers–one-pointedly–before I found one (one!) who seemed to have adamantine integrity, a profound enlightenment, and plenty of heart and soul.  And my initial analysis has only proved correct–and much more than I could possibly have known at the time.

The depth of Andrew’s humility boggles the (arrogant) mind… But it's something you might need to experience firsthand to totally get. His confidence in his experience is resolute, which some might interpret as arrogance or pride.  But he's only confident in his real experience, not in anything he doesn't ACTUALLY know.  That's the difference between wisdom and arrogance, between genuine humility and the kind of pretense that most of us are perpetually lost in. We pretend to know about things that we know nothing, or very little, about–just for the sake of conversation, or, more likely, egoic self-image: how we see ourselves and how we want others to see us. But Andrew is transparent about his experience, and he's so free it doesn't even faze him to admit things he doesn't know about…and often!  When the traditions say the guru functions as a “mirror,” it’s definitely true; by his example and the way he responds to things, compared to how I respond, I’m confronted with the extent of my own arrogance (and cynicism) time and time again. (Particularly in WIE meetings, where the conversations tend toward the intellectual and theoretical…)

In terms of the discussion about spiritual “lines” of development, unconditional love, ego, etc., that’s happening on this thread, I think there’s some confusion about the context we’re talking about, which is spiritual enlightenment.  Not feel-good spirituality, not relative, personal self-improvement or healing, and not some limited focus on meditative state experiences.  All of that is fine, and undoubtedly helps a lot of people to grow and mature as human beings, but it’s not what Andrew is about.  He’s a guru of an integral (or “post-postmodern”) nondual evolutionary enlightenment, which is something very specific.  It has nothing to do with feeling good or improving oneself, per se; it has to do, first and foremost, with Waking Up.  From what?  From our tiny, personal, dualistic dream of egoic self-concern, ignorance, and inertia.  It means “killing” your morbid, deeply embedded identification with selfishness (i.e., “ego-death”) and switching your soul’s allegiance, 100%, to something infinitely more positive, wholesome, good, ecstatically liberating, and Real.

As I was reading this whole thread, I kept thinking that a passage from my favorite author, Ken Wilber, the main man behind this particular Zaadz pod, might help clarify things a lot.  I know reading long quoted passages can be utterly tedious, but bear with me here–it’s worth considering.  It definitely had a big effect on me when I first read it.  From One Taste, pp. 92-93 (paperback ed.):
_____

“Yes, there is probably more confusion about this issue than any other in spiritual circles. Basically, most of the trouble comes from confusing compassion with idiot compassion, which are the terms Trungpa Rinpoche used for this crucial distinction.  We in this country–and especially in new-age circles–have a type of tepid egalitarianism and political correctness that says no view is really any better than another, and therefore all views are to be cherished equally, as a sign of rich diversity.  If we don’t make any judgments about better or worse, then we are showing real compassion.  So we have judgmental versus compassionate, and that is the common understanding….

“Idiot compassion thinks it is being kind, but it’s really being very cruel.  If you have an alcoholic friend and you know that one more drink might kill him, and yet he begs you for a drink, does real compassion say that you should give it to him?  After all, to be kind you should give him what he wants, right?  Who are you to impose your views on him, right?  Giving him the drink would therefore show compassion, yes?  No.  Absolutely not.

“Real compassion includes wisdom and so it makes judgments of care and concern: it says some things are good, and some things are bad, and I will choose to act only on those things that are informed by wisdom and care.  Giving a severe alcoholic a case of whiskey because he wants it and you want to be ‘kind’ is not being kind at all.  It is showing idiot compassion, not real compassion.

“Zen calls this the difference between ‘grandmother Zen’ and ‘real Zen.’  In order to awaken from the dream of samsara, the ego itself must be really kicked around, often severely.  Otherwise you will simply continue to play your favorite games.  Grandmother Zen doesn’t challenge you.  In order to be ‘kind,’ grandmother Zen will let you sleep a little late if you want, and stop meditating early if you don’t like how it’s going, and allow you to wallow in you.  But real Zen uses a very big stick, and lots of loud yelling, and there are occasionally broken bones and certainly shattered egos.  Real compassion kicks butt and takes names, and it is not pleasant on certain days.  If you are not ready for this fire, then find a new-age, sweetness-and-light, soft-speaking, perpetually smiling teacher, and learn to relabel your ego with spiritual-sounding terms.  But stay away from those who practice real compassion, because they will fry your ass, my friend.  What most people mean by ‘compassion’ is: please be nice to my ego. Well, your ego is your own worst enemy, and anybody being nice to it is not being compassionate to you.” [my emphasis]
_____
 
Keith, that’s why “unconditional love” is such a dubious concept.  If you really love someone, do you let them do things that are injurious to themselves (or others), simply because they want to?  Who, then, are you unconditionally loving?  The narcissistic part of the self, or the authentic self?  What if real love actually means helping someone to learn to cultivate and grow the best (and most loving) part of themselves—that is, the soul, not the ego?  Postmodern moral relativism tends to flatten everything out, to make no distinction between the ego and the soul.  No hierarchy, no “judgments of care and concern” are allowed.  And certainly no gurus!  Meanwhile, you have endless spiritual books going on about “care of the soul” this and that, but most of them clearly don’t know what they’re talking about (as Wilber has said, “soul” often just translates into “the postmodern ego in drag”).  But in my experience, there’s a HUGE difference between the ego and the soul.  They are two very different parts of the self, and they’re like oil and water: they do not mix. 

“The soul is first born into the false self, it is blind; in the true Self the soul opens its eyes.” –Hazrat Inayat Khan, The Bowl of Saki

I’ll, uh, stop here…this is getting rather long. ;)

–Tom

p.s. For those interested in the perspective from the other side of this whole playing field, I recommend you visit here: http://www.andrewcohen.org/notes/  Not very fair to make extremely harsh judgments without first hearing both sides of the story, is it?

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Soulplex,

I feel that was an excellent post. I’m curious to know if anyone sees me as differing from your words, in this thread, and if so I was wondering if they would share that with me. I’m really curious to hear if you yourself received an impression in that regard. I’m all about growth…

Again, very much appreciated!!

Seth

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Tom,

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.  I am glad to hear what you say about Andrew's level of humility and love.  I still remain suspicious, but at least I got some of what I asked for in one of my posts:

“I'd be interested in hearing how Andrew brings love into the hearts of his students.  We have probably been a bit disillusioned on the outside, hearing only the negative reports.  But some of his direct discourse is also telling us something.  Maybe we misunderstand.  Maybe it would be helpful, and I for one would be especially interested in seeing how if compassion (I gather you are passionate about your work and relationship, that's not what I mean) for the whole mystery has evolved in you after ten years of working with Andrew.”

More of what I am asking for is directly stated by Balder and restated by Scott:

“In the flurry of slick phrases and smoke & mirrors, Balder raised a very important question to Andrew's students which has still not been addressed:

“…In this thread, we've been discussing stories – admittedly second-hand – about some of the tactics Andrew is employing to challenge his students, to “destroy” the ego, to encourage or enforce devotion to him, and to gather money.  Are these stories true, and if so, do you believe they are justified in the overall context of the pursuit of evolutionary enlightenment?  Or do you think possibly some mistakes have been or are being made in this cutting edge experiment?  Or are the stories altogether false?…”

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Hi Keith,

You wrote, “My 'analysis' of his teaching is that it has limitations, and I think that comes from his perspective.  Also, there is such a thing as false humility just as there is idiot compassion.  For some reason, and again, as I have said before in this thread, I may be wrong, but I don't 'get' Andrew as being genuinely  humble.  That's just my perspective.”

Well, it's all a matter of perspectives, isn't it?  That's the message of Integral.  That's also what makes it damn near impossible to respond to the various ex-student “allegations” in any convincing way.  People will believe what they want to believe.  And if they have a green-altitude anti-guru bias, that tends to rather dramatically skew things from the get-go (and you can usually tell when someone is more interested in feeding their anti-guru cynicism than in simply learning what's actually true).  In terms of all that, none of us can set a clearer context for where those claims are coming from than Andrew, who wrote a ”Declaration of Integrity” a few months ago to respond to just this sort of thing.  A title like that probably makes you even more suspicious of this supposed “humility,” right? :)  Except that there is a very big difference between boldness and arrogance.  When Jesus said, “I and the Father are One” and similar statements, he wasn't just being self-aggrandizing, even though it might seem that way from a certain (limited) perspective.

And there is a hierarchy of perspectives.  Some are more accurate, and encompassing, than others.  To deny that is to deny evolution, and spiritual enlightenment itself.  (Which I'm not saying you are–I'm just making a general point.)  The green altitude (or meme) can't acknowledge hierarchy, can't fathom how it could potentially be a good thing, and so it cries Foul! when someone takes a stand for something…gulp…higher.  As Ken says, the refrain of the boomeritis ego is “Nobody tells me what to do!”  And when you enter into the context of a guru-disciple relationship, the whole point is that you're asking someone to tell you what to do.  That's a teacher's job.  But if you have a bad case of boomeritis, you'll be less likely to want to really consider what you're being told.

You also said:

“Regarding idiot compassion, I guess you missed this in my previous post:
“compassion is a key ingredient, not idiot compassion which I liken to coddling unruly children, but a totally transcendent compassion for the whole world”

and this from my post:
“Now, this unconditional love does not mean total lack of discernment or tendency to tolerate egoity.”

But the point is, just having “compassion for the whole world” is too vague; and not having a “total lack” of discernment is too ineffective.  You need to do better than just not having a total lack–you need to really want to SEE what ego is, ongoingly, constantly, to be able to discriminate between what it is and what it most definitely is not.  There's a black and white line that has to be drawn in the sand (like Jesus did in the desert).  Otherwise, what could being Free, or Enlightened, really even mean?  I think THAT is the real issue being avoided on this thread…

-Tom

Re: There's Something About Andrew

While I think this is an important discussion, and it seems to be staying just this side of civilized, I am concerned that there are several new pod members who seem to be here solely to discuss Andrew Cohen. I encourage you to wander around the pod and get to know the flavor of this place if you're truly interested in contributing to a pod that is centered around Integral Institute and integral theories in general. 

I personally am not so interested in anyone's credentials, so much as what they contribute to the pod.

I feel very strongly that this pod is not the place for an extended discussion of AC that elbows out all the other discussion on the pod. There are seemingly endless places where this debate has occurred online. I've read them. And you know what? It's still not resolved. It won't get resolved here, either. Why would this pod be any different than the hundreds of posts, blogs and forums that discuss this increasingly boring issue ad nauseum?

I suggest that those who are very attached to “winning” this argument look at that attachment and let it go. Or go elsewhere.

Liz

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Liz?

I was about to express my own misgivings about this very topic. Instead of elaborating, I'll merely second that. Thank you.

Deeply.


(And, of course, thanks too to everyone who's contributed to the thread; it's been sweet seeing a new chorus of voices and interactions. But again, much as I adore playing around in unwinnable arguments, I'm sensitive to the fact that the personal choices of Andrew Cohen and his students are not that pertinent to the themes of this pod, and, in truth, I'd rather our discussions be framed around something a mite less particular.)

$0.02  ;)

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Thank you, Liz, for raising important points.  I've been feeling uneasy about the same factors but hadn't quite put it in words yet; I'd like to reiterate what you said:

While I think this is an important discussion, and it seems to be staying just this side of civilized, I am concerned that there are several new pod members who seem to be here solely to discuss Andrew Cohen. I encourage you to wander around the pod and get to know the flavor of this place if you're truly interested in contributing to a pod that is centered around Integral Institute and integral theories in general. 

