Quote


``You apparently have very little knowledge of the world’s wisdom traditions. Okay, that is not necessary to have a good personal relation from Andrew and to benefit from him and his teachings, but again, this is a public forum, where, if arguments are going to be made, there ought to be some meaningful reference to acknowledged authorities. You don’t have that knowledge and seemingly are not interested in acquiring it.''

well, what are you talking about ?
How can you be so sure as to assess my knowledge in the wisdom traditions form what i say about Andrew. I didn't talk about the wisdom traditions, as well as I didn't bore you with physics knowledge.
You are just being unbelievably negative and horrible here with both Martin and me, and so superior.

To tell the truth, I have a few things I know quit well, although not as well as quantum physics I admit. I feel I can impress any expert in esotericism, which is indeed the most modern in all traditions, but the one who interests me the most as well. I have great facilities with anything related to alchemy, and have received initiation in Shamanic practices followed by a year spent in Brazil. I was raised a christian catholic, went to the church for a while and a good knowledge of christian mysticism. I indeed have very little interest in buddhism, I don't know why. As far as Ramana Maharshi, Nissargadata, Ramakrishana: I went to India , had my advaita vedanta period well. I have a deep soul connection to Ramakrhisna and Ramana, but for you I suppose this doesnt' count as knowlegde.

My forte in definitely esotericism. Steiner type. Gurdjieff type.

Now when you claim I am not interested in acquiring ``this''(?) knowledge, this is now a personal insult, in the right tone of your e-mail and apparently exposing the type of person you really are. It is not acceptable. You have no clue and no real argument from what I wrote to make such a stupid accusation on me. You shall apologize for your callousness and absolute lack of respect here.

This blog is about Andrew, not about me or Martin. You are completely loosing our way and now are scapegoating everyone.

When you say you have investigated the case of Andrew, this is also giving yourself too much credit. Both Martin and I saw the guy in live and spent time with him, took time to understand him and know what he is doing. You did none of this , and since you have never seen him, how can you claim to have made some investigations here. What kind of investigations ?
just watching one video ? give us a break here please with you grandiose superior claims on your so high knowledge.

You are simply the one who knows Andrew the less of all of us.
If you know everything with the same shallowness as you claim to know Andrew, then well, I am not really impressed.

reply
.

``I also decided to run a

Submitted by Catherine (not verified) on July 25, 2011 - 1:31am.


``I also decided to run a couple of them by a friend of mine. This guy has a degree in religious studies, has seriously studied the world’s great wisdom traditions (for over 40 years), has lived in an ashram, is an Ayurvedic physician, writes and speaks professionally, and is an astute judge of human behavior. He is also a very no-bullshit guy and likes to call em as he see em. I knew that if I was off base he would let me know right away. Within 10 minutes of watching, he told me that Andrew is mostly in his head, is making the shit up, is a very defensive person (this conclusion came from another interview Andrew did with Lee Lozowick that we watched, as well as one with Terry Patten), and has the interesting habit of not being able to hear anything anybody else says. “He can’t let anything even go a millimeter below the level of his skin before he has to respond with HIS opinion. What a clown.”''

Your guy is just wrong here. The truth is that you cannot judge someone on 15 mns video, and your guy shall know this after all those years in the ashrams. After 15 mns video you can only say that you like or don't like someone.
If you meet Andrew in person, you might one day notice how wrong you were.
He really has something that you don't see, and apparently it makes you mad not to see it. Just leave it as this; you don't like the guy , Ok, why do you want to convince everyone about this? Is Andrew so important to you ?
For those who have eyes to see, it is obvious that Andrew has a very special spiritual gift.

He is not perfect, but he has a great gift.

It is not true as well, that Andrew doesn't hear people. He really does, that's what is so compelling about him. He is incredibly attentive to his students, and to people he talks to. He remembers the name and history of most of them. He never gives a hard time unless he feels he knows the person. It is thus just the opposite of what you say.
Maybe you are projecting your own predicament here ? that you are not attentive at all to whom you are talking to ?
your last comment about my lack of knowledge of the wisdom ``traditions'' [ meaning which ones ?] is just an example. I probably know much more than you can imagine even now [ although the only claim of expertise I publicly make is in quantum physics : this I can claim to be an expert knower and professional].
You might have been just a little bit more cautious with me before throwing completely wrong statements.

Andrew has indeed some defects, but unfortunately for you, they don't seem to be the ones you are mentioning.

reply
.

hmm...

Submitted by chris boys (not verified) on July 25, 2011 - 2:33am.


Catherine,

Well, one thing at a time:

1) You don’t seem to give a damn about your writing. Okay, no problem, if you can’t take the time to write and use word processor, so be it. I can still wade through the chicken scratch and get to the meat of things.

