LETS GET REAL

I’ll probably be excommunicated from this Zaadz for this but is the publisher of WIE and founder of EnlightenNext the person described in these blogs? What is really going on here? I love all the platitudes & happy talk but if people are really being victimized then what?
http://essentialwhatenlightenment.blogspot.com
http://whatenlightenment.blogspot.com/
Thoughts?
Thanks
Tim

Re: LETS GET REAL

AC is a Bad Boy. 

Some people really pay the big bucks for him to do that shit to them.  Seriously.  He's well known. 

And there is some real tradition behind the abusive forms of teaching.  In America and the “enlightened” West we mostly really frown on that, but in other places and times, this was the good stuff.  We are really excessively individualistic and not familiar with the forms of power relationships that are the daily diet for the rest of the world.

I think it would just be good if the Buyer was Aware before they wrote the check.  After that, they're on their own.  Like having surgery or taking major prescription meds: if you read the warnings and you still do it, you share culpability. 

—oOo—

Having said all that, I don't want him anywhere near me either.  I'm finding better success without energizing and fortifying the part of me that is afraid or hurt or resists.  Personally, I cannot understand how it would benefit him to do it that way.  It would seem to me that over-inflating the stubborn identity so that it cannot do anything BUT push against him is a complete waste of everyone's time, energy, money, life, etc.  I don't get it.  I really don't.  I just shake my head and keep my distance.

~Ww

Re: LETS GET REAL

Thanks Ww
I attended 5 hr seminar yesterday billed as an Ego discussion but got a bad feeling that would not go away about 3/4 of the way through. I guess this is a good lesson in intuition & trusting my gut after your comments & these blog sites.
Thanks again
Tim

Re: LETS GET REAL

I went to the same seminar and thought it was an amazing look into the Ego…the only obstacle in the truly spiritual quest.  I have spoken to a number of people that were there and they really responded positively to the event and the topic. 

I can tell you that in the past I've often seen my own ego respond after a positive experience.  What I found was helpful was along these lines: Don't doubt the positive experience, but doubt the doubt.

Brian

Re: LETS GET REAL

Thanks, Brian.  This too is needed.

I am really innerested in AC's ideas and adventures of Evolutionary Enlightenment so I'm gonna stick around and keep learning.  I know there are plenty of people who have good experiences, so I like to hang out and mooch off them. 

But methinks both the doubt and the trust are totally legitimate ego experiences.  It's all part of the human experience.  It's all valid.  And in the end, it's all gotta go.

~Ww

Cohen: A Visionary

(I'm trying to post a longer reply than is permitted, so my post continues with further replies below.)

Tim and Whitewave, I really appreciate your courage and willingness to bring these issues to light.   Before I start commenting, I should say I've read very little of Cohen's work.  I've only heard from some friends about him (mostly all great stuff), read some good articles by him and also read the disturbing critiques linked from Tim's post.

You could say I'm in the business of conscious evolution–literally in the busine$$ of it–and this is probably evidence of bias in my comments.  Still, while I’ve written a very lengthy, somewhat biased and somewhat ignorant (as I barely know of Cohen), I believe it’s a worthwhile read.

I really like the spirit of what Andrew writes and his level of commitment to positive change.  I also acknowledge the level of courage and love it must take for him to keep standing for what he is standing for in a world so generally opposed to and critical of him.  The toughest thing, for him I am sure, is dealing with the criticism and rejection of those who have most understood him and chosen to join him in accomplishing his mission.  Ultimately, anyone who is so committed will evolve their teachings and practices to align more and more with what works.

Any resistance by him to evolving his methods when he witnesses unintended consequences, if we are to give him the benefit of the doubt, is probably more due the limits of his paradigm–not a default in his character.  My guess is that he has seen his methods work, more often than not, and better than other methods.

One question I'd like to raise is about the objective of his methods.  One's paradigm will shape definition of the objective, th problem and the direction of the solution.  It will shape what you define as “what works.”

If, inside his paradigm, conscious evolution or enlightenment (or whatever he'd say the objective is), requires the total crushing, transcending or eclipsing of the ego (as he defines it), and any resistance to such crushing, transcending or eclipsing is a sign of ego, then perhaps he sees the quickest path to CE/E is head on confrontation–even at the expense of a person's emotions or at the risk of them turning away and becoming psychologically damaged for the rest of their lives.  If the stakes for humanity and our successful evolution are seen by him to be extremely high (for example, if millions of us are dying or suffering unnecessarily), then he may deem such dramatic actions and risks to be worth it.

Perhaps, in his eyes, it is not just that the end justifies the means–but that the means is required for the ends.  This could be said of so many of us in today's world —even those of us who are “enlightened” or have visionary ideas.  We are often thinking/acting/speaking/teaching using Positionary strategies. 

Cohen: A Visionary 2

(continued)

Those of us with a Positionary consciousness or paradigm share a fundamental set of assumptions that could loosely be summarized in this way:  there is one Truth or right way of viewing reality and my job is to 1) find it, 2) defend it (often at all costs) and 3) promote it (again, often at all costs.  After all, if you do have The Truth or The Way, and all others are lost or unenlightened (and quite often “evil”), then it's not hard to justify the most inhumane of actions–including war and terror (and I am decrying neither of those strategies–my point is about the extent to which the ends can seem to justify the positionary's means.).  Also, with a One True paradigm, your ability to see alternative viable solution options is limited and so a solution can often appear to be The Only Solution.

Perhaps, though, Cohen is less of a positionary, and is simply someone standing for something–and is willing to honestly confront and question his thinking and his methods.  (But he may have made this more difficult, i.e., made his own evolution more difficult, if he has as some say, surrounded himself by those who simply believe and obey; and if he is enforcing such faith obedience to the extremes reported in the alleged cases.  In such situations all dissenters and independent thinkers get crushed or dismissed.  In this case, perhaps all who resist his teachings and methods are thinking and acting from “ego,” and can thus be easily dismissed.).

I am trying here not to assume too much about Cohen as I really don't know him and am not that familiar with his work.  Still, I think the issue of how we each relate to our personal development–or conscious evolution–or enlightenment, and what methods we are willing to employ or tolerate in regards to a belief system, path or guru beg examination.

There is an assumption (often hidden) in most positionary thinkers that we can force or impose our idea of what is good or right on others–and that this is a worthwhile undertaking.  If what is good is right action, and right action is X in Cohen's (or any of our) eyes, then we can easily find ourselves in a situation where we are leading people to value

1) obedience (being true to an authority's guidance) over integrity (being true to our own highest guidance),
2) blind faith (in authority's guidance) over honest introspection and questioning (looking within to our own higher guidance),
3) the authority's vision over our own vision.
4) the courage to follow blindly over the courage to act on one's own highest inner guidance

5) …

Is this not incredibly dangerous if what we want are conscious beings who are willing to face everything and avoid nothing and act courageously on what we see/think?

Could we not be killing the goose (the individual's heroic human spirit and his/her visionary capacities) to get the golden eggs of “right” action or “progress” towards our idea of utopia or heaven?

While we can enforce compliance in the short term, can we really force a person's mind or conscience?  (Victor Frankl and most of those who rise above extreme duress or suffering would likely say that while others can force our actions, they cannot force our thinking.)

Is it always “ego” in a negative sense that resists giving up our own mind, thinking and conscience to another?  Is it always an irrational fear and irrational selfishness that resists surrendering to another's guidance? 

Do we not all have the potential to be courageous conscious beings who guide ourselves with honesty and our own consciousness, conscience and vision?  Or must we surrender to a guru to obtain enlightenment?  (I am not decrying this path, only asking is it The path, and what are the limitations in such a path.)

Yes, most of us have seen incredible results by becoming conscious of the ways in which we avoid facing reality and cling to beliefs/positions that keep us psychologically comfortable.  We've come to have a healthy distrust of much of our own automatic/reactionary “thinking.”

Personally, I think that the ways in which we've come to guide ourselves irrationally, dualistically, self-destructively and “positionally” are more a result of our training and conditioning by mostly well meaning authorities to be “good” or to have our actions look “right” than they are an inherent weakness in human nature.  In their desire to get us producing golden (in their eyes) eggs, authorities have often killed the heroic human spirit and the independent thinking qualities of the potentially visionary goose.

The result is human geese who don't trust ourselves, don't naturally face ourselves and reality, and live lives unconsciously–seeking to appear as good and produce whatever color eggs we've chosen to call golden.

In a society that is so staunchly individualistic, I am a proud defender of the individual and one's own consciousness.  Personally, I do not think that most people, in the West especially, are going to evolve beyond their positionary consciousness by methods that employ more guilt, fear and shame–or surrendering or their minds–even if they are asking for it and paying for it.

Instruction methods that employ guilt and fear dynamics imposed by the authority (or the majority) tend to have the effects of increasing self-dishonesty and cowardice with respect to one's own inner guidance.  So intent do we become on looking good to the authority and what the authority thinks of us, that we look less and less within.  This results in the opposite of what our ultimate objectives are, no?  We become more conscious of what the authority thinks and we come to distrust ourselves more and more. 