I personally am not so interested in anyone's credentials, so much as what they contribute to the pod.

I feel very strongly that this pod is not the place for an extended discussion of AC that elbows out all the other discussion on the pod. There are seemingly endless places where this debate has occurred online. I've read them. And you know what? It's still not resolved. It won't get resolved here, either. Why would this pod be any different than the hundreds of posts, blogs and forums that discuss this increasingly boring issue ad nauseum?

I suggest that those who are very attached to “winning” this argument look at that attachment and let it go. Or go elsewhere.

Liz

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's great to see the new voices here, and if you have relevant conversation to contribute to the pod, then welcome.  Please have a look around and see if any of the many threads and topics here interest you.   At this point, I respectfully - and strongly - suggest you take the Andrew Cohen discussion elsewhere - perhaps to the WIE pod? - and those who are interested can persue it there ad nauseum.

Arjan, that very definately includes you.  :)

I'm waiting to see if Andrew Cohen devotees have interests beyond defending Andrew Cohen; thus far in this pod, the evidence to that effect is minimal… :p

love to all,
arthur

Re: There's Something About Andrew

arthur (adastra) said:
“I'm waiting to see if Andrew Cohen devotees have interests beyond defending Andrew Cohen; thus far in this pod, the evidence to that effect is minimal… :p”

You asked for it… :)

-Tom Huston
(a founding member of I-I who will happily explore the rest of this pod–and the WIE one he should be posting on more regularly–as soon as his latest article is finished…)

Re: There's Something About Andrew

I don't think it's necessary to kill this thread or move all discussion of Andrew Cohen to WIE.  A single thread dedicated to this discussion is not harming this pod, in my opinion; and in fact, it has brought together people from two different communities who haven't been communicating much, but probably should be! 

I am interested in understanding what really is going on, and I would be happy to overcome the rather negative impression I've built up over the years through hearing all sorts of stories (starting around ten years ago).  I would be delighted to hear that my distrust is misplaced.  I have tried to ask some rather direct questions about these things, too, but so far no one is responding to them.  I'm still waiting for that, and I hope you don't shoo everyone away, Arthur, before that can happen.

I'm interested in passionate, affectionate inquiry and dialogue here.  This conversation may not have started off the best way, but it did arouse interest and attract attention, and I hope something productive can come of it.

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Hi, Arjan,

Did you miss my post to you in the fray that this thread has unexpectedly unleashed?

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this thread.  In the last few days the vast majority of new posts in this pod are on this one topic, and it is sucking energy away from the rest of the pod.  The 80+ posts so far have not resolved this issue, nor are the next 80 or 800 or 8000 likely to do so to everyone's satisfaction.  I don't want to “shut down” conversation, merely to move it to a more appropriate location.  :) 

So, for those who wish to continue with this topic, I invite you to take it
to the WIE pod, which is much more suitable for this debate:

http://pods.zaadz.com/wie
 
I'd also like to extend a warm welcome to those who have recently joined this pod, and invite you to participate in the many conversations taking place in this Integral Institute pod.  In particular, feel free to contribute to the Introduce Yourself board, so that we can get to know you better; also please check out the Road Rules for Transformation which form the basic guidelines for this pod.

This thread is now locked.

namaste,
arthur

Re: There's Something About Andrew

This thread is no longer locked - haver away, holons!


I apologise to everyone for shutting the thread down prematurely (which appears to be the general viewpoint).  Furthermore, I regret not contacting the thread starter before or after locking it.

The Road Rules for Transformation continue to be in effect, and personal attacks (none so far that I've noticed) will not be tolerated.  I may also choose to lock the thread at a later date, should it become necessary.

I would ask people to also read a thread I started elsewhere, regarding how to give feedback on the pod and moderators:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hi everybody

If anything on the pod needs attention, or you have a question, the best way to make sure your feedback is heard as soon as possible is to send a PM to one of the moderators - you can tell who they are because they have “mod” under their names and appear at the top of the member list.  As of this writing only I (adastra) am actively moderating the pod, although Casey is still listed as a mod and may jump in at any time. 

This is a volunteer position I have agreed to take on, having been asked by ~c4chaos, who - as the pod cultivator - has the power to appoint or remove moderators.  Should you have comments or complaints about the actions or comments of any moderator, I suggest you PM ~c4chaos about it.

The Feedback and Suggestions board is also a good way to give feedback, and has the additional advantage that other people on the pod will read your feedback and may comment on it. 

Shine on, you crazy diamonds :)

arthur

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I respectfully suggest that leaving the forum because you disagree with one moderator decision or the way it was enacted may not be the most skillful means at your disposal.  Offering feedback or asking the offending moderator to be removed are alternative possibilities.

For the record, I think the members of the Andrew Cohen community have completely avoided answering direct questions about conduct on the part of their (in)famous leader, which in my opinion does not look good, frankly. 

Given the recent controversy, I'm inclined to let this thread run for a while no matter what, but we'll see how it goes.

Lock and load, people.  :p

Oh, one more thing - please PM me if there's something you feel needs attention.  I'm finding it very hard to keep up with the pod lately - which is pleasing considering it was completely dead when I took on the moderator position - and I don't have time to read every thread, especially if I lose interest in it after a while)

arthur

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Arthur –

Bless your aqualiciously moderating heart! You seriously rock. (was gonna say fuckin rock but I'll leave that for your gf to decide …)

cyberhugs,
Mary

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Thanks for your moderating integrity, Arthur, in keeping this thread open. I appreciate a comment you made in doing so, which I just want to reiterate for the sake of this discussion:

adastra  said:
“…For the record, I think the members of the Andrew Cohen community have completely avoided answering direct questions about conduct on the part of their (in)famous leader, which in my opinion does not look good, frankly…”

I agree heartily, it does not look good; yet I'm hopeful, and await with everyone here Andrew Cohen's community members' responses to those “direct questions” (do I need to re-post them?)

Thank you.
Scott

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Perhaps the tourists have left the island…?

It may be that they decided as a group not to come back. My most generous impulse says they probably felt they had caused too much trouble and didn't want to disturb us any more. I don't have any idea if they have some sort of “groupthink” going on, but it could be a good thing. Maybe they will come back and help us realise enlightenment when we're ready. I speak only for myself when I say, “gulp.” I don't guess I am.

For anyone who really wants answers, my guess is that it wouldn't be difficult to track them down elsewhere and just ask. Or send a private message, etc.

Liz

Re: There's Something About Andrew

No worries, I am still here, still on the island.
love, Arjan

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Hey Arjan, glad to know you're still here on the “island” :)  So since you're here, I'm hoping that you'd be so kind as to respond to my earlier question?
I'll restate it for you:

YOU said:

“…I find it hard to bear that Andrew Cohen, who has the intention to share something very precious and miraculous with the people who come to him for that, gets charged with all kinds of crimes he did not commit and gets denounced by people that take stories they have not verified (and maybe also not want to verify) at face value…”

Arjan, are you saying that the acts like physical assaults like slapping, paint-dousing or large donation extractions, etc. that have been documented by first-hand accounts of students are “unverified” falsifications of events that have happened?

By the way I saw on the What Enlightenment blog that you were one of those who were seen  slapped by your teacher, Andrew himself.
Here's an excerpt from that article:

“…A former senior student reports slapping other students on Andrew’s orders…He saw Andrew personally strike Calvin Phipps, Arjan Kindermans, Mike Dutka and several other men…”

Are you saying that this never occurred? Or are you saying it happened, but that it was a good thing?
Thanks for clarifying.
Scott

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Tom/Soulplex:
Not feel-good spirituality, not relative, personal self-improvement or healing, and not some limited focus on meditative state experiences.  All of that is fine, and undoubtedly helps a lot of people to grow and mature as human beings, but it's not what Andrew is about.  He's a guru of an integral (or “post-postmodern”) nondual evolutionary enlightenment, which is something very specific.  It has nothing to do with feeling good or improving oneself, per se; it has to do, first and foremost, with Waking Up.  From what?  From our tiny, personal, dualistic dream of egoic self-concern, ignorance, and inertia.  It means “killing” your morbid, deeply embedded identification with selfishness (i.e., “ego-death”) and switching your soul's allegiance, 100%, to something infinitely more positive, wholesome, good, ecstatically liberating, and Real.

I wouldn't say that a guru of a nondual evolutionary enlightenment who does not focus on the relative side is very integral. Unless he at least emphasizes the importance of those components. And what is wrong about focusing on meditative state experiences? Probably nothing if we factor in that non-dualism is a state experience by definition, even if it is an extended plateau phase.

In an ISC conference call a couple of weeks back Ken emphasized several times that it is important to work on the relative you before breaking through into causal and non-dual, because once there you might not care about the relative any more. Especially the moral line of development, which extends the compassionate embrace to more and more people, is important to develop beforehand according to Ken.

The fact that you in your post seem reject important lines of development that are part of the ego-structure, seems very un-integral and almost dangerous to me. I might be misinterpreting what you are saying, if so could you please clarify?

Pelle

Re: There's Something About Andrew Cohen

Here are some random comments in response to previous posters and this thread…

Guru scandals are inevitable. The position of guru is corrupt from the beginning. People with power over others too easily use it. It’s instinctual. After all, why do they want power over others? Why do others give them power? A commentator above asked how it would change your thinking if you experienced someone as God. It wouldn’t change my thinking. Why would the guru let you see them as God? You can really only see God as God, not a person. Your biggest experience isn’t necessarily true or the ultimate experience. We shouldn’t fall for interpretations of experience that happen moments after an experience. The door might be open in a person, but that doesn’t mean the person is God. If they are God, then let them prove it. Manifest a universe or a Boeing 747 or something. And vabuti (sp?) doesn’t count.

You cannot know if a person is your guru until they have set you free, and then it’s too late to call them your guru because you are already free. Glimpses aren’t enough. Besides, how far are we from ourselves? How far are we from reality? Why do we need gurus and long seeking processes? Doesn’t this prove that guru’s aren’t God? God would enlighten you quick smart! She would fry your mind more like it.

I agree that the guru-disciple relationship is “plagued with transference issues, power imbalances, and parent-child concerns that all too often go unaddressed.” Papaji means Daddyji, and Ammaji means Motherji. She even calls her disciples her children. There’s a website called ammaschildren.org. Too bizarre!

If you read Cohen’s blog, you will see him writing I, I, I a lot. And the comments from his disciples are such unintelligent gushing. If they were my disciples I’d rebuke them! But I think Cohen sees the comments as proof of commitment. His blog about disciplining of his wife is tragic in my view, but the disciples lapped it up.

Wilber’s collusive silence over the allegations and his approval of Cohen’s tough love/rude guru approach is pitiful. It reminds me of Wilber’s approval of Adi Da who is a gurumonster too. Perhaps Wilber is being inclusive of the lower levels of reality. But this would demonstrate that his attachment to his philosophy is overruling his bullshit detector.

When Cohen was 16 he had a spiritual experience where a voice said to him, that if he serves the voice then everything will be okay. Perhaps Cohen thinks he is serving the voice and that makes him immune to criticism.

When I was involved with his group for about a year, I noticed that the followers started dressing like him e.g. buttoning up the top button of their shirts and growing moustaches! They talked in a similar way. It seemed to be required that you agree that the last Cohen video you all saw was wonderful. There was lots of spying and gossiping. And every time we found out some new bizarre thing like the hierarchy of students or prostrations, some people would laugh but soon people would fall into line due to social pressure or due to idealism. There was a lot of social shaming about leaving the group - they called it pulling back or stepping down or something (I forget).