2) I may have been wrong about my critique of your esoteric knowledge. I will have to go back through all of your posts and see what is what on that one. I will check back on that, and if I am wrong I stand corrected and apologize. Give me a little time.

3) I did not just watch 15 minutes of video. If you read what I wrote then you will see that I have watched a good two hours of the stuff. I have also read three of his books (as I also mentioned). That is a decent amount of investigation to form an opinion. My friend and I watched just three videos together; that is true. However, like I said, my friend is an extremely well qualified and perceptive man. It would be similar to having Oppenheimer sit in on a thesis lecture given at the graduate level. If he spotted big problems immediately, then we could trust him to point them out.

4) I guess I am just going to have to bite the bullet and get those damn videos transcribed and go through them for you. What a chore.

5) If you look at my earlier posts, I did not say anything negative about Andrew. My own database on the guy was from years ago and not so fresh at hand. I mostly defended in the earlier posts the basic tradition that harsh methods can occur in spirituality and that maybe Andrew’s use of them fell within the accepted norm; I don’t know. It was only after you asked me to watch the videos, that I grocked that something was seriously out of whack with the guy. I implored Terry to do a little investigative fact check on him (so far Terry has crapped out on that one, and you too).

Nuff said for now

reply
.

OK Chris, sorry for the

Submitted by Catherine (not verified) on July 25, 2011 - 2:46am.


OK Chris,

sorry for the type writing; it is not an excuse but an explanation: I have had a degenerative illness for years and typewriting is tough for me. Moreover my english is far form perfect. This shall really work more on I agree and make an effort here.

About esoteric knowledge I simply didn't talk about it at all, except one or two remarks : the first one about Steiner and the superb blog by Sebastian Gronbach in the Integrales Forum [http://www.integralesleben.org/de/il-home/il-integrales-leben/anwendungen/religion-spiritualitaet/papier-des-if-zur-diskussion-um-spirituelle-lehrer/antwort-von-sebastian-gronbach/] which might give you an idea of what I love in Steiner. The second remark was Gurdjieff's opinion that it is a completely useless game to rank spiritual teachers as far as our interaction with them is concerned. The only thing is to have a connection with somone who is higher than us, and as such teach us something. You can find it in the first chapters of ``Fragments of an Unknown Teaching'' [ maybe the english title is ``Towards the Miraculous'', I don't know] by PD Ouspensky, one of the greatest esoteric book ever written [to my taste].

I didn't talk at all about my love of christian mystics and also european mystical philosophers.

As for Andrew, please leave it as it is.

Why so much hate ?

and we both have many other things to do rather than fight because you don't like him and I love him so much as my teacher. It is draining for me.

reply
.

uncle

Submitted by chris boys (not verified) on July 25, 2011 - 10:47am.


Catherine,

Okay, you win. Man, you were rope a doping me all along. Then you throw the knockout punch that you love Andrew. Hey, I never argue with that stuff.

You one sneaky gal.

Anyway, I am out of here.

No more entries from me on this blog. Got to go and recuperate from your ass-whippin.

Take care and give Martin a big kiss for me.

reply
.

As AC says: "Face everything and avoid nothing"

Submitted by Martin Gifford (not verified) on July 25, 2011 - 4:37pm.


Catherine,

How are you and Andrew Cohen going to evolve God? Are you going to make God:

more omniscient,
more omnipotent,
more omnipresent?

Do you see the absurdity of Cohen's claim to be evolving God? Admitting that Andrew is wrong on this point doesn't mean you have to throw out the whole of Cohenism. Admitting that he is wrong on this point, shows honesty and intelligence and other "evolved" qualities.

Chris Boys,

Thanks for the creative efforts. I like creativity.

Now, can you write a story about Chris Boys stopping the avoidance of reality?

reply
.

Chris, thanks so much ! your

Submitted by Catherine (not verified) on July 26, 2011 - 9:29am.


Chris,

thanks so much ! your last message was very gracious and I appreciate this.
A bit of grace in this world is maybe one of the most needed thing !

Martin, I would like to answer you precisely without deforming Andrew's thinking. So please, first, what I say in the next lines are my take only on the subject. If I make errors they are mine.