Left more and more without our own vision, we become ever more the positionary–relying on what our chosen authority has proclaimed to be Right and True–and relying on his/her position and vision.  And ever more fearful do we become of facing the idea that we may have sold our minds and souls–or more, we've paid others to take them.

At this point, I wish to state again, this is less a critique on Cohen, as I am not that familiar with him, and more a defense of the human spirit in all of us–and a challenge to inquire into our methods as change agents and conscious beings.

Personally, I do not think that humanity will consciously evolve very far by finding, following and promoting the Right or True path or guru, as that just means switching from one position to another. 

In fact, in the West, I think that in general a much more efficient and effective approach to conscious evolution will be one that is

1a) free from more of the same guilt, shame and fear with which we've been brought up to be good;
1b) is more focused on developing our natural capacities for consciousness, honesty, vision, etc., rather than suppressing or punishing “wrong” thoughts or actions;
2a) does not lump all or most of human thinking together in the ego box, and call it bad, wrong, unenlightened, inauthentic or whatever;
2b) emphasizes, encourages and develops the powerful aspects of human nature and individual consciousness;
3a) does not in practice value the authority's version of Right action over the individual's capacity to consciously guide one's self to freely choose right action;
3b) values the individual's natural capacity (the goose) to consciously guide one's self over what that “authority” deems to be “right action,
4) trains us less for “goodness,” and instead encourages our natural greatness—our willingness to risk even the esteem of moral authorities and compatriots to stand for what matters most  (distinction part 1, distinction part 2)

Our great social, economic and technological advancements have highlighted the lack of sufficient advancements within.  In other words these technological advancements, while highlighting our intellectual strength, have shined a brighter light on our emotional/psychological/ethical weaknesses.

It's obvious to all of us that the world needs to change (and now!).  We must deal with the new problems posed by having so much technology to destroy ourselves and each other–yet insufficient solutions for guiding ourselves not to do so—and to instead harness our incredible intellectual strength to create a world that works for all of us.

Some of us see the basic problem being human nature itself, and we can divide these into 2 distinctly different camps.  Rather than using any popular terms to classify the 2 types, which can shortcut new thinking, I'll describe them.

1) Some of us have become so distrusting of traditional institutions of morality and our tendency to follow them that we've opted for eastern, New Age, or any of numerous other alternative paths for self-guidance.  We've come to define the problem as ego in general (which often is assumed to be all of our default ways of thinking and being).  But while we've chosen some promising new directions that are giving us some great results, we're largely still relating to them with Positionary thinking.  Thus many of us have simply replaced our old Truths or Paths with new ones.  (This is often the case even if we as individuals have become the new authority!  We may have replaced a prepackaged belief system or position with a self-created one that we then relate to as the answer or Truth for us.)

2) Others of us consider these new non-traditional paths (or any traditional path other than our own) to be the source of society's ills and have taken the path to more fundamentalism of one sort or another.  We've become more hardcore Christian or Muslim (insert your flavor of belief) and more willing to force our views on the non-believers.

Both of the above camps take different positions, yet what’s interesting is how they both largely see the problem as an inherent limitation of human nature–that we are by nature somehow bad, wrong, incapable.  And while the first camp is less apt to advocate military force to affect their notion of positive change, they're still often quite apt to use political force as a primary means to defeat the opposition.   Both primarily employ positionary, rather than what I'd call visionary, thinking.

While the first camp is more likely than the other to become (and stay) a zaadzster, in general I see most zaadzsters having (and coming to have) much more of a visionary, rather than positionary, approach to life and to change.

What separates a positionary from a visionary is not the content of one's values or beliefs, but one's relationship to one's values and beliefs.  The visionary is much more open to honest introspection and personal evolution, and thus has more power to BE the change and thus inspire even his/her adversaries to rise above their position and to align on shared values.

It's worth noting that many if not most people who see the fundamental problems in our world today as a fault of human nature are also Positionaries.

Cohen: A Visionary 3

(having problems pasting here… contiued from part 2 of post)

Why?  In large part I'd say that such people agree that the individual is not to be trusted, and we need, rather, to follow some variety of authority or guru who has powers we don't (whether that is a politician, a religious authority, an eastern guru, a scientific genius, a visionary philosopher, or some other elite person).

We can also subdivide the above two camps in the following interesting way.  Being as they share the assumption that human beings in large part are not to be trusted, they tend to define the problem in part as the individual having too much freedom and power (i.e., we’re bad by nature, so don’t give us too many weapons, tools, education, freedom, rights, whatever). 

So, a big part of the solution, then, is to limit an individual's freedom and power.  Conservatives tend to do it by using political force to limit an individual's freedom and power over his/her own personal life and choices, and liberals tend to do it by using political force to limit an individual's freedom and power over his/her own financial life and choices.  Generally, group 1 are liberal and group 2 are conservative.

Individuals in either camp courageously take stands to affect positive change in our world.  The major problem we face, as I see it, comes with how the individual relates to his/her values, beliefs and position.  To the extent that we operate as positionaries (the less courageous path), we invoke greater resistance and opPosition from the other sides–and less support from those anti-positionary visionaries who might otherwise join our cause.

The great challenge I see we face going forward is not which Position to force on humanity, but how to free and empower each of us to be Visionaries and engage our unique human capacity to utilize honesty, courage, love, compassion and vision to guide ourselves as visionaries, and to inspire the same self-guidance in others.

Our challenge is, as I see it, evolving from a Positionary Consciousness to a Visionary Consciousness–from a Goodness Consiousness to a Greatness Consciousness.  This is how I personally have defined the problem, and this is the direction I personally am looking in for new tools with VisionForce.  (A free course on some of the relevant distinctions is here.)

How does all this relate to the topic at hand–to Andrew Cohen and his organization? 

First, I trust that fundamentally, he is a human being who has committed himself so greatly to being the change he seeks in the world, that he is open to evolving his methods as he simply discovers more and more of what works to end human suffering and create a world that works for everyone.  As much as he has been courageously walking his own path, challenging the comfortable notion that enlightenment is something far less than a courageous alignment with being the change, he's a visionary… and he's aided far more people in being the change than he's hurt (and such hurt was likely a conscious risk of those who got involved, and something he’ll find a way to avoid in the future.).

Second, I believe the responsibility lies with the individual to defend his/her spirit and power/freedom to guide himself/herself.  Thus, one can extract great value from any of Cohen's concepts or practices without becoming a true believer or surrendering one's power.

Third, I support Zaadz's relationship with him, as he is as we all at zaadz are, sticking his neck out and risking the criticism of the world to BE the change he seeks and to inspire others to do so. 

Fourth, I am glad Zaadz is an open forum for critical thinking and a conversation such as this, and I'm excited to be around so many courageous change agents.

(finally finished with the daitribe… deep inhale… long exhale… aaaaaaah  ;) thanks for reading this far!)

Re: Cohen: A Visionary 3

LOL

I can't tell you how relieved I am to find out that I'm not the longest poster anymore!!  LOL

Love to all.

~Ww

Re: Cohen: A Visionary 2

Righto, dissent, yeah.

Yeah, the One Truth and the goon squad or …  space-monkeys …  oh, that's below the belt.  Sorry.  LOL 
[I love my inner Agressor.  I love my inner Agressor.  She doesn't have to take over out of fear.  She is welcomed in my world.  I love my inner Agressor…]  LOL  I'm such a freak.

“I think the issue of how we each relate to our personal development–or conscious evolution–or enlightenment, and what methods we are willing to employ or tolerate in regards to a belief system, path or guru beg examination.”

Yes.  Our relationship to our One Truth.  I am likely to “nullify the Good” if I enforce it:

“Is this not incredibly dangerous if what we want are conscious beings who are willing to face everything and avoid nothing and act courageously on what we see/think?”

…but also to our relationship to our relationship to it - or to our development which holds that Truth or if I believe that enforcing it is the Only Way.  I might nullify the Good, but then it's also possible that this might be what works for this or that person.  Is it really up to me to judge what works for them?  If I feel offended or sad about it, am I not judging in some way? 

But then, how do we honor or “do justice to” the pain of those who really were damaged at the same time?  Can we have a relationship to our relationship to the Good that can allow that much flexibility? 

Or maybe a better question - will others allow us to have that relationship?  Shared “we-space” is often cluttered with contractions that make this impossible.  How do we deal with that?

Re: Cohen: A Visionary pt 1

Michael,

Cool post(s).  Good point about the paradigm thing.  When you're in that box, nothing exists outside the box and that's final.  Your plausibility structure is only big and complex enough to handle what's inside the box.  Anything else is necessarily a threat.  And if your particular paradigm requires you to re-frame and reinterpret outside things from a “threat” to a “hindrance” or “resistance” and forbids the sensation of being threatened, then that plausibility structure is necessarily going to prevent any integration of new truth, but with a smile and a hug.  Preventing integration is what plausibility structures do.  That's their job.

And it seems probable that he would interpret and frame that prevention as “courage and love”.