Idealism is the big attractor. Being a perfectionist, Cohen mirrors people’s ideals back to them so they fall in love with their own ideals. People assume that if Cohen keeps talking about ideals he must be the embodiment of those ideals and he gives hints that he is the “untainted mirror.” Perfectionists obey their superego, and the superego is very powerful in social situations. I think he channels his superego as much as he talks from an enlightened place.

The disciples seem to be blind to his appalling behaviour. They see it in terms of sacrifices needing to be made for the ideal i.e. “for the sake of the whole,” whatever that means. I’ve asked them some questions on WIE pod but they just “jump in” to defend their guru then disappear. He keeps them busy with group meetings, prostrations, service, etc. They closed down the heated thread mentioned above in such a dodgy way. The disciple Robert said that other posters had an agenda, and he claimed that he had already got the message from posters, so it was pointless continuing. The most poignant message in the thread was that an old woman had been basically hounded to death by Cohen. Instead of answering that accusation, Robert said he “got the message” and closed the thread. Disgraceful. Hello, there was a corpse in the room to be discussed.

I suspect Cohen humiliates women to distance himself from temptation like those horrible medieval priests who were also puritanical perfectionists.

Since leaving Papaji in a huff, Cohen has surrounded himself with people who agree with him, so it’s true that his “ego forms an impenetrable carapace.” He rushed into gurudom too and seems to bask in the role.

The enneagram is a great tool for separating a person’s enlightened words from their egoic words. For example, Cohen’s black and white morality can be separated out as his perfectionistic ego talking, and Krishnamurti’s authority trips can be separated as his anti-authoritarian ego talking.

The accusations against Cohen aren’t hearsay. Wilber said that Cohen is a rude guru and that most people “don’t know the half of it.” If you read his blog, you’ll find that Cohen basically admits it and then says he warned people before they joined that it would demand everything and more, and he calls ex-disciples “losers”.

The anti-ego orientation of Cohen and his disciples shows that they fundamentally don’t trust people and unfolding of life. It’s a kind of anger at naughtiness and a desire to become some kind of superhero like Neo in the Matrix or like Jesus. It all started with Papaji pushing Cohen away. By the way, if you read Cohen’s first book on his enlightenment with Papaji, you will see Cohen referring to Papaji as his perfect father and to himself as Papaji’s perfect son and that he would do better than Papaji, etc. It reads as very neurotic stuff. I accepted all of the weird stuff because of the idealism and for the social side.

Martin Gifford.

Re: There's Something About Andrew Cohen

Hey Martin, I really like that sentence of yours: ”You cannot know if a person is your guru until they have set you free, and then it's too late to call them your guru because you are already free”.

I like it 'cause it's a sentence that encompasses so many psychological process.

But I'll add something: You cannot know if a person is a true Guru until you have set yourself free and see their reaction. A Guru can throw you out when he thikns your ready…good. But I think it's better that you leave and he should let you leave. This will allow oneself to disengage from the Guru from one's own accord, which is a sign of maturity. His reaction will be an indication of his qualities (fosterer of dependance, fosterer of freedom)

Once your freed, your Guru is still your Guru Though.. Well that's my experience. But what changes is that  you can give him back. You become a challenge, an opponent, a partner, and not any more a blind follower. Some Guru's can't tolerate that..F them. It's exactly as with our parents.

I have freed myself from my Guru, I have gone through many emotions. I went to him and told him what a shit he was! He took it…Then I was free…and I love him.

The problem with guru's is … I will post the rest on the corresponding thread.

Arthur: well done. Respect to you. Nothing more to say.

Patrick

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Good to know, Arjan. Perhaps you'll buy some property and settle down here on our wee slice of paradise…

Re: There's Something About Andrew

As it should not be missed: Arthur, wel done. Respect to you. Nothing more to say

Patrick

Re: There's Something About Andrew

I echo that … and will happily drink to it ….. Aaaarhh m' hearties, where's that rum!!

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Arthur, I've said this in PM's, but I want to say it publicly too:  thank you for reconsidering your decision to lock this thread.  I appreciate how you have responded to the complaints about the closure.  The thread may have spent its life anyway, but we'll see…

~*~

I have felt some qualms about starting this thread, because it could easily go in the direction of gossip and judgmentalism (rather than discerning judgment and serious inquiry).  My opening post was largely an emotional expression, admittedly based on hearsay and he said/she said stories, so that's shaky ground to start out with.  So far, though, I think we've avoided going down that road for the most part.  I want to emphasize here that there are a number of things about Andrew and his work that I like (WIE is an excellent product, for instance), but I've just had this nagging distrust of him because of the stories I've heard over the years.  I would like to know if the stories I've heard are exaggerations, or incredibly one-sided, or whatever.  I am thankful several of his students and members of his community have shown up here, and I am interested in hearing your experiences and opinions.

Concerning Andrew's “rude boy” reputation:  I think there's a place for Rinzai-style fierceness on the spiritual path, and if people consciously elect to enter that sort of environment in the service of deep growth and transformation, I respect that.   I have just been concerned that something else is going on – something less than clear, and something that has obviously been damaging to some people.

I honestly don't know what to make of the apparent reticence of Andrew's students on this thread to answer direct questions about some of the stories.  I am hoping that responses are still forthcoming.  Obviously, no one is obligated to answer the sorts of accusations that have surfaced in various blogs, and maybe some of you have answered them elsewhere.  For my part, I'm a serious student of Integral spirituality, and I am interested in hearing about what is happening in a community that is modeling itself, in part, on AQAL.  Particularly, in the context of this thread, I am interested in hearing how some of the more controversial claims – physical assaults on other members; the shaming, harsh treatment of women; the room painted with “guru's blood”; the suggestion that disagreeing with Andrew is an offense (which may require penance); the purported coercion of donations; etc – fit into a path dedicated to integral, evolutionary enlightenment.  If they are, indeed, true.

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Having been Andrews student for some years (not any longer) and consider him my one and only “Guru” that propelled me into unbelievable realms, undreamed-of perspectives and gave me an understanding of spiritual life in community in an evolutionary context, I thought I share my story.
If you're interested have a look at the link http://final-freedom.blogspot.com/

For you who haven't met Andrew personally I can only encourage you to see him. Go with an open mind, open ears and open heart and you might find something extraordinary.

Bjorn

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Balder: “Arthur, I've said this in PM's, but I want to say it publicly too:  thank you for reconsidering your decision to lock this thread.  I appreciate how you have responded to the complaints about the closure.  The thread may have spent its life anyway, but we'll see…”

You're welcome…thanks also to those who have given me kudos for my overall moderator performance here.  Constructive criticism is always welcome, even if it's positive…  :p 

I also have to admit that the thread has not gone down the dark path I envisioned.  This pod seems to collectively be doing quite well in keeping debate civilized and within the framework of the Road Rules for Transformation.

arthur

RE: There's Something About Andrew

Firstly I'd like to address those who believe this thread is bad or in the wrong place, then I'll address other comments in order.

Since when is asking obvious questions and searching for straight answers wrong? And isn't defending natural? Only if you place superficial peace ahead of reality, will you think that this thread is bad. If you tolerate discomfort in the beginning, then enquiry brings great results. Of course, your objections are a valuable part of this unfolding of life here in this thread. However, you need to make a stronger case if you want to close it down. We only need to move the debate forward, and that's up to you as much as others. You can change the direction of the thread with your insight. Also, a “hot” thread is a good thread… so long as you intelligently participate. When did a shop close because it was selling too many hotcakes? If you make your case to change the direction of a thread - it might even get hotter. Take it as a good challenge. The issue of this thread is the link between Andrew Cohen and Ken Wilber and what it means, so it's important. All life gets off to a rough start, and so has this thread, and that's okay. We should include everything here (because life is whole) so long as our comments are informed and on topic. My view on the topic of this thread is that Cohen's worldview is one of competition, winners and losers, and good people vs bad people, and that is the same old divisiveness that anti-life society propagates, which ultimately leads to war. It seems to be in stark contrast to Wilber's good inclusive models and worldview. This difference needs to be discussed, don't you think?

Terri, here's a quote from Andrew that I think is relevent: “Often when a person meets a teacher in whom the Absolute is manifesting to a powerful degree, their heart will open up unexpectedly. They may experience unusual insight and understanding just through mere association with this kind of extraordinary individual. After this kind of experience it is easy to understand how one may get very attached to that individual. The bond that is formed through experiences like these runs very deep. Slowly without even realizing it, in order to protect the love and beauty of that precious event, the person starts to be willing to overlook things. The minute that begins, they become corrupt themselves.” See: http://www.wie.org/j9/andrew_slavery.asp. Do you see how it can appear to outsiders that this is exactly what has happened in the case of Andrew and his disciples?

MaryW, you wrote some lucid comments. You are a very clear thinker. For a debate on the definition of ego I suggest you read this WIE thread between me and a Cohen disciple, Robert: http://pods.zaadz.com/wie/discussions/view/72933#80718. There's also more on the “Why does everyone want to overcome, destroy or ignore the Ego?” thread. My simplest definition of ego is: “Those parts of ourselves that are interested in defending the body.” In some cases, the ego's actions may become violent, domineering, and abusive, but it's still fundamentally self-defence. Such a person is not “evil”. They just need improved information. In the meantime, imprisonment is the best solution to egos that go too far. I agree that we should transcend and include the ego. Show me someone with no ego! By “destroy ego”, people really mean destroy naughtiness, which I think is just an expression of uninformed ego. Naughtiness hides in good boys and good girls too, and it inevitably comes out when real or imagined threats to survival arise - I've never seen an exception. People feel “a kind of annihilation” if their ego happens to be activated during a spiritual experience. The ego doesn't go anywhere - it is either in abeyance or it is active. For spiritual experience, it's best if the ego is in abeyance, and trust helps that to happen.

Arthur, I have found the opposite - gurus often recommend methods that were not responsible for awakening them. Cohen got it through advaita, but he now teaches a kind of karma yoga, “You are what you do.” Tolle got it through enquiry, but now teaches about emotional bodies and stuff. Also, Cohen seduces in the beginning, then gradually gets tough and rude. I don't think many intelligent people would become a disciple of a New Yorker who asked you to do 1,000 prostrations per day to his photo, make yourself available for slapping, and give away all your money - all that comes later.

Keith, I agree that Andrew is essentially innocent. I think we are all essentially innocent because life is innocent. That doesn't stop us from pointing out errors, etc. That's part of the unfolding of life's potential.

Arjan, I agree that you've got to live it, but what are you living? Your understanding must be good if what you live is going to be wholesome. What “consequences” can there be for someone who is more advanced or aiming to be more advanced? The more advanced you are the more capable you should be in life, so why the drama? That which is truly higher should be able to easily deal with the lower. It doesn't take guts to distinguish high from low. Why do you say it does? Aren't you just being dramatic? The problem is that Cohen is judgemental, rather than discerning. If you are wise, then you shouldn't create too many foes and you should attract friends because of your inclusiveness. You say people are trying to “denounce someone who is going against the status quo to create something new…” Where is the evidence that someone is denouncing Andrew for that reason? People are just listing allegations and asking for straight answers - they aren't resisting his efforts to go against the status quo. If the allegations are true, then such behaviour is well within the status quo, not against it! Also, we put down only some of our protection systems; and we do it temporarily i.e. only while it is safe to do so, or only while we are attracted to something or someone. Regarding the stories of Andrew Cohen's failures: what if you forget the context and take them at face value? What do you think of people slapping each other? Can we make a list of all the accusations and see which ones happened and which ones didn't? We know slapping happened because it was reported in WIE magazine. So we can tick that one off. How about the $2,000,000 donation? Did that happen? Was there pressure applied? Regarding listening: In addition to listening to our soul or to a guru, we can listen to each other and to life. No matter how unpleasant something is - it's all one. Life is thoroughly trustworthy once we know how to learn from it.