WE don't say : ``me, you and Andrew make God evolve'' but the first idea here is that Evolution itself is an Absolute. That the process of Evolution touches the Absolute and not the relative world.
It is an idea that you can find texto in the fist texts by Teilhard de Chardin when he states that at the beginning both consciousness *and* matter got incarnate together on this earth and that from this they both evolve together. Consciousness [-- God here] evolves. I , like Teilhard take it as an assumption.
I ma nto the only scientist to take it as an assumption and it is maybe the simplest way to be truly a scientist and spiritual. If you read a bit of Rupert Sheldrake for example, he will have the same assumption as the beginning. Matter, atoms, all forms of matter have a interior [ Consciousness] which is evolving like its exterior[ the world of form].
Now to my take, where Andrew is truly bringing something totally New, is in the idea that we can participate consciously in the Absolute Evolution, and the way to do it is to desire [or have intention] to Evolve for the sake of Evolution itself.
Not to ``become better in this or that or even in all the possible qualities, but just for the sake of the Evolution itself]. Basically the key is to want to change for change. Period.

It is very radical and carries beautifully the way that the Absolute operates, as Evolution is concerned.

It is, n one word, as if to al the qualities that you presented us of God, there is one missing : change. God is movement. It it is Movement, it must be Evolution itself. God is not a stasis, or static, if not he could not be ``everything''.

reply
.

This is the Most Evolved Heading Ever

Submitted by Martin Gifford (not verified) on July 28, 2011 - 1:52am.


Terry,

Did you give Andrew our suggestions for improvement? They were good, right? He would love to read them.

Catherine,

You say, "at the beginning both consciousness *and* matter got incarnate together on this earth and that from this they both evolve together." That is speculation. It's okay as an interesting idea to play with, and it might even produce interesting experiences, but no one knows if it is true, and no one can ever know.

You say, "we can participate consciously in the Absolute Evolution, and the way to do it is to desire [or have intention] to Evolve for the sake of Evolution itself." Something absolute cannot be improved, by definition. Also, I don't see why Andrew believes he needs to create a global revolution based on such an idea. It's not some objective truth that people can rally around. It is simply a particular interest belonging to him and some of his followers. Not many people would believe in evolution for the sake of evolution itself - it's a strange construct. People are not interested in it because it's an eccentric philosophy, not because they lack morality or heroism or any of the other Cohenite ideals. By the way, capitalising the phrase "Absolute Evolution" doesn't raise it to the level of The Truth; it can produce experiences of "big mind", etc., and that's okay as a _creative choice_ (I like that stuff too), but it's not a discovery of Truth.

Why would anyone do anything "for the sake of Evolution itself"? Why would people sacrifice their own desires for the sake of a weird ideal? I think the reality is that Andrew utters these grandiose stories and then his followers feel a sense of bigness, drama, and importance, and then they revel in those exciting sensations, which is their own desire. That's okay, but I think it's healthy to describe it accurately rather than in terms of sacrifice, heroism, truth, morality, etc. Be careful not to mistake excitement and bigness for Truth. That's been a lifelong error that Cohen has made regarding his own experiences and thoughts. He thinks that if some idea, feeling, or experience is big, then it must be God or Truth.

You say, "the key is to want to change for change. Period." That is a wrong motivation. It's a reaction to feeling stuck, right? Isn't it better to understand why you think you are stuck? You don't need to change. You just need to express your potential. The idea that you have to change assumes there is something wrong with you. That idea itself is the only problem, the only obstacle to manifesting your potential here and now.

You say, "the qualities that you presented us of God, there is one missing : change. God is movement… God is not a stasis…" This is all wrong. Change and movement are obviously included in "omnipotent". It seems to me that Andrew _assumed_ that people believed God is static and then created a philosophy in reaction to _his assumption_ and now is claiming to have invented the knowledge of God's movement!

Anyway, I've lost motivation for continuing this discussion. You say that Andrew needs to improve, but you can't quite bring yourself to admit specific faults in his behaviour or philosophy. That's understandable - love is blind. But beware: Andrew will only love you to the degree you reflect his thoughts and ideals back to him.

reply
.

Enlightenment

Submitted by Paul Williams (not verified) on August 21, 2011 - 8:41am.


Philosophy is naturally complex. Spirituality, on the other hand, if spirit exists, should be simple, universal and accessible to all without need of a guru or thesaurus. It is this belief that attracts me to the simplicity of basic Buddhist instruction and simple meditation as a spiritual path. Anything more seems to me a product of the very egoic human arrogance this path is designed to eleminate. This doesn't mean I'm not interested in philosophy or complexity, it just means I don't see any need to turn my philosophy professor into the next Jesus. Nor would I select a professor who resists critique or peer review. Given the choice between a professor like Andrew Cohen to lead the Evolutionary Enlightment class or one like Terry Patton, I'd vote for Terry. When's the election?

reply
.

We are spirit, if spirit is perfect then we are perfect already

Submitted by Martin Gifford (not verified) on August 23, 2011 - 10:26pm.