Did you listen to the commentary track on the Matrix dvd's with KW and Cornel West?  KW points out that Smith is not actually “evil”, but that he is the disowned portions of Spirit forcing their way back into the plausibility structure of Neo and the humans.  (Yeah, I'm using my terms to summarize his point so there's consistency)  If we take that as one of the Truths so artfully tucked into that film, then we have to admit that framing and interpreting AC's opposition as “criticism and rejection” is not likely to bring about the defeat of such opposition - but rather inflame and strengthen it.

“THIS IS MY WORLD, MY WORLD!!”
~Agent Smith

It really doesn't matter which interpretation is plugged into the space.  Positive or negative.  Pro or con.  Yay or nay.  They are all dualistic and doomed to be dissolved in the end.  So, assuming this is true, how do we then proceed?

…???…

Re: LETS GET REAL

Hey. just came into this discussion and read Tim's experience of the Chicago evol. enlightenment (ala Cohen) seminar. Now just saw Brian's positive spin on the same event, except I checked on Brian's bio page and he's actually one of the promoters of Cohen's Chicago courses. Brian, I can appreciate your enthusiasm for defending this seminar and all, but it'd be cool to let us in this discussion know you're involvent with it - otherwise everything you say looks a bit suspect, wouldn't ya say?

Re: LETS GET REAL

Hi, Scott. 

Truth is a bitch.  And Truth be told, it can be said that the guys who are close to AC and EE and all that (Brian, Paul or aka Kosmonaut an Alain) are actually uniqely qualified to attest to Cohen's value BECAUSE they are close to him - as long as they are being as honest as they can be at this present time. 

On the other hand, a self described “innocent skeptic”'s  testimony can be called “a bit suspect” because the agenda of a skeptic is to intentionally doubt what the experts say.  Intentional doubt may sound like a good way to begin high quality inqiry, but it doesn't solve all problems of non-truth. 

For instance, the non-truth of forcing doubt simply because it has been handed to us by an organization or tradition - doubting the believer.  What if they're right?  Can that intentional doubt get close to the truth, in that case?  No.  It actually drags us further away. 

Epistemology is a beautiful thing - living and growing and changing over time.  One of the greatest gifts to the growth of epistemology has been the doubt of the doubter.  For those who cannot make the jump, it seems to threaten the very existance of truth itself.  But there are deeper truths which it reveals and which we must learn from.  Patterns form there.  The process of objectifying and enlightenment can really help to excavate some great stuff out of that.  And we have to incorporate it. 

~Ww

Re: LETS GET REAL

Whitewave thanks for the reply. except I have to say, you completely lost me! or maybe you just blew my mind?????? anyway, thanks.

Re: LETS GET REAL

And another thing…

Would it be possible to try an experiment here:

Instead of everyone merely getting really triggered and worked up over this topic, how about if we just observe ourselves getting really worked up over it instead, and pass on all the miles and miles of text.  Really, there are tons of better things to do with our energy, yes?

~Ww

Re: LETS GET REAL

Hm… 

I feel the need to clarify this even further.  Because this has traction in me.  Obviously.  I am still not fully cooked. 

The second link that you listed, Tim, brings up a good point.  (I only skimmed them, because I've seen and read so much of this already.)  The issue of being Incomplete or Intermediate is important. 

“…the way that the Intermediate zone works is through a sort of psychological contagion.”

This is important.  While I've tried and tried to look at this from as “skillful means” a perspective as I can (not very, actually, cuz I'm still pretty attatched) I still cannot come up with any scenario where this method would be beneficial - except in one way.  Because he is known to be this way, those who have issues around abuse will naturally self-select themselves to be with him.  Logically, this means that those who get really charged up on this issue while still blind to their charge (because they have not removed their awareness out of it yet, but are still trapped inside the persona as identifying with it subjectively) will come to him.  These, so he says, are the people he wants to deal with.  He's intent on breaking the strangle-hold of the mean green meme.  The I'm-so-spiritual-because-I'm-loving-and-peaceful-and-reject-power-structures type of identification because that identity is so subtlely close to True Authenticity in appearance, but really isn't.  It's still an ego-identity.  It's still a cage and limits our choices.  Believe me, I'm still very identified with this identity quite often, so for me to be aware of it enough to talk about it in the 3rd person is a HUGE step.  1-2-3

In issue #33, June-August, he is talking with Wilber and they come to agreement about Shadow.  The enlarged insert from Wilber nutshells it thus:

“Gestalt therapy will tell you to identify with your anger, Zen will tell you to disidentify with it.  So what should you do?”

Great!  Andrew is on the same page here:

“Yes, I wholeheartedly agree.  And to be honest, I've found that in the end, truly owning one's shadow, or being willing to face oneself unconditionally, radically and ongoingly, seems to be not only more challenging but ultimately more significant in transformative process than assuming a meditative posture.  I work with this shadow dimension in the context of evolutionary enlightenment, which is in some ways different from working with the shadow in a therapeutic context.  In this context, the shadow is seen as one manifestaion of ego, and the reason that it is so essential to heroically endeavor to take responsibility for all of it is so that our actions will be able to manifest a clear expression of a truly enlightened intention in this world.  I'm talking about a repeated demonstration of spontaneous integration and wholeness of intention and action, week to week, month to month, year to year, in such a way that we can unequivocally say: 'This individual is awake.'  The whole point is that unless the individual is willing to own their own shadow, they are going to continue acting out all of those repressed impulses and continue creating karma, which means acting out of ignorance and unconsciousness in ways that cause suffering to others.  And the whole definition of enlightenment is that, at least ideally, we are supposed to become so conscious, so awake, that we don't create karma anymore.  Until an individual can at least own a significant portion of their own shadow, they can't possibly take responsibility for themselves and become a truly autonomous, enlightened, integrated self who can really take on the evolutionary process.”

Wilber:  “That's for sure!”

GREAT!  So far, so good!

However!  What Kazlev describes as “psychological contagion” is what Andrew is describing as karma, here.  Andrew continues:

“Honestly, when you look at the kind of spiritual energy and passion that an individual would need to own all these different parts of the self, to truly endeavor to take responsibility for them and then to transcend them - this is a rare soul.  In terms of the real love for God necessary to truly become whole, it has to be said that it's a rare individual who cares that much, would be willing to do that.  In the end I really believe that in fact it is only those who awaken to a larger purpose, a purpose bigger than their own wholeness, salvation, or even enlightenment, who will actually find the energy and the resources to begin to own these darker and more unconscious parts of themselves and really change in ways that make all the difference in the world.”

Wilber:  “Rare indeed. Thank you, my friend.”

Wow, can I get on board with that!  Man!  In fact, I get quite a charge out of that kind of intention.  In fact, I've dedicated my presence here at zaadz to do EXACTLY THAT KIND OF WORK!! 

But look what is happening here.  This is the actual place we need to “get real”.  While his mouth is paying tribute to Universal Care, he is in fact displaying an intent and attempt to expand his Circle of Care to embrace more than himself by doing Shadow work, but it is still, very probably, still only at the self level.  This is evidenced by the wording ”will actually find the energy and the resources”.  This is what I call, “charge”.  And that charge often comes from Shadow.  Ironically, it is totally possible to want to do Shadow Work FROM A SHADOWED PLACE!  I should know.  I do it!

I have very selfish reasons to do Shadow Work and the fact that the end result is of benefit to the rest of the world is icing on the cake!  But if I do not look objectively at my self-serving reasons for doing it, I will continue to generate karma, and make other people sick with my “psychological contagion” because they will not be challenged to look at that part of themselves either.  Those who hide from themselves will attract others who hide in the same way, and they will all remain unseen - together.  As the Incomplete Teacher he doesn't yet have the means to show students their own Shadowed reasons for their seeming selflessness, and so he battles on with this Monster which seems to chase him everywhere he goes.  Even for him, this last identity is the last to go.

Every time I read the Guru/Pandit articles, I get the distinct feeling that Ken is looking right at him, but won't speak about what he sees.  And if Ken's not talking, there must be a reason. 

Either its all just for show and this contagion is the best way possible for American Individualists to get drawn upward, or it's truly, still unconscious and he's acting out. 

I can't imagine any other explanations.

Re: LETS GET REAL

I read those links and was disturbed and saddened. I enjoy the inquiry and open exchange found in WIE, while never having been drawn to Andrew Cohen, much of what I read of his teachings resonate (but not all). I admire Ken Wilbur's perspective and recognize that he knows from experience of what he speaks. But the teachers and teachings that reach me most deeply are those that teach love and compassion. Like the words of Christ. Like the Bodhisattva vow.

In the presence of one who teaches this, that presence alone is terrifying, the light itself lays us bare. There is no need of the “bad boy or bad girl” teacher. Demeaning peoples' egos is misguided, it doesn't create wholeness, rather illness, sadness, not freedom, but pain. The lighted one's lay us bare with love. No more is needed.

My idealist nature wants to see a spiritual teacher as enlightened, completely. I am beginning to see that all who are “enlightened” may be in some intermediate zone (and is someone who professes enlightenment, enlightened? isn't there a hubris in this that would negate that as true?)

In the spirit of compassion I am learning to accept my ego and my humanness, and extend that generosity to others.  The sword of enlightenment, that separates our “true self” from ego, that is figurative, and is a means by which the dualistic mind perceives, before realizing emptiness.  In realization/enlightenment one sees no distinction, there is no ego, and nothing needs to be done, there is no path, there is no enlightenment!