Tom (AKA Soulplex), over 200,000 people died during the partition of India and Pakistan, which Gandhi initiated. However, everybody is essentially innocent because life is innocent and we are aspects of life. It is easy to see that naughty people are stuck in the beginning stage of the unfolding of life. All lifeforms fight for (real or imagined) survival in the beginning. Yes, indeed we are all together. Andrew Cohen mentioned that he had a spiritual experience where every place in the universe was the same place - like it or not. Your divisions and Andrew's divisions are faulty and are part of the problem. Dividing life into good and bad leads to some new bad arising, especially in the long-term. When we fight the bad, the apparently good and heroic part of ourselves gets inflated and exclusive, and this is a marked characteristic of your organisation. Also, life is whole so if you place ego in time and context, then you will see that it has its place - ego is necessary in the beginning of life when there is little information and lots of competitors around. Ego is also necessary in emergencies. But my point regarding good and bad egos was that good egos and bad egos are both intellectually limited. That's because they are prejudiced, so they don't look at things freshly. They see life unfolding according to their filter of good vs bad, and myself vs others or God. It is the original mistake in the Garden of Eden - eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Tom, I'm glad you are in this discussion. Will you continue? If you are too busy, then can you ask Andrew for some time off to dig deeply into this issue? Or I'll debate it with the man himself, if he is willing. By the way, have you read my reply to the disciple Robert, to which he never responded? It covers the main points. It's here: http://pods.zaadz.com/wie/discussions/view/72933#80718. What is your response? Regarding the “cynicism and narcissism” of those involved in this “intensity of controversy”, in what specific ways are their criticisms different from Andrew's criticism of Papaji, and his criticism of other gurus, and his criticism of his own ex-disciples? Andrew has been making a fuss about Papaji for 20 years! Regarding humility - I have met Andrew (as have many of his critics), and I would not say he is humble. He has very personal standards, and if you cross them he freaks out. It is hard to even talk to him - it's like tip-toeing around a trapped animal. You wouldn't see this because you agree with him. You have to see it from an outsider's viewpoint. People who disagree with him, or even question him, inadvertently upset him. If you surround yourself with people who fundamentally agree with you, and who call you their guru, and who say how perfect you are, then you can afford to relax and admit that you don't know it all. You would even get extra points for that extra display of humility! Real humility, on the other hand, would be to find people who disagree with you and then face what they have to say. Resolute confidence is often due to boneheadness. Confident people are usually not very insightful, although they may be skilful in making things happen. Confident people rise to the top, when in reality they would be better suited to implementing programs rather than designing programs. George Bush is a fool yet he's the most powerful man in the world and he often expresses confidence in his views and actions, and that's because he's a simplistic thinker. Often the most intelligent and insightful people can seem timid and doubtful - that's because life is complex and they deeply understand that fact. Regarding ego death: can you show me someone who has no ego, who is actively living in the world without body guards? Do you understand that Andrew Cohen has a perfectionistic ego as described here: http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/TypeOne.asp? Regarding hierarchy: yes, some beings are more advanced than others, but the idea of them having authority over others is dodgy. Only God has sufficient wholeness to have genuine authority… and She doesn't exercise it!!!! Perhaps that's because She really knows what's going on.

Carter, I value the experiences of Andrew's disciples, but I think a lot of baggage needs to be removed, which would improve the likelihood of success for Andrew and his disciples. To paraphrase Andrew: delusion and profound realisation can coexist. Andrew's main delusion is his anti-ego stance and this leads to excessive judgement and exclusivity, and it indicates an implicit distrust of life. Regarding autonomy: I have not noticed “autonomy” among Andrew Cohen's disciples. They repeat Cohenisms, copy his mannerisms, dress like him, etc. They look like clones, like Agent Smiths with moustaches. I look forward to seeing one of the disciples finally graduate and start expressing his or her unique self rather than channelling Andrew. I absolutely agree that there are higher authorities in this universe, but they are higher due to their understanding and state of consciousness, and because of that they do not assert authority over others.

Scott, I love how you stick to the question. That's how you get answers… eventually. Yes, there has been a “flurry of slick phrases and smoke & mirrors.” Andrew Cohen established a standard for moral behaviour for a guru when he wrote, “Just go by the basics. There are some very basic, ethical laws that anybody who's not insane knows. They are not esoteric.” That's the same standard his accusers are applying. If he and Cohen and his disciples now want to change that by introducing “context” as a valid excuse, then they have got a lot of proving to do. But doing 1,000 prostrations per day to Cohen's photo keeps his disciples busy. And it's hard for them to consider that they might be colluding in something wrong, because look at this: they idolise their guru who then approves of them and tells them they are helping God evolve; they tell each other they are heroically evolving God and saving the world; they achieve promotions through the ranks, so status is involved; visiting gurus and religious leaders bless them via WIE magazine; and Ken Wilber, the most famous spiritual intellectual, endorses them. That's a whole lotta ego-bolstering to bust through! Also, since their guru says that everything is either black or white, they fear their only alternative is to become evil losers. So we've got to make the point that they can remove the deluded stuff without losing the wise stuff. They have been blinded by the light of their ideals, and they keep gazing at those ideals and at the one they have projected their ideals onto.

Liz and Siona, as a newcomer, I will wander around this pod. At first I thought Ken Wilber was an obscurantist intellectual. Then when he backed Cohen to the hilt, I was repelled. Have you read his introduction to Living Enlightenment? It's ridiculous - Wilber even implies that he swallows galaxies whole and that Andrew Cohen will help you do it too. So my opinion of him went down - I thought he isn't even an intellectual. Then I started reading A Brief History of Everything, and I like many aspects of his philosophy. But I do have to question his approval of Cohen and his silence on the serious issues raised here and elsewhere. He actually approves of Cohen being a rude guru. I shake my head trying to understand why such an obviously intelligent guy would endorse Cohen so forcefully. It's incongruous.

I guess most women don't like to see disagreement. Could it be that you are attracted to Wilber partly because of the inclusiveness and lack of conflict that his philosophy implies? Sometimes, to get to the truth, verbal conflict must happen. A lot of crap goes down in polite civilised society. People on both sides of this debate think crap is going down, so let's work on getting it all out into the open and getting it clear.

So far, in my reading of A Brief History of Everything, I disagree with Wilber on two points. Firstly, he says that we create reality by our worldview. I think we only alter our experience of reality, by our worldview; we don't create reality. Or we could say we contribute a little to creating reality. Secondly, Wilber seems to be saying that we are evolving along with the expansion of our worldviews. While I agree with that, it is only a part of the story. The stages of human development are due to learning from life. However, the learning is tainted because it has been within the competitive exclusive survival paradigm and so the worldviews were faulty and failed. When we operate in a bubble of exclusivity, we can make things work for a while, and we get excited by the apparent progress, but the inherent contradiction eventually surfaces. When we realise that we can operate from the cooperative inclusive happiness paradigm, then the progress we make will be harmonious and dependable.

The problem isn't with the limitations of the worldviews; the problem is with our fundamental orientation to life. Currently, our orientation is survival but it is gradually moving towards happiness. Unfortunately, that movement is based mostly on idealism. Understanding is a better basis for learning and evolving because it accepts, and begins with, the whole reality of life. Idealism, on the other hand, is a method from the old survival paradigm that is in conflict with the whole reality of life. The best progress in human life has been the product of learning how life works, not by imposing our paltry ideals on life. (More on this is in my website article: http://www.worldwidehappiness.org/.)

Martin Gifford.

RE: There's Something About Andrew

Martin, to Siona and me: “I guess most women don't like to see disagreement. Could it be that you are attracted to Wilber partly because of the inclusiveness and lack of conflict that his philosophy implies? Sometimes, to get to the truth, verbal conflict must happen. A lot of crap goes down in polite civilised society. People on both sides of this debate think crap is going down, so let's work on getting it all out into the open and getting it clear.”

Martin, can you possibly be serious? Have you actually read anything that Siona has written? I guess I'll let her answer for herself.

As for me, I'm no stranger to verbal or any other kind of conflict, which you might not know from my recent posts.

I was very clear about my reasons for not wanting this debate here, none of which had anything to do with avoiding conflict for it's own sake. I will have to repeat myself, as you seem not to have grasped my meaning the first time: getting this debate “out in the open and getting it clear” to the satisfaction of all parties involved is not going to happen here, if it hasn't happened in all the myriad places that this debate has been raging for ages already. To think that you somehow hold the key to solving this issue is the height of hubris.

Martin, most men want conflict and to be proven right all the time. You must be one of them.

Don't like being told that you and most men are all alike? Well, join the club. I don't much appreciate it, either. It's sexist and condescending, and if you keep it up, you'll find out just how much conflict I don't avoid.

Liz

Re: RE: There's Something About Andrew

Martin: Um. “Most women don't like conflict.” Thanks for so blithely casting me nicely into the net of “most women.” I think I've been one of the more provocative posters in this pod, and I really don't appreciated being so neatly categorized.

You write: “Could it be you are attracted to Wilber partly because of the inclusiveness and lack of conflict that his philosophy implies?” Uh. Again. Are you aware that some of Wilber's most scathing detractors are feminists, for precisely the opposite reason of what you just wrote? And that I am not “attracted to Wilber” (and I'm assuming you mean his system of thinking, not his bald head) but in fact quite critical of the fundamental methodology of Integral?

In any case, when it comes to debate and “getting to the truth,” I think it's presumptuous to assume “a truth;” in fact, I'd say that as long as it's debate that's occurring, we may as well give up on any truth being decided. Instead, both camps are going to retreat further into the perspectives they've chosen to defend and will only solidify their respective views. (And if you'd like I can drag out a few scientific papers that will confirm this hypothesis.) I'm more interested in discussion, and finding a common ground – debate, I've come to more and more to realize, is relatively useless if the interest is in discovering what's true.

Anyway. You may well feel differently. That's cool. Most men do.

Kidding, kidding. ;)

The reason I was opposed to this thread is not because debate scares me or because I'm (ooooh!) frightened of conflict, but because I was concerned that it would become a gossipy conversation about the moral character of two individuals. I don't consider the personal life or personality of either Wilber or Cohen pertinent to what they write; I've never met either of them and don't see how their behavior should influence whether or not I'm able to find something of value in their work. It's a trite example, but Jefferson owned slaves; this doesn't mean we junk the Constitution (Pursuit of happiness? I'm sure you're a fan. ;) ). As long as we keep the dialogue at the level of the ideas of both men, I have no problem with the discussion. Because, however, there are certain members of the conversation who do have personal connections with both characters, I was - perhaps unfairly - concerned that the thread would fall to the level of anecdote and possible slander / defense. I know Balder's initial question was about his concern that Andrew's behavior might color the “Wilberian Integral movement,” but because I am emphatically not a part of the Wilberian Integral movement, I could really care less about whether or not Cohen's actions influenced how people viewed Wilber, or those who subscribe to his views.

However!! For the record, Martin, I do like much of what you wrote. I went back and read your responses to others while I was feeling more than a little aggressive and more than ready to pick a fight, but for the most part, I very much appreciate your perspective and philosophy. So thank you, deeply, for contributing; you've made me look forward a little more to where this conversation might go, because I did find your analysis of ego and morality (good / bad) quite personally valuable,  and very much in accordance with my own intuitions about Cohen's philosophy. So thank you, again.

(And while I'm here . . Arthur? Balder? Kudos to both of you for navigating that hiccup so gracefully. I continue to be impressed by this pod.)