Paul Williams,

"Spirituality, on the other hand, if spirit exists, should be simple, universal and accessible to all without need of a guru or thesaurus."

Yes.

How far away from you are you? No distance.

How far away from reality are you? No distance.

I reckon the problem is in society, not in the person. Society keeps us distracted by saying that happiness is:

- in the future, or
- external, or
- involves some particular state, or
- requires some particular behaviour.

Since all of these are unreal or fleeting, we remain chasing happiness in the wrong place.

reply
.

A one-time comment for chris and martin & a p.s. for catherine

Submitted by Claudine (not verified) on February 14, 2012 - 11:51pm.


"Evolving Spirituality for the 21st Century." What hogwash. This is all a lot of mental masturbation, mostly by guys, who are [rightly] shit-scared of real dissolution of the imaginary ego. You love the mental jousting and picking one another apart, bone by bone. Or else you are busy ass-kissing and praising one another when you occasionally agree. I saw this same crap going down in Adi Da's community for many years--very up close and personal by the way--and it is as sad and useless now as it was then. [Other than as a means to avoid throwing yourselves into real Self-Discovery.] If you had the balls for that you would have neither the time nor interest to be on here flapping your virtual pie-holes all the time. [The same goes for all the other neo-bullshit websites like this one.] Terry is a "nice guy," who like Saniel, crapped-out when pushed just a little too far [or maybe not far enough...I suppose it depends on your perspective.] Truth be told, there is NO shame in that, but then to have to start your own new "integral fantasy theories"--which are "evolutionary" only to the degree in which you create more convoluted ways to fool yourselves--well, this reader's sympathies end there. Also, like Saniel and Terry, you believe that playing with energies, and re-imagining your programming [rather like beautifying your prison cell] constitutes authentic Realization. This works, as make-believe Liberation, only as long as you keep AFFIRMING it to one another via all the talking and mental constructs...and perhaps fortified through "gazing" into the eyes/I's of the numberless fantasy realms to which ALL apparent beings are privy. The dream has you by the balls big time...and...if you really look deep you will see that it is NOT so entertaining after all. But have no fear, no one can make you do anything you don't want to do, right? You are free to go on playing make believe until the illusory sun explodes. Just don't think it's the same as BEING Free.

And catherine...what are you doing wasting your time with these guys? You will never beat them at their games, and any "acceptance" will always be merely provisional anyway. Lucky for you...!

reply
.

Claudine The Egoless, please give us something to work with!

Submitted by Martin Gifford (not verified) on February 15, 2012 - 5:34pm.


Hi Claudine,

Thanks for your frank comments. I really do appreciate it. Frankness gets us past so much time-wasting.

However, you need to give us more to work with:

1. How do we "throw ourselves into real Self-Discovery"?

2. What is your definition of "the dream"?

3. What is your definition of "BEING Free"?

If you don't answer these questions, your comment looks like an angry outburst by someone who doesn't really know what they are talking about.

reply
.


To Martin: A one-time response to a "one-time comment..."

Submitted by Claudine (not verified) on February 17, 2012 - 5:47pm.


"If you don't answer these questions, your comment looks like an angry outburst by someone who doesn't really know what they are talking about."

Ha-ha...thanks for the laugh, Martin, but I don't need to prove anything..and your saying that I don't know what I'm talking about if I don't meet your demands is sophomoric baiting. Nor was my post an angry outburst. Yes, strong words perhaps but just my direct observations over many, many years. These kinds of debates really ARE just mental masturbation. People delude themselves constantly about their spiritual understanding, especially by finding "others" to agree with them. It's just that now they all celebrate/affirm their illusions together and call it "the truth." That was the inevitable outcome of making esoteric teachings available to all, with little or no real preparation. Even hanging out with a true Realizer for 20 yrs--while never actually surrendering the [illusory] ego--is NOT real preparation. This current trend has a lot to do with all the neo-advaita claims of instant realization and new evolutionary spiritual paradigms, blah-blah-blah. None of it is really new, nor bad, or wrong...but that does NOT make any of it true either. It all merely reinforces the mind, Martin, as does all this blogging. You are suffocating your own heart [and I don't just mean you personally.]

If you would go cold turkey for awhile and face your addiction--no blogging, no reading blogs, no comments at all for say, a month and just BE QUIET--you would learn a great deal about the mind and where you are really at [for better or worse.] I am not putting down your desire to know your Self, but I promise you, Martin, this is NOT the path that will get you Home. I'm using plain language here, and you need not waste time trying to debate/or bait me on my verbiage. The words are not the real message...

