I enjoyed Martin's letter - its analysis is right on; however I have a different conclusion to the whole mess. That is that we are all free agents, it's up to us and there's no one to wait for. I really don't think any Big Man (or Woman) is going to save us, and that is the really Good News. It's expressed very well in a letter posted on reader's comments on the American Guru site. The letter comes from someone who invested years with a big man spiritual teacher:

Dear William,
The problem with all these parasites is that they talk the talk, but can’t walk the walk. The Wizard of Oz is a perfect metaphor for what happened to us.

You and I went to the Land of Oz looking for the enlightened Wizard. We wanted him to enlighten us, to give us truth, strength, wisdom, love and courage; instead, we found a schmuck with his head up his ass.

The essence of Enlightenment is the realization that there is no such thing as “Enlightenment”; what could be more liberating and humorous, William?

Now we can live the truth of our discovery, instead of spending our life looking for it. Just because it isn’t what we expected, doesn’t make it any less the Truth.

And just like the characters in Oz, in the process of our great mis-adventure, we discovered our strength, showed our courage, did not abandon love and acquired the foundation of real wisdom.

So, we did get what we wanted from these fools, not because of them, but in spite of them. It’s all the justice anyone can ask for; in the words of that great Italian philosopher Frank Sinatra, “Living well is your best revenge”; get busy.

What we have gone through is otherwise known as “growing up”. There is no enlightenment, no god-man, no Easter bunny, no tooth fairy, no heaven, no hell and no salvation. Amen

Be well and laugh

To put things in perspective, here is a quotation from a book I found at a garage sale.

Its title is Painfully Obvious: An Irreverent and Unauthorized Manual for Leather/SM by Robert Davolt, published in 2003

(SM means sado masochism)

The book was written by and for persons in the BDSM kink community, by Robert Davolt, who for years, wrote for Drummer magazine


Mr Devolt writes:

Quote

Slave, boy or--puppy--a submissive's capability, strength, intellect and wits are submitted to a master to make the master stronger and more capable. Submissive therefore does not mean inferior. Considering that a slave reflects his training (and therefore his owner) to the rest of the community, he is also a walking billboard displaying the triumphs or failure of the master.

The idea that a slave is a worthless piece of trash does ont reflect well on any master that would own such an object.

Quoted by Corboy from Painfully Obvious, page 60

Readers are invited to ponder this quotation. Then readers should apply this to Andrew Cohen's attitude toward his current and former disciples -- especially those who have left Cohen's unlabeled bondage environment.

And we could continue to question Wilberian Intergralism's romanticisation of domination.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/05/2015 07:12AM by corboy.

Quote
billyen
I enjoyed Martin's letter - its analysis is right on; however I have a different conclusion to the whole mess. That is that we are all free agents, it's up to us and there's no one to wait for. I really don't think any Big Man (or Woman) is going to save us, and that is the really Good News.

Then you and I and a few others get to be independent people, which is great.

But what about the rest of the world? Every day, society is churning out sheep who fall for government, media, and religious propaganda, and some of those sheep end up in cults. Something has got to change this dynamic.

Ideally, we'd have a good education system so that everyone would develop independence and good critical thinking skills. Our species' advancement comes from our advanced intellects, so that factor should be developed.

Sure, we can do a little bit locally, but in the meantime, the great global machine of ignorance has us outnumbered by a million to one. Andrew Cohen was right on that point - we've got to respond to the world situation. So what is the optimal response?

Possible Sugestions for Education


Hype machines and PR keep a lot of these entities alive. It would be good in education projects to point out the extent to which any guru or human potential type is a product of marketing.

People need to understand derivative legitimacy--that rooms can be rented at hospitals, universities, honorable retreat centers and Buddhist practice centers. It doesnt mean these places agree with or endorse the person running the meeting. But..many citizens lower their guard. Dont.

It is harder to get warnings publicized about gurus than it is to publish praises of them. On Wikipedia and Craigslist, any attempt to give warnings is often removed by the many organized devotees who are told by the guru or group to monitor the internet for bad publicity and squelch it.

Two, education has to focus on the problem of Total Power and Zero Accountability in the New Age Scene. Only in the New Age/Guru Scene is this set up even possible--and only in this cultic milieu is the notion of Total Power and Zero Accountability celebrated, rather than treated as a matter for alarm and deep concern.

If people could be trained to fact check any spiritual teacher or project, especially before moving to an ashram or compound in an isolated location, this might be a good thing to focus on in any education venture.

There are one or two letters on American Guru from persons who stated they were glad they had had a chance to fact check before moving to Foxhollow.