Okay. Enough from me, the non-Wilberite who knows next to nothing about Andrew Cohen's position. I don't even know what I'm doing here.

;)

Re: RE: There's Something About Andrew

Arjan, Carter, Tom (Soulplex), where are you guys?

Have all of Andrew Cohen's students signed off on this thread for good?
Arjan – no response to any of the questions put forth?

Scott

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Martin,

I appreciate your long post, you bring up a lot of good points that I would very much like to see answered by Andrew's followers.

If you are reading a BHOE, may I humbly suggest that you read Integral Spirituality next? In that book, which represents Wilber-5 instead of Wilber-4, Ken discusses the Myth of the Given in more detail as well as co-creation and worldspaces. It is not accurate to say that Ken believes we create our own reality with our worldview.

As to the assertion that women don't like disagreement, well… I thank you for giving me a good laugh. I don't know about your sexual preferences but if you're straight and have dated women you should know better :) :)

Regarding Andrew I believe that he has some very good access to spiritual states (such as fairly stable plateaus over time), and that he cognitively is at least Integral. But regarding his personality structure there is some pretty severe dysfunction, and I believe he uses his higher states as well as his community to prop up a very dysfunctional ego. His mantra that the ego must be hated and pushed down is nothing more than a simple projection of how he feels about his own ego.
The ego's primary agenda is self-preservation, so attacking it from the outside is probably the least skilful means available to eventually transcend it and be grounded in the soul instead.

The indirect endorsement of Andrew is the only thing I don't like about Ken.

Pelle

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Hi Pelle. Nice to see you over here. We've spoken on I-I a little bit (where I use a different handle, which shall remain SECRET, guess if you like). I don't want to talk about anything controversial or personal; I just want to talk about the theory/practice part of it, okay? You were talking about how one shouldn't hate or attack the ego–I agree: you'll probably make yourself ill if you do. But there are two phases involved in transcendence, right? There's trancend and negate, and trancend and include. For example, take a baby when it's just learning to walk. It's been crawling all around the carpet for months and now it's finally time to learn how to walk. At this time, the baby has to tell itself (though it probably wouldn't verbalize it) something along the lines of, “No more crawling! Time to walk!” Its parents might be telling it the same thing, hopefully in a kind and encouraging manner: “No more crawling! Time to walk!” It has to negate the crawling as its starting to get up on its legs. Eventually it can include the crawling and use crawling when it makes more sense than to get up and walk ( if it wants  to crawl across a bed to get something for example) but first it has to negate it. “No more crawling! Time to walk!”

I think its the same with the ego when the human being is trying to realize the deeper psychic/psychic being/authentic self. It has to tell itself: “No more selfishness! No more self indulgence! No more self centerdness! Time to give! Time love! Time to share! Time to sacrifice for a higher cause!” Someone can take it too far and become some sort of ascetic and perhaps hurt oneself, but if the person is going to realize the deeper psychic/psychic being/authentic self, the person is going to have to negate the self centererdness of the ego at first and also, perhaps, indefinitely in order to maintain. And then it can eventually learn how to include: we have to feed ourselves on a material level; we probably have to feed ourselves on an emotional level as well.

And it's even harder for the person trying realize the deeper psychic than it is for a baby to learn how to walk because so few human beings have realized the deeper psychic. Most human beings can walk; the baby has plenty of examples, and everyone will encourage it to walk. The baby's walking won't pose any kind of a threat to the status quo and it won't seem strange or different either. With the deeper psychic, it's a different matter. There isn't any cultural support for it–virtually zero–and so the person has to battle his own impulse to keep “crawling” and also other people who may percieve a threat for it wanting to learn how to “walk.” That is, seeing a person live a life of service and giving might make a person feel guilty or inferior. Anyway, it's the transcend and negate part of transendance that gets left out of so much of spirituality these days, right?

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Eye to that!

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Hi David,

What's up with the SECRECY :-P

I agree with your post; at some point in evolution you almost negate what is available and start going for what is now within your reach. One flaw in the metaphor though is that you cannot stop using the ego the way you can stop crawling when learning to walk. You can loosen your attachment to ego step by step, and more and more recognize and identify with your soul. But ego is needed to even survive a single day, unless you want to stay in bed and do nothing at all…

Another important thing to remember is: what part of us desperately wants to transcend the ego?

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Pelle: “Regarding Andrew I believe that he has some very good access to spiritual states (such as fairly stable plateaus over time), and that he cognitively is at least Integral. But regarding his personality structure there is some pretty severe dysfunction, and I believe he uses his higher states as well as his community to prop up a very dysfunctional ego. His mantra that the ego must be hated and pushed down is nothing more than a simple projection of how he feels about his own ego.
The ego's primary agenda is self-preservation, so attacking it from the outside is probably the least skilful means available to eventually transcend it and be grounded in the soul instead.”

Hey, I was just thinking that, based on a lot of the input in this thread, probably the best approach for anyone who thinks that Andrew has ego pathology is to love and accept him just as he is; gradually, his defences will relax, and he will naturally start to approach the more healthy and evolved trans-egoic self being modelled for him…

As for Ken's indirect endorsement of Andrew, I usually feel less perturbed than many people seem to be.  Ken has, in my view, hinted in various places that he is aware of interpersonal pathology on Andrew's part - for example, in the “Formless Mountain” material (which, unfortunately, is offline lately, but should show up again shortly).  It is again worth noting that Andrew Cohen is not part of ISC; in ISC advertisements he's been described as a “friend” of I-I.  That may be significant.

He's also said numerous times things to the effect that ALL spiritual leaders have dysfunctional areas; and I believe he has spoken of one of the projects of I-I being to get all these people together so that, in a group of peers with various dysfunctions, they can begin to grok that being “enlightened” by whatever definition does NOT AT ALL mean you are healthy or fully evolved in all other respects. 

As I've said before, elsewhere, if Ken Wilber is trying to build bridges with all kinds of significant spiritual leaders and bring them together under some integral umbrella, he may have to make some compromises (and/or he himself may well have some blind spots that cause him to overlook or minimize situations which may harm the integral project). 

Anyway, perhaps because Ken is a man, and most men like disagreement, he really digs Andrew Cohen 'cause he's always surrounded by a masculine aura of discord and conflict… :P

spiral out,
arthur

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Arthur,

I very much hope that your perspective of Ken and his relationship to Andrew has a lot of truth to it, and I thank you for giving us a plausible explanation. My feeling is that Ken is moving in the direction of being more and more out-spoken about pathologies in spiritual leaders and that students/disciples shouldn't accept these dysfunctions. There will be an ISC conference call coming out soon where Ken was pressured by a caller to say what he really thinks.

I agree that loving and accepting Andrew is the best way to go. My earlier comment about punching Andrew in the face came from imagining my own reaction had a girlfriend/sister of mine been one of the women he abused. Even while punching, I would have loved and accepted him :P Seriously though, some borders need to be defended regardless of who intrudes. Normally I am a very peaceful person :)

Pelle

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Pelle, When you say…

“Even while punching, I would have loved and accepted him :P”

There’s a lot of truth to that… you would be transcending your ego while acting with it through its authentic purpose to serve a greater cause that you can’t fully see.  It’s when you’re blinded by your ego for self centered reasons when it becomes a problem.

What’s the intent behind the action?

If one day your intent is authentic through extreme 'dysfunctional' action, and the next day you still act the same way out of habit rather than from an authenticity of your higher self, you will have become dysfunctional towards the congruency of Spirit.

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Pelle: “There will be an ISC conference call coming out soon where Ken was pressured by a caller to say what he really thinks.”

Care to give us a scoop on that?  :)  What does the BBG say?

arthur

Re: There's Something About Andrew

We should really have Tim here, I think his memory is better… Very roughly this is how I remember it: Ken was asked by the caller about the ethics involved for spiritual teachers, for example Adi Da. Ken in his elegant way first talked about Adi Da making spiritual claims that he has never shown or proved (ie he can enlighten someone to a higher state than anybody else, or enlighten someone in an instant, but in reality he has never done this…). Then Ken talked about the responsibilities of the students, sort of like: don't hand over your autonomy and then complain about what happens. So far so good. But the caller just wouldn't give up (he's a Swede living in the States, what can I say - we're persistent ;) :P  ). So he asked Ken again and again about the responsibilities of the teacher, and Ken was clearer than ever before (as far as I know) about the actual responsibilities of the teacher, and the importance of cultivating compassion and morality before enlightenment because afterwards you may not care about any relative realm development.

I can't tell you any more details, I am half remembering half making this up already. We need Tim.

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Hi Everyone,

After much concerted soul-searching, contemplating why some individuals I’ve never met seem convinced that I must be a woefully deluded sycophant, I’ve decided to lace my standard-issue cult shoes, stand up straight, and bravely return to the island. No, actually, I was just busy and didn’t realize the thread had been reopened. :) But I was also bothered by something…and did a little internet-searching to see if my suspicions were correct.

For those who don’t know, a similar thread to this one sprang up on the WIE pod last fall, with much anti-guru/anti-Andrew mongering proliferating like gremlins in water. It was heated; it was intense; and it was eventually shut down, partly because there was no hope of coming to a resolution when the main party driving the vitriol was clearly not going to engage in civilized discussion, being committed to another agenda entirely…

You see, a handful of ex-students of Andrew’s, victimized by their own failure to live the teachings of Evolutionary Enlightenment once they reached a certain point in their spiritual development (or lack thereof), have been salving their wounded egos–and generating much sympathy for themselves–by stirring up a storm of controversy over the past couple of years online. Parading around their sacrosanct list of fabricated or wildly-out-of-context “charges” of Corrupt Authoritarian Guru impropriety, they’ve been trying to smear Andrew’s good name–and his work–by appealing to a frightening cultural stereotype that, unfortunately, has a profound power to rile even the most level-headed amongst us.

And I started noticing a trend on this thread, which seemed unusually like something on the previous WIE thread–namely, the remarkable ability for two or three individuals to divert any hope of balanced intellectual discussion by playing the “What about Corrupt Guru allegations x, y, and z?” card. Instantly, it generates an emotional pull that seems to tug on the National Enquirer subscriber in all of us and completely derails–or at least seriously skews and biases–intelligent, rational debate (which is ironic in a forum purportedly devoted to “supra-rational,” or integral/second-tier, cognition). (See my and my colleague’s previous posts, as well as Arthur’s, Keith’s, Mary’s…) And here we happen to have in our midst one of the foremost anti-Andrew activists of the previous (WIE) thread: our young 20-year-old friend from Connecticut, Scott, with his striking inability to speak of anything (anywhere on Zaadz, apparently) other than the aforementioned “x, y, and z.” He did it there, and he did it again here, stirring up the pot of anti-guru sentiments…and many of you, understandably, bit.

Scott, ah…Scott. I was once an all-too-young and pitiably arrogant online “truth seeker” myself, and I even recently wrote about it in WIE here. But you and I are different in some ways. Most notable among those differences, perhaps, is that I am a real person. And you, seemingly, are…not. Amazing the kind of background searches one can access quickly on the internet these days, isn’t it? Ah, if only there had been more than a dozen “Scott Needlemans” in the USA…or at least one in Connecticut. There’s a Scott Needleman in Massachusetts, which isn’t too far from Connecticut but, alas, he’s 35 years old. (Good ol’ untraceable aliases like John Smith haven’t gone completely out of style, have they?)

So if I’m right, you come in, under an assumed identity, deceiving everyone here (on Zaadz, of all places, which has higher ethical standards than most online forums)…and you harp, again and again, on Andrew’s supposed lack of integrity? Look who’s talking, “kid.”

Yes, I’m pretty certain that our friend Scott here is one of those ex-students…having a ball, trying to fool us all.