I won't respond again. I have no special wisdom to impart that is not already within you. You just need to figure out how to see it. I would suggest that you study, "Silence of the Heart - Dialogues with Robert Adams." It is one of the most accessible "manuals" of true Advaita practice available, period. Read it slowly. Follow the very wise instruction in it and--if the timing is right--it could change your life. No bull-shit.

How serious are you about realizing your true nature? The most important tool you have access to RIGHT NOW is to be absolutely honest with yourself. Good luck, and I truly mean that. I will not respond so, please, put whatever charge this gives you into answering the question for yourself.

reply
.

Honesty

Submitted by Martin Gifford (not verified) on February 19, 2012 - 2:54pm.


Claudine,

Thanks for your reply.

It looks like this:

At some point, you decided that the common idea of enlightenment suits you. Then you saw people enquiring further, which threatened your settled opinion about what's true and what matters, so in your first comment, you let off steam. You suggested that you were egoless, which is clearly false. You said that you wouldn't respond to anyone who replied to you, which is passive aggression. You labelled my reply to your first comment "sophomoric baiting" in order to avoid answering the questions, and to pretend to have the high moral ground.

I think it's fine that you are happy with what you have. But you will create trouble for yourself if you presume that it's the final truth, that it's egolessness, and that others who explore further are deluded.

I suspect that you pointed me to Robert Adams as a substitute for your own lack of understanding. With a title like "Silence of the Heart", it is probably the generic spiritual viewpoint. I hope to be surprised, though.

Absolute honesty is great. In fact, that's all the world needs. But if you were absolutely honest with yourself, you would admit that you have an ego and that you are attached to the mainstream spiritual point of view. And that explains your visit here.

reply
.

Advaita vs Life

Submitted by Martin Gifford (not verified) on February 22, 2012 - 1:03am.


Okay, I checked out Robert Adams. I think he is one of the best for advaita. I would recommend him for that.

But he says we basically have no free will, that everything is pre-ordained, that we should devote ourselves to helping others, and that this life is fleetingly unimportant except as an opportunity for liberation.

So I am wondering why we replace old illusions with new ones? Why can't people allow the unknowing to remain? Like Andrew Cohen, Robert Adams had a big spiritual experience in his teens and quickly concluded that he was God. Why do we interpret our experiences so quickly? Then he seems to have adopted some standard Indian beliefs and idealism. Why not remain in the unknowing for a while and see where it leads?

Also, why do spiritual types continue to devalue this life? It made sense in the past to devalue this life because life expectancy was shorter and there was lack of medicine and there was widespread poverty. But now we see this world gives us an fabulous opportunity to express our greater potential. Why not embrace it? To me, the shortness of this life seems to make it more important than eternal life. If we live forever, then we don't have to worry. Yet the universe will never be in this current form again. It will never be 2012 on Earth again, so this is a unique opportunity.

reply
.

a personal ( intermediate conclusion)

Submitted by Catherine (not verified) on September 11, 2012 - 10:43am.


Dear friends, just one year ago, I wrote as a passionate advocate of Andrew'sTeachings on this blog. I decided to give you a note today because three months ago I have quitted. I am not sure whether three months are enough to separate the baby with the bathwater, and to sort out ``what happened'' or to extract any generalities about my special case. I just know that, as a scientist, and although I don't feel very proud of this sudden change of viewpoint ( for a scientist it sounds as if my theory was all wrong from the beginning...) I want to put the record straight here and say at that least on a few points that I have advanced last year I changed my mind.
One of these points, which has not been discussed at lenght in this blog, is the question of ``giving the benefit of the doubt''. As a student in the low levels of Andrew's organization I must admit that it took me a few years to figure out how things are working there. 4 years indeed... It is a long time, but well, when one is with a Teacher, one is in Love and it is difficult to exercise Reason. Moreover the structure itself is not very transparent as discussed below. So I have ``given the benefit of the doubt'' for a long time, putting under the rug some facts that finally pushed me to leave. The main reason I left is that the structure of the Shanga of a post modern Guru, as incarnated by Andrew, is pyramidal in nature. It is of the same type of the structure used by the mafiosi or by the nazi during he war or also by the roman army. It can simply be defined as that the lower level have no clue about what t higher level decide and what is really going on. This is indeed very archaic and probably a blind spot of their organization, but a blind spot that preserves the power structure intact. So at some point I couldn't get anymore how one could think to address the post modern world with a working structure which is thousand of years old and which didn't produce anything really good besides military conquests. I raised the question and got very defensive answers here ( maybe if Terry raises the question he will get something more open, but I didn't) That simply didn't fit in. One personal consequence for me has been an increasing a sense of castration, a sense of ``not fitting in at al,'' not to have enough space to liberate my creativity and my human gifts. There was also Andrew despising publicly the French in Paris which was the final blow, lethal for my French pride. I couldn't take this at all; it was too much for me as probably for most of my compatriots. So I left.