But this is my kindest assessment. If indeed, there are manipulations of other's loyalty, affection, and punishments and extraction of money using the aspiration for spirit as leverage, there is not even ignorance in that, just selfish, self serving cruelty. Just pain done to others for self serving reasons. It is really hard to see that behavior coming from the same person who speaks with wisdom at other times. If this is true, then my mind is blown away from more misconceptions about the possible in human nature. Can the Shadow be so huge as to create night and day in the same person?

Re: LETS GET REAL

I'm wondering if there are at least two kinds of students represented here (prolly more).

One kind responds to compassionate embrace by melting themself in order to allow removal of dross and shaping by the hand of a Love that is bigger than their own and until then, unknown to them.

The other kind responds by infating an ego driven need to be thought of as spiritual and selfless and is literally unable to see the difference. 

I 'spect this is so.  Tamara, I think you and I are both of the first sort.  The burning love you speak of is effective enough for me to get me to that place of submission.  I don't need to get into a fight about it.  Shrinks or Spiritual teachers who try to start something with me get precisely nowhere.  And those who refuse to witness their fight so we can get to a more productive place - for me anyway - get cut off quickly.  Anyone who is reading things in this pod as they come up have seen me do it very recently.  Fighting only inflames my ego driven need to be a victim.  Honestly, I have no need to keep feeding that.  I'm ready to let it go.  And if I'm not, then I'm not yet aware of that - and so need more light, not heat.  I'm ready for light.  I seek it out.  I shine as much of my own as I can into my Shadow, and try to stay alert when I'm getting negative mirroring.  Which parts are really true, which parts are my own retroflection or their projection?  Sorting that out is hard.  But I try.  Only the rare person is ready to help me do that while the shit is actually hitting the fan, so most of the time I have to withdraw from the conflict to get my ego to chill enough to lay down.  But it does.

However!

How can the second type of student be helped?  If they pay someone like Andrew to essentially be a hit-man for their own ego, how do you create and hold a space for that without violating normal, American or Western, mod or postmod ideas of what is just and respectful conduct?  And as anonymous mentioned, over at that first link, when the teacher is not done cookin' yet either (who is, really?) how do you have a fruitful interchange without it triggering this kind of warfare?  Is that even possible?  Surely these guys must be open to the possibility that their victim ego identification cannot help but be inflamed by this!  How can you get free of that when you have to fight a war?  And even if the Teacher is free of that in the begining, as anonymous mentiond also, how easy it is to get drunk on the smell of ego blood and end up feeding the abuser part of the ego!  What if he is actually conscious of this and still working on it?  Who of us is willing to give him the benefit of that doubt?  Power is scary shit!  Most of all to the inner I of the powerful!

This inquiry needs to move beyond the simplistic polarity of abuser vs. victim.  If there is a line between openly negotiated and contracted ego-killing and unlawful abuse, where is it?  And what is the realistic response when the line is crossed?  If the problem cannot be solved at this level, where is the higher level where the solution resides?  What does that really look like?

~Ww

Re: LETS GET REAL

If you have no need, to feed the victim part of you. Then don't do it here either. Even by talking about it, you automatically are asking for compassion from others, enforcing that very victim part. Even if you do it without being aware of it, that is exaclty what troubles you. If you are not aware of the things you are doing, you are not yet ready to let it go. Find out, how your victim side sounds to others, find out why you have it. Find out what its innitial use even ever was. Even the first student you describe, needs to melt themselves, and none can do it for them. And cherrish the little shadow you still have. Even so, make it half dark, half light. You will need both, to fully understand the difference, and therefore the use.
The Ego, as you so aptly call it in ”how easy it is to get drunk on the smell of ego blood and end up feeding the abuser part of the ego!” Look closer, the only reason why people begin these 'wars'is because they are afraid. Afraid of failure, afraid loneliness, afraid of loss, afraid of disrespect, and afraid of what they do not understand. Give the regular ego a break, most of them are alwas afraid. It takes a master not to be afraid. It takes time, effort, and respect to discover, the why's of failure, loneliness, loss and disrespect. They all have good reasons.

Power is great, but as an old Parkour saying says: Power is nothing without control!

The higher level is, not needing to ask those questions. It is looking better, at what there is already, and how 'bad' your world really is looking. When selfishness, nor fear are part, of your nescesities for survival.

I wish you lots of luck!

Re: LETS GET REAL

“If you have no need, to feed the victim part of you. Then don't do it here either.”

Instead of coming at me in a prohibitive or punitive way, perhaps just letting me know that I'm doing it right now would be more helpful.  Decency is appreciated.

“Even if you do it without being aware of it, that is exaclty what troubles you. If you are not aware of the things you are doing, you are not yet ready to let it go. Find out, how your victim side sounds to others, find out why you have it. Find out what its innitial use even ever was.”

Exactly.  Yeah, I am doing it.  So, I get to see that because of your mirroring help, thank you.  And you can feel me asking for compassion.  That's great.  And it sounds like you see that as an expression of a Victim identification, but it's actually a Hungry Child identification.  I am more and more aware of this recently.  While I don't need to feed the Hurt Child, I still have to figure out how to protect her.  And while I do have to figure out how to feed the Hungry Child, one of those ways is not to use the Hurt Child as bait to catch prey.  So, you've been very helpful. 

And powerful.

My turn.

So, how did you feel when you gave me this command, “Then don't do it here either.”  Who is speaking to me here?  And to whom are they really speaking?

These deep inner beings are part of the healthy psyche, and like Tamara is saying, as loving and compassionate embrace and love draws them into the light of awareness, they lose their oppressive desperation, the charge decreases and they become easyer to let go. 

“My vision of a healthy approach, a good teacher, is one who you can practice with, who's presence itself creates a field you can enter, and enter into direct experience of expanded states. There is fire in that presence, and that light exposes your shadows. The pain of seeing those shadows, and the love required from both teacher and student, for themselves that is required to grow through this exposure, and the trust in the process and patience, this is what I would wish for.”

The forceful and pushing energy that comes from Shadowed and unconscious negative mirroring feeds the dualism.  Inflates it.  Making it easyer for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than to get that ego to lay down it's life. 

“Even the first student you describe, needs to melt themselves, and none can do it for them.”

Did you mean the “second student”, because I already said that.  And that would be a good point.  Does all that pushing and shoving really convince people to melt themselves?  I'm not being sarcastic, I'm really, actually confused.  If that is the only way for some people, then I guess it has to be done.  But I just have a hard time believing it.  I can't relate.

“And cherrish the little shadow you still have. Even so, make it half dark, half light. You will need both, to fully understand the difference, and therefore the use.”

I fully agree.  I do cherish it.  And I try not to abuse it.  And even my Shadowed inner Abuser needs to be cherished because like you said,

“the only reason why people begin these 'wars'is because they are afraid. Afraid of failure, afraid loneliness, afraid of loss, afraid of disrespect, and afraid of what they do not understand.”

So, the only way I'm gonna decrease the amount of karma or psychological contagion is to love that Terrified Child and become worthy of her trust.  I have not neglected to “look closer”.  I've clearly demonstrated my closer inspection here:

” What if he is actually conscious of this and still working on it?  Who of us is willing to give him the benefit of that doubt?”

What makes you think I have?  Who is speaking to me there?  And who does that person really think they're talking to?

“Give the regular ego a break, most of them are alwas afraid. It takes a master not to be afraid.”

Fear has a powerful charge.  The more Shadowed it is, the more destructive it can be.  Giving Fear a break is at the top of my list of things to do right now, believe it or not.  But I don't think it is realistic to have no fear at all.  Fear helps us live morally in the world.  Not just fear of punishment, but fear of our own destructive power - both coming and going.  That's healthy fear. 

“The higher level is, not needing to ask those questions. It is looking better, at what there is already, and how 'bad' your world really is looking. When selfishness, nor fear are part, of your nescesities for survival.”

There's something about that that is right.  Doing “The Work” at this can seem like a solution because the charge on everything effectively drops down to zero.  But if you'll notice on page 24 of the latest WIE? issue, even attempting to completely eradicate all traction like that is a violent act on those who have been hurt and require some recompense.  It can actually  be repeating the violence.  Like putting a rape victim on trial for her crime of “asking for it”. 

When incorporating the Non-dual Ground within our daily acts in the world, there must be some respect for the fragility of the manifest realm.  I love what Ken Wilber has said about this,

“We must forgive each other our arising, for our existance always torments others.  The Golden Rule in the midst of this mutual misery has always been, not to do no harm, but as little a possible; and not to love one another, but as much as you can.”

So, I think after one has been up there in the clouds and seen the complete absense of traction and felt the peace and all that, we have to descend to a level where there's actually some traction both coming and going, but be able to use that traction in the submissive service of a higher Good.  Not a Totalizing Good, which comes from below, but an Integral and Reconciled Good which comes from above.  This will prevent the meanness which is evident in the MGM down in 1st Tier. 

You wish me lots of luck? 