-Tom

p.s. Although a few of you have tried to engage in actual integral discussion (and those who raised questions with me directly I’ll try to respond soon, as soon as I finish my already-past due article for WIE…), for what it’s worth, I think what’s happened on this thread is a good example of what we’re all up against in the postmodern world. In a culture where everything is purely relativistic, all opinions are as valid as any other, and both egoic pretense and soulful authenticity are to be equally cherished and embraced, then everything is simply flattened, utterly. Truth becomes equal to falsehood, the sacred becomes no better than sensationalism, and nobody can ever, ever win a debate. You have your truth, I have mine, and never our souls shall meet.

Yet the mission of Integral is to transcend all that…

“Of course, in flatland America, the Master/Teacher/Guru principle is not, and never will be, understood or allowed, so it is a brave group that attempts to introduce depth in the midst of this wasteland.”
          –Ken Wilber, in a letter to one of Andrew’s students

“In our egalitarian culture, where nobody is supposed to have any more depth than anybody else, the whole notion of the guru is frowned on. The thought that anybody is better than anybody else is profoundly offensive and officially taboo. We are a society of deeply entrenched egos, and if you threaten the ego with thoughts of submission and transcendence, you will be run out of town on a rail.”
          –Ken Wilber, One Taste, p. 225

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Tom,
I am considering the act of prostrating myself before another human, and the act of taking his/her authority as absolute and over and above my own in the matters concerning my own life and the lives of those that I love.  I think of Abraham willing to sacrifice Isaac on the alter.  I am utterly repelled. 
Jane

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Soulplex, my friend. Are you gonna send out a private eye next to track me down? :)  I assure you I’m a real person, and I assume you are too, Tom. (Although using your super-sleuth search site I couldn’t find any Tom Huston in Lenox, MA. and certainly no “Soulplex”!) But I’m thinking now this thread must’ve pushed some emotional buttons for you to be acting so strangely paranoid, seeing ex-Cohen student-defectors under your bed! And dude, it doesn’t feel good to labeled by you as “pitiably arrogant”. I would hope that we could keep to the Integral “Road Rules for Transformation” that have been set down, and avoid ad hominem attacks, and stick to the main issue of this thread (which incidently was not started by me, but by Balder). So do you now consider anyone critical of Andrew Cohen here on Zaadz to be an undercover agent for a few disgruntled students trying smear their old teacher? By the way, searching around the internet, there is a lot more than a “few” people with bad experiences with Mr. Cohen. I found at least three former editors of What Is Enlightenment Magazine that have signed their name to articles about him, as well as the woman who had $2 million coerced from her so he could buy his world center in Lenox. Plus I found loads of other people who’ve told their stories of life under Cohen’s tutelage. So I don’t understand what you’re talking about.

When Adastra reopened this thread, he wrote:

“…For the record, I think the members of the Andrew Cohen community have completely avoided answering direct questions about conduct on the part of their (in)famous leader, which in my opinion does not look good, frankly…”

I think Adastra’s statement is true now more than ever. There are legitimate questions that have been raised here, so instead of spinning your wheels looking for cyber boogie-men and attacking the messenger, why not just directly address them?

Thank you.

Scott

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Of possible side-interest here, a 10-minute segment from a 1998 Interview with Andrew Cohen by Luc Sala about Spirituality.  (It doesn't deal with the controversy at all, but people interested in Andrew Cohen might find it worthhile; I enjoyed it.)

adastra

Re: There's Something About Andrew

*Very* interesting to watch.

For the moment I will hold my comments since Tom/Soulplex has promised to return with more answers to the questions directed at him.

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Let's avoid ad hominem attacks - in accordance with the Road Rules for Transformation - shall we?  That's how flame wars get started, and generally leads to Doubleplusungoodness.  If you feel you have an ad hominem attack directed toward you, why not come from a higher place in your response -  and report any perceived abuse to a moderator, please.  :)

For people with an interest in the general issues being raised here, I very strongly recommend this Integral Naked dialog with Adyashanti:

The Direct Approach, part 3: Shadow, Responsibility, and the Great Indifference


That talk covers a lot of general issues of importance in terms of the guru/spiritual teacher game; I was very impressed by what Adyashanti had to say, and his take on this kind of relationship is very different from Andrew Cohen's.  However you feel about this issue in general (or particular) it's worthwhile to get a different perspective.  (For those who are not members of Integral Naked, you can join free for a month - and go on a downloading frenzy.)

I'd also very highly recommend listening to tracks 3-6 on disk 8 of the Kosmic Konsciousness CD set by Ken Wilber:

Disc Eight
Integral Transformative Practice
1. Introduction
2. The transmission of non-dual awareness
3. How can we understand the uneven development of spiritual teachers?
4. Have we moved beyond the age of gurus?
5. Guidelines for choosing a spiritual teacher
6. Exercising body, mind, and spirit in self, culture, and nature
7. The world of the dream and the world of waking up-the domains of psychotherapy and spiritual practice
8. The Ego-ego axis
9. Does prayer accelerate human development?

Especially track 4.  I know the set is expensive, so it may not be practical advice for everyone, but track 4 is relevant enough to this conversation that I plan to transcribe it here as soon as I get a chance.

spiral in-and-out of your higher selves,
arthur

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Here is the promised transcript.

Kosmic Consciousness - Disc Eight
track 4: Have we moved beyond the age of gurus?

Tami Simon: What about the idea that the ages of the gurus are over, and that as meditations come into the Western culture – a democratic culture – that, yes we need meditation mentors, but we don't need these hierarchical gurus that we don't question.

Ken Wilber: Yeah. Well I think…there's a basic ripeness about that, that the time of the gurus is gone in certain ways; but…that doesn't mean that everything about a guru is therefore unnecessary. Most of these great traditions that we're talking about – whether they're sufis or christian contemplative or zen or buddhist tibetan – really came about during the agrarian era, which is really two major technological epochs ago; and the very typical sort of political structure at that time was almost feudalistic. And so, in Tibet for example, a guru wasn't just what we would call, you know, the pastor at the local church, or your local rabbi or priest – the guru was often the major, the political leader, the educator, the priest, the rabbi, everything rolled into one, and if the guru said “jump,” you would sort of say, “how high?” I mean, it was just sort of a very, very complex office that a guru was serving. It was entirely appropriate that under those circumstances you would basically offer every aspect of yourself to the guru, and that was part of a very, very complex training that also had a cultural background that supported it – and…under those cultural conditions it wasn't harmful in a way that we today would think of it as harmful.

Nowadays, though, in democratic industrial and postindustrial egalitarian societies, that is a fish out of water to put it mildly; and a lot of the turmoil in the first couple of decades that the eastern traditions came into this country is that the gurus and teachers were coming out of these cultures and traditions where the guru was sort of everything – and then you come over here and that doesn't play in America. It's like, “are you kidding me?” We've got this incredibly individualistic, egalitarian culture. At the same time there are parts of it that, there's just no going back. There's a kind of democratic, egalitarian attitude that is going to mark this and most future forms of governance. So what you have to do is sort of scale the guru down, so to speak, in an appropriate way. What you don't want to do is throw the baby out with the bathwater. And the problem, in this otherwise very necessary scaling down of the guru, is that we've shrunk the guru, you know, to really a minature version of what it's supposed to be. And we want to do that because a real guru or a real teacher threatens our ego; that's basically the whole essence here. And we're not talking about, [at] this point, the guru as some sort of domineering figure that tells you everything you're supposed to do. At some point any form of profound spiritual practice is a real trancendence of self, if you want to find some form of higher kosmic consciousness other than your mere egoic identity; and under those circumstances, the ego does not go gracefully or willingly. And so if you're just sort of hanging out and you're your own spiritual teacher, you're probably not going to go as far as you can on the path – because you just won't endure the torment, the difficulty, the embarassment, the profound pain of dying to your own separate self and your own separate identity. And under those circumstances, then you want a – by whatever name – spiritual teacher that's going to walk you though that. At some point there is a profound surrendering that goes on – again, it's not a dominating or domineering situation, but it's a profound letting go of your own absolute desire to be in charge, or be in control. That can happen in a spiritual teacher-student relationship in a very profound way. Obviously there has to be checks and balances about it – there are certain things that you really can't do in those circumstances and they are very similar to the things that you cannot do if you are a psychoanalyst or psychotherapist. It's the same kind of relationship in a sense, and that has to be in place – you're not allowed to have sex with students, you're not allowed to take money in certain ways, you're not allowed to in any way make career choices for them, etc. etc. etc. But there comes a point where there has to be a profound surrendering of the separate self to that greater awareness and greater consciousness; and if a spiritual teacher is living that to you and transmitting that to you in an authentic way, then that's a very important component. That's not just a bunch of spiritual friends walking the path together holding hands! That's somebody who is enlightened and is fundamentally transmitting that enlightenment to you, as a demand, that you yourself awaken to that estate. So my concern is that in necessarily and appropriately scaling down a guru, that we've scaled him out of existence; and we've replaced him with a kind of feel-good spirituality that let's us all rest in our own egoic self and nobody challenges us. So we have no rankings, no degrees of better or worse, higher or lower, no more enlightened or less enlightened – and then we're all equally unenlightened in a certain sense. <laughs> Nobody's challenged, nobody's threatened – and nobody's awakened. And so that's the sort of downside of what I call Boomeritis, which is kind of a “mush egalitarianism” that really prevents any form of growth or trancendence or depth of development.

Re: There's Something About Andrew

hello,

just like to remind everyone of the

Zaadz Community Guidelines and Terms of Use

we'll leave it to the pod moderators to make sure that members of their pod adhere to the guidelines to prevent threads from degenerating out of control.

carry on…

~C (for Chaos on behalf of the Zaadz Team)

Re: There's Something About Andrew

In a recent interview on Integral Naked, the topic of Wilber's association with “controversial figures such as Andrew Cohen or Marc Gafni” comes up, and it's worth a listen.  Though the following summary from the IN synopsis of the dialogue gives all the basics of Ken's arguments.  Notably, he strongly distances himself from Gafni, but not from Andrew…

“The incorrect perception-common in Israel at least-that Ken is primarily associated with oft-controversial figures such as Andrew Cohen or Marc Gafni.  That couldn't be farther from the truth, the most obvious reason being that Integral Spiritual Center is filled with thirty of the finest and most well-respected spiritual teachers in the world, including Rabbi Zalman Schachter Shalomi, Father Thomas Keating, Sally Kempton, among many others-and Andrew, of course, is also a frequent guest on Integral Naked.  Ken goes on to explain that he was among the first to publicly stand up and criticize Marc Gafni for his sexual improprieties, remove him from Integral Institute, and that women centrally involved in bringing these issues to light considered Ken utterly trustworthy.  What went so terribly wrong?  The Buddha in Marc was real, but the Freud was not integrated-his very bright light cast some very sharp shadows, to the detriment of all.”

He states in the interview that he was the first to publicly criticize Gafni's actions.  That's not how I remember it, but maybe that's the case….

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Balder, thanks for the tip on Wilber’s interview on I.N. with the Israeli journalist. Really interesting. From what I can gather, Wilber was saying that any person or any teacher that is truly Integral would be doing some forms of practice that embrace “Mind, Body, Spirit and Shadow”. And with respect to Gafni, he said that his shadow work had barely begun (which took its toll on some of his female students and on Gafni himself).

I wonder then, although he doesn’t address it directly, whether Andrew Cohen is doing any sort of shadow work himself or if this is expected of him? I 'm curious whether or not the abuses reported by former students have raised any red flags at all for Wilber and the institute? Because to my mind even Cohen’s “Declaration of Integrity” is indicative of an absence of any shadow awareness at all, simply for (1) his lack of acknowledgment that he could’ve made any serious mistakes, thereby maybe causing suffering to some, and (2) his dismissive and vitriolic statements about his own former students who now criticize him.