Now I want to say, for the ``baby'', that I learned a lot from my ``Spiritual Passion'' for ``Guru Andrew''. have learned on all levels. It was wonderful to be able to give oneself fully without having to think too much rationally, and while doing this I really go a lot from the intensity of the Teachings. I was so passionate that I was in the Cauldron somehow, beaten from inside from everywhere. I am absolutely certain that Andrew is a Realized master, in terms of his personal achievements. Altogether, at a personal level I feel that it has been a very important time for my growth and I hold no personal grievance. Simply grateful for what I learned. Now if you ask the scientist in me, I will simply tell you bluntly that all that concerns the collective Ideal of Evolutionary Enlightenment does not convince me on it practicality. There is somehow a bug in line 3 of the program and nobody seem to stop to correct it... at the collective level the systemic thinking work has not been done, people in the group have not put enough amount of systemic thinking to warrant credibility and it seems as if the whole community has gone Ascending fiercely with very little retro- action possible. Hence my scientific verdict is a deep unbalance towards the Acending side of the road.
I am personally against experimenting with human Soul on a big scale level, and I would advise at this stage for them to stop, and think whether the basis of their organization are suited to the goal or whether they are building a Castle onto Sand. I am not convinced that Andrew really knows what he is doing when he tampers with human Soul at a big scale level.

In one word, it is the scientist in me who suddenly got alarmed by the consequences of maintaining a rigid hierarchical structure based only on the degree of allegiance to Andrew's ideas while systematically advertising and referring to Evolution. To me Evolution is coherent with openness, and not castration of other cultures or rigid hierarchy. OK, that's my two cents... I would be more than happy one day to be convinced, as a scientist, with not only words and Ideas but with real actions and demonstrative facts, as a Descender, from the right quadrant of the Evolutionary map, that my worries were wrong. Up to this moment, I cannot give anymore the benefit of the doubt, and my temporary conclusion is that there is a mistake in line two in the calculation here. If they somehow succeed to evolve the Monster Mafia Structure, make it more human, more alive, ,ore spacious to encourage and be a real scenes for human potential, maybe we have something new and valid and organically viable there ?

All the best to all, Catherine

reply
.

Global evolution vs individual discipleship

Submitted by Martin GIfford (not verified) on September 15, 2012 - 6:40pm.


Hi Catherine,

Great to hear from you and to get this update about where you are at. It occurred to me recently that I failed to give you credit for staying in our long conversation here. I criticised Cohenites for exiting conversations early, but this time I exited first. Kudos to you for sticking it out. Here are my thoughts regarding the points you raise FWIW:

- "I am not sure whether three months are enough to separate the baby with the bathwater, and to sort out "what happened" or to extract any generalities about my special case."

You were in it for 4 years, so I would bet that 3 months is not enough time to sort out what happened. YMMV.

- "As a student in the low levels of Andrew's organization I must admit that it took me a few years to figure out how things are working there… the structure itself is not very transparent…

This totally discredits Andrew's claim that he warns people carefully before they get involved.

- "I have "given the benefit of the doubt" for a long time, putting under the rug some facts that finally pushed me to leave."

Face everything and avoid nothing means facing any corruption we see in the organisation and pointing it out. That's the ideal. The reality is often putting things under the rug. Everyone is so attached to the hope of a perfect group and to evolution that they dare not risk rocking the boat by pointing out uncomfortable reality.

- "The main reason I left is that the structure of the Shanga of a post modern Guru, as incarnated by Andrew, is pyramidal in nature. It is of the same type of the structure used by the mafiosi or by the nazi during the war or also by the roman army. It can simply be defined as that the lower level have no clue about what t higher level decide and what is really going on. This is indeed very archaic and probably a blind spot of their organization, but a blind spot that preserves the power structure intact."

Andrew presents himself as dealing with postmodernism (anti-authoritarian) with a traditional pre-modern approach, which is authoritarian. However, the pre-modern privileges those with power and disempowers those without power. The pre-modern is about authority, regimentation, and insiders vs outsiders. As you say, it doesn't seem very evolved.

- "So at some point I couldn't get anymore how one could think to address the post modern world with a working structure which is thousand of years old and which didn't produce anything really good besides military conquests. I raised the question and got very defensive answers here (maybe if Terry raises the question he will get something more open, but I didn't) That simply didn't fit in."

Maybe they would say that we need to transcend and include and that including means using old organisational structures. But such structures don't seem to gel well with ideas of liberation and human flowering.