Thanks, I guess.  But I dont' think I need luck as long as we're still trying to help one another here.  Aren't you trying to help me?  Wishing someone luck has the ring of disconnection - like hanging up the phone before the other person gets a chance to respond.  You've said alot of personal things about me.  You're still gonna hold the space open for me to respond, aren't you?  Cuz, otherwise that looks like a drive-by.  I'm not accusing, I'm asking.  I realize that patterns of speach lose some meaning in translation.  You may not be aware.

Now.  I hope my Hungry Child has repaired some of the damage she did to my Hurt and Terrified Children in this little excursion.  If I've overdone it, I'm truly sorry.  I've got alot of history and established patterns to overcome.  I trust you're not immune.

~Ww

Re: LETS GET REAL

How I felt when I said it? hm, not special or anything. I felt more like I had to confront you. (thus the indecency). And I am of course speaking, to someone I do not know, In a world I do not live in. Some scepticisme may be considered. As far from everything that I say holds real truth, that you might want to consider as becomming yours aswell.

No I ment the first. And I hope that you said the same as I said.

Aye, Fear can save your life one day. But not the ones I mentioned earlier.

I do not read WIE magazine, and I will not use other people's experiences as proof or arguments of my own life.

I'm rather immune. I have seen and experience much more bad things than anyone on this Forum ever guessed. First hand that is. I'm even gratefull that you have written such a maticulous piece of work, for my poorly spelled in 5 minutes oinned down little story, before I went to bed. And yes, probably A lot is lost in translation, I certainly do not wish to end this conversation.

Though I do not know what you mean, with either a hungry child or a tier, etc. Remember, I usually speak to people in person. And in somewhat the same language.

But I like what you write, a bit long perhaps. I hope hearing from you again. (and If I forgotten to answer some of yout questions, please re-ask them into a more sucluded context. ;)

Ciao

Re: LETS GET REAL

Thanks, man. 

Love and peaceful dreams to you.

~Ww

Re: LETS GET REAL

I don't see this in terms of victim and abuser. That may be the end result, and those un-conscious archetypes may play into the drama of the relationship.

I see this as a basic misunderstanding about the “problem of ego”. The problem is confounded by the fact that we have experiences that take us to a state of egolessness, then in order to teach, or talk of that, we relate from our mind, through our languaging, which is invariably dualistic. Then we try to solve “the problem of ego” (this thought itself is born of dualist thought!) through dualistic methods, “killing the ego” etc. You don't solve this “problem” from the same level of consciousness it comes from.

Just experiencing this egoless state, a state withought concrete thought, does not immediately teach us new thought patterns. We may have mis-perceived the “causal” conditions that brought us there.

So the approach that is unhealthy is born of a dualistic mind set, a thought form which is very very persistant, almost a truism in spiritual teachings and traditions, that pits our “true self” against the ego, or tries to transcend ego, kill ego, etc. Shadows invariably result from the disowned parts. You don't solve this problem from the same level of consciousness that it comes from. When you experience non-duality the ego no longer exists as a problem. It is seen through, its just a thought form that we contracted around. The repeated exposure to an expansive state gradually wears away our conditional thinking of our indentification with the contracted state.

But if we have a thought that this experience confers “enlightenment” as a permanent and abrupt change in ourselves, that we have no more ego, then we can be very blind to the expressions of ego, or contracted small self still emanating from us. This is the second problem born of dualitic thought, the either/or problem. That you are either ego or true self.

So when people “sign on” to have their ego killed, they are buying into an unhealthy approach. I truely hope that our culture matures beyond this thought form, of ego death as means to enlighenment.

My vision of a healthy approach, a good teacher, is one who you can practice with, who's presence itself creates a field you can enter, and enter into direct experience of expanded states. There is fire in that presence, and that light exposes your shadows. The pain of seeing those shadows, and the love required from both teacher and student, for themselves that is required to grow through this exposure, and the trust in the process and patience, this is what I would wish for.

Re: LETS GET REAL

“My vision of a healthy approach, a good teacher, is one who you can practice with, who's presence itself creates a field you can enter, and enter into direct experience of expanded states.”

Interestingly, I had a flash experience of this last night when I followed the link in the EnlightenNIXT blog to Andrew's former teacher Poonja Poonaji.  I could feel myself starting to fall over the edge…  Timing, I guess.

Yes, yes, yes. 

And, for the sake of checking myself and my motives…  how do we keep checking to make sure that we haven't settled into an egoic imitation of the Authentic Life?  I do believe that such a thing is possible and makes any future power to Integrate and Embrace less and less present.  The ego solidifies that which is supposed to be liquid.  Like the Law, it reflects Good ideals, but it is not Goodness itself.  …

I think this conversation is going much higher than the one's I usually see about this topic.  And that is encouraging.  I think we should keep going. 

But I have to run for now…

~Ww

Re: LETS GET REAL

Hi Ww,

Did you have a chance to read the WIE September issue article The 1001 Forms of Self-Grasping 

or …  Do You Really Have to be Somebody Before You Can be Nobody?

I thought it really dealt well with these sorts of issues, better than I have seen before. Then again, I've only just started reading WIE.

Namaste,

Nicole

Re: LETS GET REAL

Are you talking about the current September issue?  #34?  The 15 Year Anniversary one?  Cuz I looked from cover to cover and didn't find it.  Do you have an issue # and page #? 

I'll check it out. 

~Ww

Re: LETS GET REAL

No, I wondered where this came from till I received my first emailed newsletter, I signed up for it recently. This is the link. I found this article really enlightening on a number of levels. Its worth a read.

As a psychoanalist Jack Engler sees the positive aspects of ego, and the problematic aspects of doing battle with it in a spiritual practice;
But talking about ego in a spiritual context, to me, is even more problematic. It gets talked about almost like it's an alternate personality within me that is bad; it gets reified as some part of me that I have to battle with, that I have to transcend. I think spiritual language reinforces a lot of dualistic thinking when we talk about ego that way-unless we're really careful in how we define it. Now instead of “self versus other” it's “self versus ego.” And so the struggle just continues in another guise.

I don't get the impression that Andrew responded to this or even really “got” it.

Re: LETS GET REAL

Hi Tamara,

Thanks for providing the link. Yes, I too got the impression that Andrew was a bit out of his depth in that interview (please correct me if I'm wrong, Andrew, I'm just a newbie here), but doesn't Jack have some great things to say? Really integrated a lot of thinking for me. I highly recommend it to you all.

Namaste,

Nicole

Re: LETS GET REAL

Great article, i think the only people out of their depth would be us. : )

Re: LETS GET REAL

Shoot!  Well, who's gonna help poor ol' us understand, then, Paul?

I'm glad you and Alain are here.  If the doors are closed, we can't possibly have all the information.  Please help.  This issue distresses people. 

~Ww

Re: LETS GET REAL

HOLY COW!!

This article is great!  And I've been making connections all over the place! 

Yeah, this is a back issue.  #17 from the year 2000.  Jack Engler is actually very articulate about all this but when AC asks questions or comments, it almost seems as if he either didn't really understand what he just said, or is redirecting and reinterpreting into his own framework.  I wonder if that has something to do with how it was edited.  Maybe this has been chopped up and big parts are left out…  It doesn't flow.  These people are speaking in two different languages. 

But at the top of the 3rd page, AC does articulate pretty well for us why he doubts. 

“AC: In my own teaching work over the years, I've found that when one courageously looks into what enlightenment promises, one discovers an absolute perspective. And after that discovery, one either sees oneself as the one who was wounded and traumatized, or one recognizes oneself to be that which was never wounded or traumatized by anything.* I've seen people leap from the perspective of the ego to one beyond the ego. One in which they discover a completely different relationship to their own experience. This new, liberated perspective may indeed include the awareness or memory of trauma, narcissism, fear, doubt, etcetera, but now, because they have discovered a completely different way of relating to their fundamental sense of self, their relationship to the ego and all of its baggage will be transformed.

You say that psychotherapy and Buddhist meditation practice often work hand in hand and that they work with different parts of the self. But I've noticed that when we allow ourselves to identify in any fundamental way with being the one who suffered, who was traumatized and who therefore needs to be healed, it inevitably has a profound effect on the way we relate to the very real and maybe continuing effects of whatever that trauma may have been. If, from the context of enlightenment, we have recognized the ultimate insubstantiality of the ego or personal self—that from an absolute perspective it does not exist—not just intellectually but deeply through our own experience, our relationship to whatever may be the continuing karmic consequences of our personal history is going to be very different than if we are convinced we are exclusively that separate self.**

I wonder if psychotherapy and meditation practice really do work hand in hand to heal and liberate our humanity in the way that many transpersonal therapists say they do. I mean, theoretically they do, but because the context of the inquiry in psychotherapy is always relative, by definition—which means giving significance to the woes of the ego or personal self—I often wonder if, without an absolute context as the bottom line, psychotherapy could ever have anything to do with what liberation has always been about.***”

*That first part that I put in bold print is how he arives at his duality.  Very clear.

