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”).