Since Wilber made it a point in saying that this Shadow work was an “…absolutely essential part of Integral Practice…”, isn’t there something glaringly questionable here?
Scott

Re: There's Something About Andrew

I did find it interesting that he totally bypassed any discussion of Andrew, and also noted that he went on about all the high-caliber spiritual teachers with great reputations who work with I-I.  One could imagine that by implication he was putting Andrew Cohen and Marc Gafni in the same “spiritual teachers with terrible reputations” category, and he certainly didn't address the Andrew Cohen issue at all.

As for Andrew Cohen doing shadow work, anything I've read or heard by him indicates an outright hostility to doing shadow work (see the above WIE editorial I quoted as an example).  Given that Ken made a point that a big part of the issue was that Marc Gafni had only barely begun to do shadow work when his sexual transgressions came to light, it seems like a fair question to ask if Andrew Cohen has been doing shadow work.

Then again…unlike Marc, Andrew is not part of Integral Institute, so he couldn't be expected to do that kind of work if he didn't want to.  I wonder if that has something to do with him not being directly connected with I-I?

All speculation.  :)

arthur

Re: Andrew

Dear Balder and all on this thread,

I have wanted to get up here for awhile and kept waiting to fill out my profile so you all would know who I am first, but the days are shorter than I’d like so I’ll introduce myself here, and more on me on my profile soon…

I have been a student of Andrew Cohen’s since 1986, am currently the Secretary of the Board of EnlightenNext, and was one of the senior editors of What Is Enlightenment? magazine for 5 years. I also run a successful search engine copywriting business, rated #2 in its niche by TopSEO.com and have been involved with internet copywriting since its early days in the mid-1990s when Google was just a little pup.

I’m familiar with discussion pods and flame wars, the nightmare of what the online industry terms “reputation management,” and how one lone blogger with a mission can cause damage to giants like Starbucks or Ford. The internet is a blessing and a curse, enabling us to connect and discuss with virtually anyone, sending information around the globe in a nanosecond or two, BUT also making truth and hierarchy of context at times an elusive event.

That being said, I’d like to respond to Balder’s initial questions on this thread and to say in no uncertain terms, Do not believe everything you read. Many of the purported “facts” on various unsubstantiated blogs about Andrew are blatantly untrue, particularly some of the things written about financial donations. Other “events” are so grossly miscontextualized as to bear virtually no resemblance to the actual events that have happened. I would be happy to speak in more depth with any of you who have specific questions if you want to contact me personally, email me or I’m happy to also talk by phone.

There are a very small handful of individuals, among the tens of thousands whom Andrew has met over his two decades teaching, who are bent on undermining his reputation and his teaching work. It has been verifiably documented that among this tiny group, several actively assume false identities on their own blogs as well as other forums, posing questions or offering support to their own entries. Their motive is not truth-seeking, but rather one of malicious intent, the issues raised are done so in a context and framework that is designed to raise vituperative emotions, which, given the volatile nature of the internet, tend to ignite with a life of their own–out of proportion to the knowledge of the actual facts, events, or individuals being written about.

As for the “experts” quoted as “cult busters,” in several of the links in this thread, one happens to be a messianic ex-convict who did time for various counts of embezzlement, another was an unstable former-member of the Moonies inner circle and has been informally censored by reputable psychologists and psychiatrists in the anti-cult movement. Hardly individuals one would want to count on for an authoritative and clear view on anyone.

Again, I’d be happy to speak more with anyone who wants to pursue questions with me. As for this thread, there have been some complex and very interesting issues raised that are well worth pursuing. Questions like: Why would we need a Guru in our post-modern age? What does hierarchy in a spiritual context look like? What real shadow work might actually be (not narcissistic indulgence in one’s weak points but self knowledge and ego transcendence). What does it take to get individuals to evolve? Ken, the inspiration behind I-I and this thread of course has written extensively, as has Andrew, and other integral and evolutionary thinkers. There is much to discuss and questions that don’t have pat answers yet. I will be writing more, I am in the middle of a weekend intensive so may not get back to the thread for a couple of days, but I do look forward to “meeting” you and taking all these questions further.

Amy

Re: Andrew

Thank you, Amy - great post, and I look forward to hearing more from you (and hopefully in other parts of the pod as well). 

Amy: “As for this thread, there have been some complex and very interesting issues raised that are well worth pursuing. Questions like: Why would we need a Guru in our post-modern age? What does hierarchy in a spiritual context look like? What real shadow work might actually be (not narcissistic indulgence in one’s weak points but self knowledge and ego transcendence). What does it take to get individuals to evolve? Ken, the inspiration behind I-I and this thread of course has written extensively, as has Andrew, and other integral and evolutionary thinkers. There is much to discuss and questions that don’t have pat answers yet.”

I agree - it would be great if people wanted to start threads on some of those very interesting issues, and discuss them in more general terms.  This obsession over Andrew Cohen's reputation puzzles me a little, I have to admit.  Got evidence of illegal activity on Andrew's part?  We have courts for that.  Thinking of becoming one of Andrew's students?  Talk to some current and former students, look around, test the waters, and go in with your eyes open and your bullshit detector switched on (as it should always be IMO).  Otherwise…well, whatever.  Some people like to talk about this stuff, even I do on occasion.  :)  Let's remember to include love, compassion, respect - and degrees of ambiguity.

Yesterday I was priviledged to take part in a conference call with Ken Wilber for the first time, and one thing he talked about was that Turquoise and higher are kosmic grooves that are only now being laid down - unlike red or amber, say, which are deeply ingrained kosmic habits.  Things are pretty wild, and sometimes messy, out here at the frothy edge, aren't they?  As Stuart Davis sings, “The higher that we climb, the more the ladder sways.”  So I think we could all give each other some slack and also bear in mind that - if you buy the whole “morphogentic field, kosmic groove” idea - as we lay down the patterns of what it means to be Turquoise (or higher), the way we conduct ourselves is crucially important.  We are the trailblazers, carving a path that others will follow. 

yours in kosmic grooviness,
arthur

Re: Andrew

Amy, thank you for joining this discussion and offering your seasoned perspective.  As I have said earlier in this thread, I would be happy to learn that many or most of the negative stories about Andrew Cohen are inaccurate, exaggerated, or false.  I recognize the important role that experimental communities focused intently on transformation can play in seeding the culture at large, and of course would welcome any healthy manifestation of this in our own.

I first started hearing “stories” about Andrew Cohen back in the early '90s, when I was traveling in Asia and visiting monasteries, ashrams, and other spiritual communities.  There were positive stories, of course, but even then, most that I heard were not very positive.  I sought out some of his writings at the time, and because I resonated with them to a degree, I remember wondering to myself what was behind the unflattering gossip – if anything.

Before taking off to Asia, I lived for a time in Arizona, where I was in regular contact with members of Lee Lozowick's Hohm Community.  One of them was trying to get me to join the community, and frequently asked me to visit the ashram and meet Lee.  I was curious, but eventually had some experiences with them which made me suspicious of the integrity of the group as a whole.  Carrying this experience with me, and being an active student (at the time) of iconoclastic, guru-bashing Krishnamurti, I realized that I might be “pre-conditioned” to believe the worst about modern guru-centered communities, so I decided to withhold judgment on Andrew in spite of the bad press.  After I left Asia, I didn't have much exposure to Andrew or his work for a number of years, until WIE came out and IN started posting the guru/pandit dialogues.  I remembered the early stories I'd heard about him, and was disappointed but (rightly or wrongly) not surprised to hear that the same negative sorts of stories were circulating.

Because I've heard the same sorts of things over a period of 17 years, I admit I've been tempted to place some credence in them.  However, because all of this is second- or third-hand, I'm more than willing to keep an open mind and just wait till I can have more first-hand experience of my own to rely on.

I agree with you that some interesting and important questions have been raised on this thread that would be worthwhile to explore, here or elsewhere.  I am curious about some of the methods I've heard that Andrew is employing, such as sending people to a room spattered with “guru's blood.”  First, is he using such methods?  And if so, how do you view them in the context of Integral, evolutionary enlightenment?  The other, larger questions, such as the role of gurus in post-metaphysical, evolutionary spirituality, might be better left for another thread – though I'm open to exploring them here as well.

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: Andrew

Balder wrote:

“I am curious about some of the methods I've heard that Andrew is employing, such as sending people to a room spattered with “guru's blood.”  First, is he using such methods?  And if so, how do you view them in the context of Integral, evolutionary enlightenment?  The other, larger questions, such as the role of gurus in post-metaphysical, evolutionary spirituality, might be better left for another thread – though I'm open to exploring them here as well.”

Well I think it’s clear by now that none of Andrew Cohen's students have any intention of directly answering any of the questions concerning what actually happened. First with Arjan, then Tom, and now with Amy we hear the same sidestep of the issue over and over, favoring instead to attack those who bring up the questions. What we've heard from Andrew's students (with amazing consistency) is that the accounts of former students are “fabrications” or wildly “mis-contextualized”. Yet nowhere are the actual facts or real people’s experience being referred to and dealt with so that we can understand for ourselves how this “context” is being applied. We can't really move on to the larger general issues of post modern guru-student relationships while fluffing over what actually happened with these ex-students of Andrew’s. It seems to me that the desire to get to and explore the reality of these issues is what started this thread, but I’m finished trying to get to any sort of real factual acknowledgement here because by now it’s pretty clear it isn’t coming. Still, I wonder why that is.

Later everybody.
Scott

Re: There's Something About Andrew

People may need very different things to move forward in their process. What is bad for me, could be good for you. At least were we are now in our processes.

I may also be a bit sceptical to AC, but I really like WIE, and that is also one of his children.

Being an organizer of holistic and alternative events in Oslo I twice organized an evening lecture with AC. I first asked some friends in some other European city, that were running an other larger alternative spiritual center and that also had put him up a few times what they thought. They said they would prefer not do it again as they experienced him as cold, arrogant, sometimes cruel etc

Well, I did the evenings, and they were for the most part inspirering, but I could understand what my other holistic friends had meant, and several in the audience also was chocked by his behavior, even if it wasn't as bad as some earlier in this line has written. Now I think we both prefer that his local diciples do the organizing.

I saw that some of his diciples earlier in this describe him as compassionate etc. Well, I guess we have all different faces at different times, and we all have different ways to percieve what is compassion.

Still I am wondering if some of Cohens teaching goes against other things I believe in, and also in what I believe KW are writing. F. ex AC's teaching about unpersonal enlightenment or something like that. For me it looks like a teaching like that at least very strongly has the possibility for open for cruelity towards the personality or basically for the ordinary human struggle. At least for not being very compassionate. It also seems like an invitation for repression and splitting off. Instead of working with my shadows and unmature personality parts, I am calling them bad, and my personality is bad, and I and my teacher are scraming to my personality and calling it stupid and funny, and enlighenent is somewhere else…. A massiv split, and very opposite to many of the things KW writes about in Integral Spirituality.

Also very oppsite to how we are working in Almaas-work/ The Diamond Approach. How can something not be of essence/ spirit/ soul? That is what we basically are, and with compassion for ourselves and others we can gradually melt our armours and withdrawel patterns etc and come clearer through as what we basically have been all the time.

But I think dialogue with all kind of groups is fine, and I wouldn't criticize that KW and AC have contact. A new religious group may have done a few things wrong, but who is worse than the church? With Inquisition, burning of witches etc? We still want to have a dialogue with people within the church(es), don't we? We are all stumbling. Let's not pretend that some of us has gotten the final answer, and all others are unclean. Let's meet each other and have the discussions, not decide whos on the good side and whos on the bad. We are all learning and growing.