- "One personal consequence for me has been an increasing a sense of castration, a sense of "not fitting in at all," not to have enough space to liberate my creativity and my human gifts."

Exactly. AC might say people need discipline, etc. But even if we accepted that, how long do we need it for? It shouldn't be for a long time. After all, how far away from ourselves can we be? Liberation should be quick and easy.

- "There was also Andrew despising publicly the French in Paris which was the final blow, lethal for my French pride. I couldn't take this at all; it was too much for me as probably for most of my compatriots. So I left."

I can imagine AC and his supporters would say that nationalism isn't a very good reason for leaving. But what is it with Americans and the French? The French gave America the Statue of Liberty, which is a wonderful symbol and a wonderful tourist attraction. Ant there was so much goodwill from the French towards America. It all ended because the French didn't go with immoral Bush into Iraq. One of Andrew's disciples pointed out that he mentioned the dehumanising possibilities in German consciousness, but what about the same in American consciousness? Obama is drone bombing funeral parties, assassinating American citizens, maintaining Guantanamo Bay, etc.

- "Now I want to say, for the "baby", that I learned a lot from my "Spiritual Passion" for "Guru Andrew".

Excellent. Clearly true.

- "I am absolutely certain that Andrew is a Realized master, in terms of his personal achievements."

I'd say that depends on what you mean by "realised master". I think he is lacking a lot of wisdom.

- "Now if you ask the scientist in me, I will simply tell you bluntly that all that concerns the collective Ideal of Evolutionary Enlightenment does not convince me on it practicality. There is somehow a bug in line 3 of the program and nobody seem to stop to correct it... at the collective level the systemic thinking work has not been done, people in the group have not put enough amount of systemic thinking to warrant credibility and it seems as if the whole community has gone Ascending fiercely with very little retro- action possible. Hence my scientific verdict is a deep unbalance towards the Ascending side of the road."

That is a perfect diagnosis. You can also be guaranteed that the situation will not change. That itself is also diagnostic of the insular nature of AC and the organisation.

- "I am personally against experimenting with human Soul on a big scale level, and I would advise at this stage for them to stop, and think whether the basis of their organization are suited to the goal or whether they are building a Castle onto Sand. I am not convinced that Andrew really knows what he is doing when he tampers with human Soul at a big scale level."

Yes. Of course, he might even admit that he doesn't know what he's doing either - he might say it's an experiment. But he's being very selective regarding the results of the experiment. There are many anomalies in the evidence that he is ignoring or glossing over. He might even say there's no time navel gazing, i.e. that we need to progress as fast as possible. But I would say that real progress actually means facing those anomalies in detail.

- "In one word, it is the scientist in me who suddenly got alarmed by the consequences of maintaining a rigid hierarchical structure based only on the degree of allegiance to Andrew's ideas while systematically advertising and referring to Evolution."

Bingo! According to AC and his supporters:

Evolution = Cohenism.

And this is very problematic. It means if you don't believe in Cohenism, then you are not evolving and might even be an obstacle to evolution, which is a dangerous idea. More evidence that "Evolution = Cohenism" was that he had on his website an image of the universe and the advertising line was something like, "Come join the universe", as if joining the universe means believing in AC. And certainly, there's no transparency in that romantic notion. It's not like he's saying, "Come join the universe and get dunked in freezing lakes and bow 500 times to my photo."

- "I would be more than happy one day to be convinced… that my worries were wrong."

He certainly can't criticise you for lack of open-mindedness!

- "If they somehow succeed to evolve the Monster Mafia Structure, make it more human, more alive, more spacious to encourage and be a real scenes for human potential, maybe we have something new and valid and organically viable there ?"

Yes, it would be great if the structure evolved. The necessity is obvious. They exclude evolutionary, intelligent, constructive futurists like me because unconditional love of Andrew and obedience to Andrew are the first rules. I would say that's a bug in the program. Also, after a few years on the organisation, everyone should be liberated. Liberation should be easy and quick. It only means being yourself, free of illusion.

Perhaps the main problem is that Andrew Cohen is trying to be two things at once - an evolutionary and a guru. They should be kept strictly separate. If his message to the world is one of global evolution, and he is publicly advocating for a traditional guru/disciple relationship at the same time (and saying, "It's your ability to respond that counts"), then the message is mixed - he is asking for the whole world to obey him!

reply
.

Andrew Cohen Apologises and Steps Down

Submitted by Martin Gifford (not verified) on July 2, 2013 - 10:04pm.


Big news! Andrew Cohen has apologised and stepped down! Here's his blog post on the matter: [andrewcohen.org]

More background here: [whatenlightenment.blogspot.com.au]...