**I see here that twice he stated that our relationship to the consequences of trauma and hurt are different, but he doesn't go into what that difference is, so I think it's safe to guess that he is VERY concerned about that relationship.  And from his experience, the fulcrum point seems to be whether or not we allow ourselves to identify with that self in any way.  Gotcha.

***Okay, so his view of absolute vs. relative is very inneresting. 

I think the Church has called this debate one of “absolute value or law vs. situational ethics” or something of the sort.  When the Church had the power to deliver death, it dealt out alot of death because people broke “absolute laws” - whichever absolute laws were in favor at the time or conveniently provided an advantage for the Church to gain more power… 

In fact, the Absolute, when in mere human hands, has this tendency to become a really great reason for brutality.  That old saying still holds true alot of the time, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  It tends to put a spell on us that makes us think we have grasped the only thing in the entire universe that is valuable, and everything else is worthless.  When you reinforce that duality, power centralizes and the ego, which is grasping this Absolute, becomes stronger and stronger and more and more brutal.  Regardless of whether or not one wants the ego to be the one who has grasped the Absolute, in reality, it is only ego who can grasp it. 

The Church has been made to deal with her sins over this issue.  And she is dealing with it in many places.  Her history is so very obvious to Westerners.  But I wonder if the East doesn't have a few skelletons in her closet as well…

Regardless, two things need to be examined:
1  AC seems to view the person as a static or unified whole which has only one decision to make.  To Be or to be?  But JE is saying that the person is at the very least a much more complex thing which must be gathered together before one single decision can be made - or similarly - since it is as complex as it is, it must make several decisions and maybe even at several different times and different levels in order to really arive at the place of One.  Otherwise, what has arrived is only partial, and something has been left behind which is significant. 

I get the impression he believes he is struggling with adults who act like children.  But what therapy has taught us is that the opposite is actually the case.  These are children pretending to be adults.  They're tryin' real hard to be adults.  But they just aren't.  And the more we demand adult decisions of them, the more they try to conceal the truth.  The more they conceal the truth, the less likely that they will actually mature enough to make those free, autonimous, adult decisions and the more likely they will finally just give up and cave in to the stronger personality - like children actually do.

I wonder how many of the people who have “arrived” are really just seriously truncated people who cannot possibly be a friend to normal people or really love them because they've left behind the part of them that is vulnerable or aggressive - in the name of “authenticity”.

2  If descent into the duality, after spending some really grounding time in non-duality, is necessary, then what are our actions to be about if they are not to be about Totalizing? 

I 'spect that the Brutality is a sign of Totalizing.  Totalizing is not going to bring the answer.  It will necessarily chop off things that don't fit into the box.  On the other hand, Integration comes at it very differently.  Bringing in the parts of everything that actually work but not having to put them in a box.  Time moves on and there will always be new things which need to be brought in and as things change, old things will lose their effectiveness and they will just fall off.  Integration is organic, liquid, mutating.  Totalizing is like Writing the Law on Stone Tablets.  One of my favorite verses in the Bible is this new future vision which has haunted me and kept me going in the right direction since my youth:

“I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a hert of flesh.  And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.  You will live in the land I gave your forefathers; you will be my people, and I will be your God.”

So, looking through the Mythical surface texture to the deeper structure of that, it's clear that there's a place beyond force, over and above it, where the solution of Universal Care is - and it just doesn't exist at the level of the problem.  The Truth that the Church is learning now is that you can't legislate morality.  It must be freely and autonimously desired with every fiber of one's being.  Each of those fibers has to go through their own labyrinth of objections before finally finding that sweet desire, but they each hold that hidden potential.  Some of those fibers take more time to find that desire than others.

—oOo—

And so, what is my ego doing right now with this?

That part of me which contends against the Abuser is definitely engaged.  This is, of course, inevitable.  If you're going to fight a war, you have to be single minded about it or you'll most likely end up dead. 

AND

Another part of me can hold that contender with an open hand and just as soon put it down and pick up another part if the need arises.  Where does this freedom come from?  What kind of relationship is this between my parts?  And since I haven't acquired it from Enlightenment, where did it come from?

~Ww

Re: LETS GET REAL

You're in really deep, Ww! Thanks for pointing out it's a back issue. I hadn't noticed.

You go into a lot of interesting things. I wonder what Andrew would have to say to all this? Does anyone ever ask him, or is he too busy?

Namaste,

Nicole

Re: LETS GET REAL

Well, this pod is acting as the official discussion forum for WIE? magazine online.  I think.  So, someone is undoubtedly looking in.  The editors are here from time to time.  This is no fan site. 

I'm sure that task is delegated, just like it has been over at Ken Wilber's “Integral Naked” site.  Sometimes Ken has been known to come in for a landing to set the peeps straight about something or other.  Maybe AC will do so as well.  Maybe someone will relay a message for him. 

His response is only part of what is important about this discussion, methinks.  It is also our job to not let our own stuff interfere with our own spiritual growth - otherwise he is right about ego being the cunning adversary of enlightenment and nothing else.  So our response to this side of the issue is of critical importance to us, regardless of his response. 

If Oneness is the Truth, then at some place - there is no conflict.  Regardless of him, can we alllow that truth to exist unhindered by this conflict or not?  That's one thing I don't really get from those two links that are at the top of this thread. 

But then again, I haven't been under his tutelage.  It's easy for me to blather about it.

~Ww

Re: LETS GET REAL

WW,
     You make a leap here referring to the Absolute in Judeo-Christian terminolgy, or “the Church”.
I believe AC here refers to the Absolute as a synonym for the Eastern concepts of the non-dual as the real reality, and the relative, or relativity as the dualistic less complete view. Problem is that so any people who don't really “get” a mature understanding of non-duality, create a duality between the two! Its a paradoxical kind of thing, but the Absolute includes relativity, which is never any less real.
This dualizing tends to be favored by those who wish to transcend, get up and the hell out of this suffering realm! I think Ken Wilber has it better, in that he says, 'transcend and include”, but even so, I'm not sure that a transcendant, upward bound,bi-polar model isn't too dualistic still. Deepening and immanance feel more real to me. :)

Re: LETS GET REAL

I know.  But that distinction isn't important to my point.  My point is that if you use an External Authority Structure (or something else that is Not-Me) as the Highest Good, and a goon squad to enforce the highest Good, it nullifies that Good.  It doesn't matter where the Good is grounded.  Dualistic or non.  The Judaic Tradition recognized that even a Dualistic Good (Which is debatable if you talk to the Kabbalists) ideally shouldn't be spread this way.  Why does Non-dualism think it's immune?

~Ww

Re: LETS GET REAL

Dualistic behaviour pattern itself is cunningness.

Re: LETS GET REAL

Whiotewave,

You are in powerfully moving towards the highest transformation. So, most of the time you need inaction. In this stage inaction is important than the action, but you feel write go on write because it also depend on your inner energy economics. Whatever emerges in your brain cell write it down on the paper. Do not try to write a book. If it become book its ok, but consciously trying to write a book also represents our mental hypocracy. When nature gave birth to you; remember that she also knows to take care of you. Declare a submission, a complete submission. i have realized one thing that your energy is running like horse of the Race-course. Move ahead with the eternal spirit of Truth. Since ages, we have failed to generate a powerful woman on earth. Now, i am feeling, that eternal woman may emerge within you. Whenever you become upset you just recall me in the mind. That is enough; message will reach me.

Chandra with infinite spiritual love

Re: LETS GET REAL

I'm trying real hard to receive this… 

I feel quite embarassed…
And afraid…
I wanna figure out what that's about.

At any rate, thank you.  I'll pm my real response. 

…so embarassed…

~Ww

Re: LETS GET REAL

Don't try. Trying itself is commercial mathematics. Give a complete freedom to your unconscious mind. All human conscious minds are cunning one, but unconscious mind is eternal. It can stay only with the Truth. Ancient Sages named it as a soul. Only after mastering this inner mechanism of the mind spiritual people have predicted the future wonders in the Holy Scriptures. Every unconscious mind is connected with DNA system and every minute movement of the past, present and future recorded in the DNA chip, which is completely capable to guide you at a right time, in a right way with the right spirit. Keep confidence on the super computer of the inner and never become slave to any teacher. Do you know why I am confident to change the world? It is only because of the eternal beauty of the unconscious mind. It cannot and will not go against Truth. So, changing this world is as easy as drinking coffee for us, but we cannot do any action if the space-time is not ripe. We are waiting for Chair Person for our mission. We know that she is a woman. Go ahead my friend. My radio waves are always with you.

Re: LETS GET REAL

Whitewave, I like you!

Re: LETS GET REAL

Yes, the ends do not justify the means. If goodness is the intended end, then goodness must be the path and the means. Or like you say it nullifies that good.

Its not about dualism, or non, ecept that since all actions cause reactions, everythings onnected, is one, then the means affects the ends.

I had just been trying to clarify the use, and usual context  of the terms “Absolute and relative” as I thought they were used by Cohen. (and the mistake he made using them)

Re: LETS GET REAL

Thank you Tamara.  A breath of fresh air here. Like Tim (our thread originator) I have weird feelings around the enlightenment evolution game, not in theory, but in groups who are organizing themselves around almost like pod-people. i also read the blog of people who fled the strange and hurtful “means” to evolutionay “ends”. I just don't buy it. did you check that out? (www.whatenlightenment.net) scary stuff.