Love from Oslo, Øyvind Solum

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Öyvind, your post is highly interesting, especially since you have some first person experience regarding Andrew and yet you are neither a disciple nor an ex-disciple.

My impression from all the posts in this thread is that Andrew sometimes uses very unusual methods to forcefully sever attachment to the ego. Some of us perceive these methods as  abusive, and don't necessarily view scorning of the ego as a necessary step to transcend ego. Others believe Andrew's methods, the controversial ones as well as non-controversial ones, to be the fast road to ego transcendence and therefore choose Andrew as their guru.

Personally I doubt that we will reconcile those two different perspectives in this thread (obviously there are more than two perspectives, but these two seem to be the main themes that emerge in the debate). Therefore I agree with Arthur and suggest that anyone who feels so inclined open threads such as:

What is the shadow (and what is just “my stuff”)?
How would an effective 21st century guru operate, including ethical aspects?
Does the term evolutionary enlightenment have anything to do with ego-transcendence, or is that horizontal enlightenment?

The most useful thing about this thread could very well turn out to be that it produces several highly interesting daughter threads.

Peace,

Pelle

Re: There's Something About Andrew

How can we decide what a Guru/teacher should be like? It is like when the old Pharisees questioned Jesus because he didn't fit their mold. If you are interested in truth and in understanding yourself in the context of life why not pursue it wholeheartedly? Now, since you know about Andew you have a choice, either you pass him by or you decide that he might have something to show you. If you decide that he might be worth a visit, then open your ears, suspend judgement and dive in. And find out if there is anything to his teachings (and to the stories around him) firsthand (or email Amy).
If you're not a spiritual aspirant yes you might find it interesting to shake the tree and see what comes of it. Mostly old leaves and dead twigs. Like a Burmese Monk said to me in Bodhgaya many years ago,  when the elephant comes to town all the dogs bark.

Of Course, a spiritual Teacher should be and live his teachings, so do check him out personally. But don't let your own ideas stand in your way in trying to understand him.

Freedom is a wonderful thing, and many times many of us loose perspective of that when we engage in conversation.

Re: There's Something About Andrew

“Also very oppsite to how we are working in Almaas-work/ The Diamond Approach. How can something not be of essence/ spirit/ soul?”

Is this so? Don't the ideas of narcissism and the optimizing force figure pretty big in the Diamond Approach? They are both essence, but one could be said to be ego, and the other is something like the authentic self.  I think we need the Two Truths Doctrine (

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine ), which Ken endorses, to understand this. There's a relative truth and an absolute truth. Everything is essence, but everything doesn't necessarily promote evolution. Osama Bin Laden is essence, but Osama Bin Laden plus any kind of power probably isn't what the world needs to evolve. Narcissism isn't very good for evolution (no love or compassion there), the optimizing force is, but, again, both are essence.

 

“Does the term evolutionary enlightenment have anything to do with ego-transcendence, or is that horizontal enlightenment?”

My understanding is that horizontal enlightenment is concerned just with the causal or spiritual line of development (the first face of God, being, awareness, all is One, satori), and that vertical enlightenment or development has to do with other lines and stages, particularly values, ethics, motivation. In other words, horizontal enlightenment concerns the trip to the Absolute Self (all is One), and vertical enlightenment or development has to do with what the person then says and does–stages of development, value memes, creating heaven on earth, improving things etc–or, some might say, what the Absolute Self wants to do with you. Some schools will just emphasize horizontal development; evolutionary enlightenment, as its name would suggest, emphasizes both. I think you could say that both horizontal development and vertical development involve ego-transcendence, meaning the trancendence of  the separate sense of self, self indulgence, selfishness, etc., not the capacity for self individuation and self organization, which one will always need.

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Hi Pelle and Oyvind

I think the way it works with innovators such as Andrew Cohen; they are agitators. The old gets a little edgy under the threat of something new that is emerging. And when the old is called 'ego', it will perceive the person that is threatening it's dominance as cold and arrogant.
That's how I see it…

Arjan

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Oyvind,

I have been intending to write to you, just to tell you I really appreciated the balanced, loving-spirited letter you posted a few days ago.  I agree with you that we should not try to box up spiritual teachers within the walls of our preconceptions and expectations, since people may need very different things to facilitate their unfolding and growth.  This does not mean that teachers are automatically exempt from criticism, though, and that everything a teacher does, no matter how outrageous or unethical or cruel, should be accepted uncritically as “skillful means” or “crazy wisdom” or “rude boy tactics.”  But it's a careful line we must walk, always mindful of our own projections and fears.  If we are going to talk about these difficult questions and concerns, let us do so with affection for one another.

With love from California,

Balder

Re: There's Something About Andrew

Okay,  I'm gonna chime in with my two cents - not so much on the main subject of the thread,  but of the last few posts.

My understanding is that horizontal enlightenment centers around mastery of trained states,  particularly witnessing of all states and non-dual consciousness (which is sort of a state and sort of not).  This has nothing to do with stage development,  except that it tends to accelerate it.  State training suspends the identification of the Witness/I-I/ or “transcendant ego” with the relative “I” or ego that exists at a given stage.

This allows for a higher,  deeper,  relative self or ego to emerge.  This is verticle enlightenment, the evolution of the reletive self in the temporal world.  These are the two axis of the W-C lattice. While horizontal enlightenment (what Wilber has in the past called “masculine”) is about an ultimate trained state and has a definite endpoint in the eternal non-dual now,  verticle enlightenment (which Wilber has in the past called “feminine”) never ends,  as it exists within the stream of time,  and there is always a higher stage of evolution waiting to emerge.

I'm not satisfied with Wilber's use of “verticle” and “horizontal” - they both seem verticle in a way to me,  but they are distinct,  and the terms allow you to make sense of the W-C lattice.

I think there is still some residual confusion between states and stages that havn't been completely cleared up in W-5.  I'm waiting for W-6 to tidy things up a bit (and don't ask me I don't know - just that things feel much more right with 5 than 4,  but still a little off).

Now we know gurus can teach trained states,  but are they of any use in stage development,  in the evolution of the relative self in the temporal world?  Or is it very possible that a guru who excels at state-training could unintentionally sabotage stage-development by absolutising non-(relative)ego states and demonizing the relative world?

Much calmer now,
Enkidu

Re: There's Something About Andrew

“Now we know gurus can teach trained states,  but are they of any use in stage development,  in the evolution of the relative self in the temporal world?  Or is it very possible that a guru who excels at state-training could unintentionally sabotage stage-development by absolutising non-(relative)ego states and demonizing the relative world?”

This whole excellent, cogent post should be boiled down and submitted to Ken for questions on chapter 7. I'd love to hear what he has to say.

Liz

Re: There's Something About Andrew

“Now we know gurus can teach trained states,  but are they of any use in stage development,  in the evolution of the relative self in the temporal world?  Or is it very possible that a guru who excels at state-training could unintentionally sabotage stage-development by absolutising non-(relative)ego states and demonizing the relative world?”

This whole excellent, cogent post should be boiled down and submitted to Ken for questions on chapter 7. I'd love to hear what he has to say.

Liz

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yeah, but don't forget to related it to “the miracle called we” - the actual subject of the chapter.  Shouldn't be too difficult at all since you're asking about state-stage within the context of a spiritual community…

I, too, would be very interested in hearing Ken address that question.

spiral out,
arthur

Re: There's Something About Andrew

“This is vertical enlightenment, the evolution of the relative self in the temporal world.”

Great line!

“This has nothing to do with stage development, except that it tends to accelerate it. State training … allows for a higher, deeper, relative self or ego to emerge.”

I think it could, but it appears that often it has the opposite effect. Listen to Andrew and Ken:
 

Cohen: I'd call it Boomeritis enlightenment! That's what happens when, as you're saying, green altitude boomers or Gen-Xers, and even their Gen-Y kids, taste enlightened consciousness. The meaning and significance of enlightenment itself is interpreted through a pluralistic worldview, which desperately attempts to give equal value to all views and perspectives and in the process destroys hierarchy and the ability to make value distinctions-which are essential in order to move to a higher level. The inevitable result is that the emerging mind of God gets flattened out like a pancake!

Cohen: It seems that if state experiences don't, at least to some degree, compel one to begin to move toward higher stages, actually those experiences could even embed one more deeply in the stage that one is already at.

Wilber: Yes. And that depends largely on what your culture is telling you. Indeed, if your culture is green and you're at green, then meditation-which (if you were using it in an integral way) could be used to help you move to higher structures-is used instead to cement you at the structure you're at. And that's what has happened in large part in this country. It's one of the problems that we have. It could be said of everybody from the late Krishnamurti to Eckhart Tolle, who are doing absolutely fantastic work in terms of states but are interpreting their states according to this green pluralistic structure.

Cohen: Exactly. And then, ironically enough, the higher state experience can end up being an anti-evolutionary episode, the consequences of which could actually inhibit the potential for higher development in the individual.

Wilber: Very much so, which is sad, because I do not believe it is their intent at all.

Cohen: I think this is partly because the state experience of nonduality itself gives one, at a deep existential level, a sense of absolute conviction, which can make one's fundamental perspective or worldview (in this case, one's pluralistic ideas) seem to be the Truth-not just a truth or a version of truth, but the truth. Whereas if that perspective or worldview wasn't being informed by this very powerful experience of nonduality and all the absolute confidence that comes with it, one would-

Wilber: -have doubt about it.

Cohen: One would have at least some doubt about it; one would be questioning. But often the result of these nondual experiences is a kind of emotional conviction that really inhibits growth in a way that is shockingly profound.

Wilber: Right on the money.


Are you sure that masculine corresponds to horizontal development and feminine to vertical development? I think it might be the opposite.

“I'm not satisfied with Wilber's use of 'vertical' and 'horizontal'–they both seem vertical in a way to me.”

I'm glad you said that. I said that once and people didn't like it. From one perspective, the causal line is just another line of vertical development. But from another perspective, it also doesn't have much to do with evolution or stages of development. If someone's just interested in horizontal development, it can be as though they're stepping out of the game, out of time, out of the world, sometimes just so that they don't have to participate or evolove or be born again.

“Or is it very possible that a guru who excels at state training could unintentionally sabatoge stage development?”

I think this happens all the time, particularly in neo-advaita where it is held that there is simply nothing other than the absolute self–gurus who just latch on to one half of the two truths doctrine and deny the relative truth altogether, call it makyo and such.

Re: There's Something About Andrew

David:
From one perspective, the causal line is just another line of vertical development.

The latest word from Ken is that this way of looking at things is incorrect. But just as Enkidu/Mike says, this is an area of AQAL around which there has been a fair amount of confusion, largely due to Ken's own transition from Wilber-4 to Wilber-5.

Structures of consciousness unfold in stages, and these structure once in place are surprisingly stable. Like Ken said on a conference call about a month ago: you won't regress from turquoise to amber cognition unless you have a stroke or something of that magnitude.
Lines of development unfold through these structures of consciousness, and are therefore generally fairly stable as well.

State training on the other hand, and what Ken used to refer to as state-stages, are not structures of consciousness and not at all as stable as structures. In fact, on the conference call Ken was even reluctant to use the term state-stages, instead preferring state plateaus or something similar. He also said that even gurus are not guaranteed continual access to for example non-dual if they change their lifestyle and stop their practice.

Keeping states separated from structures therefore seems like a very sound measure to take, and the Wilber-Coombs lattice does a good job of this as far as I'm concerned.

Pelle