My blog post on the matter can be found here: worldwidehappiness.blogspot.com

It will be interesting to see how things evolve from here. I reckon the situation is pregnant with possibility. I reckon Cohen and his fellow evolutionaries could become more inclusive and more effective. Fingers crossed.

Cheers.

reply
.

Cohen was outsted from his cult.

Submitted by Duff (not verified) on August 7, 2013 - 3:23pm.


The apologies are part of a PR stunt. The truth is out now.

[whatenlightenment.blogspot.com.au]...

reply
.

Red Riding Hoods and few Grandmothers exposing the Wolf

Submitted by Elfriede (not verified) on April 1, 2014 - 8:40am.


a teacher can motivate a child/student to learn via
1. ambition,
2. fear
3. love.
addressing Waldorf teachers Rudolf Steiner skipped fear and ambition from the list whereas Friedrich Nietzsche favored the carrot or stick approach.

the catalytic ingredients of transformation are
1. Limerence (vision, idealism, infatuation, ambition),
2. Crisis (fear, anger, disillusionment, breakdown)
3. Insight (wisdom, reflection)

to concentrate on love and wisdom seems the noble path, the third way – at the fourth turning.

this is part of the public reflections on guru in withdrawal Andrew Cohen:

48. "Cohen, when among close students, ridiculing, laughing at, insulting and dismissing other teachers, public associates and peers, such as
Deepak Chopra, the Dalai Lama (“an idiot”),
Don Beck (“a disgusting old man”),
Craig Hamilton (“a big baby”),
Ken Wilber (“a huge narcissist”),
Michael Beckwith and Barbara Marx Hubbard (“they just don’t get it”) and various members of the Integral community, such as
David Deida, Terry Patten and others, and encouraging close students to do the same."

THE “A” LIST: A Catalog of Trauma and Abuse, presented by blog What Enlightenment??!, 18. July 2013
[whatenlightenment.blogspot.com.au]...

Terry, nearly four years ago (June 5, 2010) you wrote here, "if we take integral evolutionary spiritual activism seriously, we might have an *obligation* to" [inquire outrageous teachings and charges of enabling abuse].
the debate here was on whose task it is to take care of Cohen's shadow including the shadow of his group/movement. integral evolutionary spiritual activists or simply common sense people are called to be the keepers of their brothers [siblings].
holding leaders (corrupt politicians, abusive teachers) accountable is the next step in the evolution of humankind/democracy.
holding cult leaders as well as their supporters (enablers) accountable by exposing their "sins" is an expression of civic courage. it came about - in the third decade of the wolf AC.

in a climate of "us vs. them" Cohen held disdain for his public associates who enabled his cult. he held disdain for you as well, Terry.
here and elsewhere you have suspended your "final" judgment/discernment on Andrew Cohen, claiming in the comment section that you "don't have a dog in this fight."
Terry, do you consider yourself among those who publicly held Andrew Cohen accountable or who discouraged others to hold AC accountable or who [fill in ...]?

the leading figures of the Integral community (you being one of them) went along with Andrew Cohen through the phases of
1. infatuation and
2. crisis
claiming that both are the legitimate ways within guruism.
the third phase of wisdom/reflection may offer the end of guruism altogether. who knows?

this is the current result of my way of holding accountable Robert Augustus Masters, with whom i had encounters in 3D in 1991 and online in 2011-now.
[de.spiritualwiki.org] (Terry, your name is mentioned in there as well.)

8 years ago - when i listened to Ken Wilber interviewing RAM at Integral Naked [in.integralinstitute.org] - i felt very uneasy, since RAM avoided explicitely to mention that he is still an unredeemed cult leader.
he, who had eaten some chalk, fed Ken Wilber with his new narrative embarking in his third round of now veiled cultism. and from then on it went around the integral community.
since 2006 RAM is enjoying the support and the endorsements of integral luminaries (yours included) at various occasions.

to me RAM seems to be the next towering figure within the integral "enlightenment" scene who is getting exposed for his unredeemed abuses as a cult leader -- 21 years later. the patterns of RAM's abuses are pretty similar to those of Andrew Cohen, yet his community cult Xanthyros in Vancouver BC covered maybe 100 people altogether. in RAM's case the role of the huntsman was effected by the overdosed intake of a drug. the cult members were not heard.

in Cohen's case several heartwrenching disclosure books on him and his methods did not stop his well-oiled cult. it took 25 years and public exposure for many years - by the many united voices of exited Red Riding Hoods to bring the wolf's cult to a halt. the voices from the grandmothers cut free from the wolf's belly were few, indeed. i guess, it was them who started the blog "What Enlightenment?"

Take care, Ellfriede