Re: LETS GET REAL (i.e. the excommunicated)

Follow the money!  Can you say C O M M E R C I A L I S M?  But why be surprised, they've been marketing God for centuries. 

Re: LETS GET REAL (i.e. the excommunicated)

That is funny, I was just thinking the same thing.
YOU DO NOT NEED A  MAGAZINE TO TELL YOU WHAT TO DO!
Nor a bible, or a Quran, or a Ikea-magazine. It is all in your head :P (how mean of me to say so)

Re: LETS GET REAL (i.e. the excommunicated)

They can however give you a fresh idea.

Re: LETS GET REAL (i.e. the excommunicated)

Fresh ideas? Awesome!

Re: LETS GET REAL (i.e. the excommunicated)

Commercialism? Is that something like Capitalism? Isn't that something like what Zaadz is doing. Maybe we should stop supporting Zaadz. They want to make M O N E Y you know? The great E V I L.

 Did you know that  WIE is a non-profit organization?

 “they've been marketing God for centuries.”

I didn't know WIE had been around for that long.

Re: LETS GET REAL (i.e. the excommunicated)

Dear Alain,

Profit motive is universal. Only exceptional people are out of it. Every enlightened person is selling idea. WIE or Integral Institute of Ken Wilber is not out of it. Just ask yourself! Why these two organizations also cannot become one. PROBLEM EXISTS IN ENLIGHTENED IDENTITY. We all need our own identity, our own mental slaves and people's appreciation. But as per the Buddha's declaration, there is no difference in heavenly or material profit motive. Next week America may enter into Martial law, but the question is what WIE and Integral Institute will do against unjust of the government? Talking on Gandhi and spirituality is easy, but who will fight like Gandhi that only counts for me. Let me see the development. Meanwhile, go through the link below to and pardon Bush.

Pardon Bush for breaking the law?

Chandra

Re: LETS GET REAL (i.e. the excommunicated)

What is money?

Re: LETS GET REAL (i.e. the excommunicated)

Money? money are those metal circular plats which you can save up, or build towers out of. the can also be used for diving up, or skimming on the water. Also to keep your paper down when the wind is blowing. Money can be usefull, but therebly inconveniant. You can buy a lot with it.
You see, you can by sex, but not love.
You can buy a house, but no home.
You can buy a watch, but no time.
You can buy a book, but no knowledge.
You can buy power, but no respect.
You can buy medicines, but no health.
So, as you noticed, money isn't important!
It will probably cause you a lot of trouble.
I'm telling you this, because you are my friend, And I do not want to see you get hurt.
So, send all your money to Domus Ulixes IBAN 1234.4567.7890
I'm glad I could have helped you ;)

Re: LETS GET REAL (i.e. the excommunicated)

Ow well, that President W Bush, controlled all of the 3 politicas we already knew. It was America's own senators who voted for the patriot act, legalizing all that. So, according to American values, democratically chosen… So Do I agree with such policies? No. Why would I? Would I actively do something against it? No, not now. Am I planning to? Sure, but I wonder, that when I know I'll succeed, the current government, or even form of politics is still in. Currently I wonder more about my own country.
But yes, I fully agree.
The question is, what will those wonderfull talkers, do, when they should be done talking?

Re: LETS GET REAL (i.e. the excommunicated)

I see money as a neutral mode of exchange. I mean, if you love Rocky Road Ice Cream in this society then you gotz to buy it! (loving Rocky Road doesn't make one evil).I would say that today it would read “the lust for money is the root of all evil”. Perhaps, the better question would be: Is this material, commercial society we've created “God's intention for us”? Also, What is evil? What is evil's relationship to 'God'? Can ultimate evil be personified? Was M. Scott Peck just having fun with us when he wrote a book about his personal experience doing exorcism's?
 Anyway, since i had my first spiritual exp. 25 yrs. ago in my 20's,i have personally stayed clear of trying to sell my ideas or exp. to others and i will continue to be that way cause it resonates for me. As for Zaadz: my sense and hope is that the intention here is sincere. The fact is we live in a commercial society and that means that ideas about spirit will be bought and sold; as also will the vehicles for those ideas: Teachers. Ideally, one would hope that the inner most intention of a teachers heart is in harmony with it's source!

Re: LETS GET REAL (i.e. the excommunicated)

As per the law of capital economy, demand and supply network is the root cause and the deciding factor for the industrial, political, agricultural and personal stability of the state, family and private property. Even the slightest fluctuation in this network can generate enormous problems in the very baseline of economics.

Nowadays, by neglecting the productive forces, the heads of the capital economy are manipulating the stock markets to maintain an artificial balance on paper and are planning for outsourcing. Alas, a fictional balance on paper or outsourcing will not help the productive forces to grow.

The Stock market can function based on illusory hope, speculation and myth. But the demand and supply conditions of productivity and its space-time motion cannot function based on such illusory tools.

Only the productive forces can decide the fate of the economy, not the Stock market or outsourcing. Any speculation, which has disjointed from the economic realities, will only lead the world towards the ultimate economic crunch.

Without identifying the root cause of the economic slow down, the heads of the capital economy are digging their own grave through interest rate manipulation, outsourcing and illusory speculation.

The declining trend in the deeper roots of the capital economy began in 1991, when the massive real-estate crash occurred in New York City. After the great crash of 1991, there has been an explosive growth of Venture Capitalists.  For the first time in the history of humanity, the capital had started searching for an idea. But the capital can search for an idea only when it is in a defensive position.

Most business deals of the venture capitalists, across the world, have taken place based on hope, not on reality. The heedless sensation of cocksure attitude has entered the inner roots of economics, science, religion, industry and elsewhere like a dangerous virus. The unproductive sector has become more powerful than the productive sector and has started dominating the world economy. The former has attained highest name, fame, money and position and the productive sectors have been neglected like never before. People are being lured by the greedier offers and are dreaming of 'the Jack-pot.' All over the world, morality has completely lost its value in front of greedier offers of the newly emerging business world.

Capital will give birth to the fatally malignant economic virus, when it moves from the productive sector to the unproductive sector. At present, the capital has already completed this hazardous journey. For all of us there is no way left except to face the inevitable truth of socio-economic collapse. When every human being is running behind name, fame, money and position, how can one aspire for order in family, private property, state, education, politics or stock market?

In fact, all these developments are inevitable. The colossal upsurge of venture capitalists, IT Industries and outsourcing itself is an ominous signal regarding the approaching economic danger. The greedy people will not understand these deeper aspects of economics and its space-time connectivity. They will continue to live in their surreal world with illusive conclusions.

It is true that money has occupied the dominant position in the world economy. Nonetheless, it has failed to establish true happiness in human life. Money gives birth to all forms of evil sensations and thus dominates the inner roots of the human psyche. It has introduced the myths of passion, competition, envy, ego, and wicked behavior patterns in human psyche.

In addition, it is the worst means of exchange. After a Second World War, in Germany, at the time of recession when a basket of money was left unattended, a thief stole the basket and left the money on the ground. This is not a joke! At present, we are sitting in the same boat and moving towards the last phase of the capital economy. We are very near the predictable economic peril where the money cannot continue its journey as a means of exchange.

Only after comprehending these characteristics of money and its space-time connectivity, our ancient Sages warned the humanity about the imminent danger of The Judgement Day.

Dharma for Dollars

I'm just so appauled at how many of the members on this site are in the enlightenment industry!!!  That's so, so, so ANTITHETICAL to the process! 

the full quote from the Bible… Timothy 6:10 “For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.”

Re: Dharma for Dollars

Though I think everyone appreciates your enthusiasm MM, by accussing WIE and a lot of other sincere people that they are antithetical to the process of enlightening the world, IS antithetical to the process..namely your own process of enlightenment.

I believe that no one in WIE or I-I or Zaadz are for the “love of money”. I personally, know a lot of these individuals who are working for these “industries” and I am continually surprised on how much self-sacrifice they go through for the sake of the world. They have a very little profit motive, and whatever profits they do make, it goes right back into their work.

So in my perspective, when you accuse them of being in it for the money, and simply paying lip service to the enlightenment community, not only insults me, but ultimately your self. You obviously have little understanding of who they really are, beyond your own personal judgements.

Let us remember that the “love of money” is the root of all evil, not “money itself”. Secondly, there is nothing wrong with getting an equal return for what you put out. This what SUSTAINABILITY is all about. A person simply cannot survive nor have a significant impact in the world, if their work doesn't reach some point of sustainbility.

Re: LETS GET REAL (i.e. the excommunicated)

Why do two organizations need to become one in order to be a reflection of enlightened ideals?

You don't see enlightened beings merging physical bodies, why would you expect that seperate organizations do the same?

In fact, I think that because they both exist at the same time, and both reflect the same enlightened consciousness but with different perspectives, and insights, is by far a greater achievement and miracle, than if they just combined into one giant organization.

There is NO PROBLEM IN ENLIGHTENED IDENTITY. That would be against what the realization of enlightenment is in the first place: that fundamentally there is no problem,; identity being the expression of self-in-time.

Re: LETS GET REAL (i.e. the excommunicated)

Dear Alain,

Thanks for the light you bring to this discussion. There is a lot of truth in your words.

Namaste,

Nicole

Re: LETS GET REAL (i.e. the excommunicated)

Your perspectives are refreshing, Alain.

Nevertheless, we will continue to encounter these kinds of contradistinctions as long as there remain sensibilities that transpose aspects of non-material systems on the material.

~Jo

Re: LETS GET REAL

HI Folks!!,

As a long time subscriber to WIE's site, but definitely not a “true believer “, I have looked up and down this wie pod  for a discussion that doesn't start a bit like:—” Fans of …” or  “what do you like about….” or ” Discuss this latest papal bull from AC as though it were the Word of God…..” So this must be the place then. Nice to see you all –and yes I am actually responding to the original thread of this er “discussion” .

My feelings on the ENLIGHTENMENT INDUSTRY if you want to know ? You could check out my Blog – Good Luck !!

Sorry to interrupt whatever else is going on – carry on!!

Love and hugs

Kim

Re: LETS GET REAL

Now, we all know that enlightenment is only for people with I.Q.'s over 140………….lol

Re: LETS GET REAL

And how do you know that you do not have an IQ over 140?
(tv-test are invalid)

Re: LETS GET REAL

I'm glad you were laughing when you said that…. :-)

Re: LETS GET REAL

Thanks for that Kim.

It does seem hard to stay on hard subjects. And the confusion and suffering that comes from a teacher's abuse and exploitation of their students is one of the hardest.–especially where, as here, the teacher may seem to be otherwise inspiring, and to be doing some good things.

It is much easier to philosophize, theorize, self-analyze, politicize or do anything else than to look straight at the human cost and suffering caused by misguided , narcissistic (or worse) teachers.

It's not enough to just say, “this has been discussed before” and move on.
It's not enough to cite “levels and lines” (like Wilber does) and excuse severe emotional problems because of so-called spiritual realization.

I find it is important to really contemplate the facts, and open your heart. Then speak out, if you are called to. And pray for forgiveness of both yourself and the one who is doing harm.
A good place to start the process–the real process–of dealing with this difficult material (and, if I may dare to say so, even if I'm new here, I think the process has barely begun here) would be to read The Story of Caroline Franklyn.
It will break your heart open and help you see the subject in a new light.

Peace and light,
Kradha Kali Das

Servant of Ma

Re: LETS GET REAL

You have shocked me, but still i think that Andrew have good heart. Anyawy, please tell me something about you. Who are you and what is your social background?

Re: LETS GET REAL

Laura, please do not remove this article. Let us discuss on it. i am confident about Andrew.

Chandra

Re: LETS GET REAL

Mr. Kradha Kali Das.

You have just entered yesterday to this site and talking about Andrew. I know that Andrew have some defect, but he is not spiritual betrayer as per the link that you gave in your comment. Please tell me what exactly you want to tell? What is your social background? Are you working for intelligence? If so, remember one thing that you cannot stop the forthcoming wonder where all the spiritual people will join together for the first ground-breaking international conference that will be held in the battle field of Kurukshetra. If you are from intelligence tell your masters to touch me. Prove your capacity by touching me. It is a challenge for you. i can perform this war without weapon, but do not try the back door method like a commercial rat to generate contradiction. We have difference and soon we will sort it. If you are really good in heart continue the communication with the spirit of Truth. Andrew represents enlightened knowledge and the enlightened knowledge is limited in itself because it is an outcome of the past and past is the slave of the known and known is always limited. In fact, it is the known that is preventing us to master the unknown. Known itself is ego, but the enlightened ego loves to give touch to the selfish part of the human mind. Here, unknowingly Andrew also jumped into the pond of finite from the zone of infinite.

Chandra

Re: LETS GET REAL

Chandra,

Sorry to shock you–but that story of Caroline Franklyn is only one of many involving this teacher.

To be honest, I'm a little shocked at your request to Laura to not remove the article. The implication that she might remove an article  (if I understand you correctly) just because it brings up a controversial subject matter is very shocking to me. That would really stifle free discussion here and make such forums a sham–I find it hard to believe (assuming she can do so) that  she would do this or that it would be tolerated on Zaadz.

I'm going to have faith in the good-heartedness and sincerity of everyone involved here in wanting to really explore and communicate together, and seek truth–I won't worry about being disappeared or “excommunicated.”

I'm not sure, Chandra, but maybe you were adressing your question about “your social background” to me? If so:

I am a Western long-time seeker who has been with a number of teachers, mainly (but not only) in Eastern traditions. Some good, some mixed. Let's say I've been around the block and feel I have developed a pretty sensitive  and finely honed “abuse meter” at this point.

Currently, I am a practitioner of Tibetan Buddhism, and a devotee of the Great Mother (who is emptiness and no different than you and me) in all her forms. But I am also inspired by mystical Christianity, mystical Judaism, Advaita Vedanta and some shamanic traditions.

But this isn't really about me.

I don't want to offend anyone. But I think spiritual teachers need to keep to a high standard of ethics. I don't care how they rationalize it, if they are not expressing love and humility, they should step down or folks should be warned about them.

At least these issues should be deeply considered.

In Judaism, speaking of others'  faults is generally lashon hara, one of the worst ethical violations. But if it is done to warn others who may be harmed, it is not merely excusable–it is obligatory.

I pray that all spiritual teachers, and myself and every one of us, may find our heart of real compassion and true humility, by Her Grace.

Peace and light,

Krodhakali Das
Servent of Ma

Re: LETS GET REAL

Krodhakali Das,
    Thank you, thank you, thank you.
I am glad you brought this thread back to its focus, to make us re-face the difficult. If we came to Zaadz for its mission and because of our aspiration, we cannot ignore abuse and suffering in our midst. And the students of Andrew Cohen are in our midst, right here!
My heart goes out to them, I fear that they may not be free to speak their own minds, or share their own feelings, or doubts.
There is a huge connection between Zaadz and WIE, or the EnlightenNext group, many are involved deeply in both. And there is more, for example, I am part of the local Zangha of Greater Boston. And when they wanted to get together, the space that was offered was the EnlightenNext space. On the surface, thats great, and generous and it is a great space, I've gone to a few lectures there. But since i've learned about AC's behavior, I have not wanted to actively support, or be a part of anything thats “his”. I feel like Zaadz is almost being co-opted, like I can't get together with other zaadsters without being inside his influence. I think I'd be very uncomfortable meeting his students because now there is this huge elephant in the room, I'd be so concerned for them. This issue definitely takes away from the power of his message, makes it hollow.
The ironic part of this is that WIE does promote open discussion, while the teacher apparently does not.
And yes, it is possible for messages here to be deleted, edited out, or moved.
I also trust that in the name of free speech, and good intention, and decent fairness that this does not happen.
Those of us who speak out, we are not being rude or disrespectful in our manner. I do care deeply about the aspirations and idealism of the dedicated students of AC's who's hearts are in the right place, and who are rightfully inspired by his words, but harmed by his actions. Its hard to say that they know what they are getting into, when the words speak one way, and the actions, perhaps much later when they are very involved, speak another way.

One thing that AC does say, and I believe is true, is that enlightenment is an evolving process. So that there is no end state, of perfected enlightenment. May Andrew realize that he hasn't found such a state yet himself, be humbled, and look to always grow and refine his vision and action. May harmlessness and love guide him. May we all do so likewise.
Tamara

Re: LETS GET REAL

Hello Everyone,
and Tamara specifically,

just actually have a few minutes, and definitely wanted to respond… this is fascinating to read through, and of course we don't want to be silent or unresponsive, i am just terribly busy..

Tamara you said you were grateful that the thread was refocused “to make us re-face the difficult”
I am not sure what you mean when you say this? Can you please explain .. And then i think i can respond more fully…

“There is a huge connection between Zaadz and WIE, or the EnlightenNext group, many are involved deeply in both.”

you are completely right and i am probably the most obvious one… i work for Zaadz and have been a student of Andrew for over 10 years. The connection between both organizations, as far as i can see it, is that everyone involved in either is very interested in changing this world through changing themselves.. Zaadz brings these individuals together, and the individuals at EnlightenNext have dedicated their lives to the great and ever challenging endeavor of evolving ourselves, our level of consciousness, in order to give rise to new ways of relating and creating the future.. Yes, it is a noble task, and a bold thing to declare. But i wouldn't want to be doing anything else…There is no doubt that this life that i have chosen is not easy… and it is not for everyone. But, i think the connections that are being made through Zaadz and with EnlightenNext and WIE are fantastic, and allow conversations like this one to begin to happen, so we can all explore the truly uncharted territory and begin to make sense of this incredibly complex human life. :-)

Much more later… Sorry i don't have time for more now.. i could spend all day.. and in fact my entire life engaging with the extraordinary nature of what Andrew has begun to bring into consciousness through his own integrity and love for a new humanity… and in fact will be.

It's a great life. And it just get's better…

Appreciating the conversation..
Terri