Two, Mr Yenner and others have noted that the demands for money and servitude escalated drastically after Andrew moved his operation to Foxhollow--in this private and boundaried environment, analogous to Zimbardo's Prison Simulation Experiment, external controls were lackign and the bad treatment became yet worse.
Persons with money need to be aware of how vulnerable they are.

Once these abusive types get a certain amount of money, they can form alliances with other celebrity gurus, pay for glossy ads and rent space at glossy retreat centers, all of which are sources of derivative legitimacy.

Finally many on the spiritual path who have money are likely to feel some conflict. We live these days in a money/credit/investment economy. Some cities are much more expensive than others. Aspirants who do have money may have very mixed feelings and not want to think too much about their money, and may not want to face that they are potentially very vulnerable to targeted seduction by persons posing as friends, as was reportedly done to Jane O'Neill.

[whatenlightenment.blogspot.com]

Anyone who has money, especially persons with excellent pensions trustfunds or sudden amounts of liquid cash following inheritance or divorce or a business buyout is potentially vulnerable to targeting and selective seduction and recruitment.

Persons with wealth often may not suspect how they can be identified and then groomed for selective recruitment--and then have an attack launched right when they are vulnerable, and after the pepetrator has studied that
person's trigger points.

Many victims never imagine that their perp was studying them and perhaps keeping a dossier.

Recruitment may work something like this:

All kinds of opportunists can and will search public records and be able to ID persons with serious assets.

Next, if a person who has wealth (and remember, you may not feel rich, but to others you are, you are) may be very humble and shy about it. A person of this kind may be a highly dedicated practitioner at a legitimate Buddhist center or a genuine Hindu ashram.

If this person is seen to have the time to take a lot of retreats/sesshins, doesnt seem to speak much about money worries that others mention, seems able to buy expensive books as soon as these are published, can prompt medical and dental care, drives a good car or has some rather intersting jewelry and a good computer with up to date features, this may give multiple clues to opportunists that This Is High Value Target.

A person like this, humble, grateful, very grateful for his or her good fortune, rather shy about it, may easily be targeted by someone who hangs out around that legitimate Dharma center, whose actual loyalty is not Dharma but an expensive cultic leader.

The recruiter can befriend this person, do some subtle tests to see if this person is unsure of him or herself, lonesome. Then, over time that recruiter can insinuate that the legtimate stuff taught and practiced at that Dharma Center is a waste of time, that the targeted person 'deserves better than that'. Janes recruiter got her to distrust the warnings being given by her therapist. One may con the target to switch to a therapist who is a disciple of the cult leader.

Then, very slowly, that target is pried away from the legitimate Dharma and into the expensive fraud.

So that is another thing--sharks hunt in and around legitimate practice centers. Many fliers for dodgy activities are on the bulletin boards at such places.

Dodgy gurus may rent rooms at legitimate places (including hospitals and churches) and this gives derivative legitimacy.

You risk going from being a citizen to being a subject or even an abused slave in some of the more dangerous parts of the Guru Scene. That is what people need to be told. That in the USA there does exist unregulated slavery that is worse than anything discussed or practiced in the consensual adult kink scene.

Finally many honorable celebrities in spirituality, psychology and science do NOT fact check invitations to conferences where they will, without knowing it, share a podium with abusive gurus. Just because a beloved and saintly guru or celebrated scholar or researcher is listed alongside a guru does not mean the guru is therefore OK

Finally, the general public needs to be told about the Stanford Cookie Experiment--that the leadership role often has corrupting effects on even those persons to whom it is assigned at random and for just an hour or so.

No level of enlightenment can protect someone from that kind of temptation unless that person builds structural precautions into his or her community to prevent conditions that lead to corruption of power.

All this and more needs to be covered. But I would say that the habit of fact checking and warning persons with assets that they can be easily targeted for recruitment even while practicing at legitimate Dharma centers--all this is to be emphasized.

And yes, the problem of derivative legitimacy.

A salient differnece between military training, even when brutal, vs what Cohen has done:

In boot camp and in the special training for elite units, it does get horribly brutal but--the trainers despite their roaring, yelling and punishment laps, do not want to be the only men left standing after boot training.

What the instructors want is to a) make sure their trainees meet the standards and yes, will flunk people who cannot make the grade. But..b) these same instructors do that training to make the recruits stronger, more skillful, so that the trainers, ultimately pass their expertise on to the next generation.

A drill instructor who consistently produces the number of wrecked and broken persons emerging from Foxhollow would be pulled in for scrutiny.

Another matter to discuss among those who are former members of Cohen's group:

Among yourselves, in private, it might be informative to do a survey and identify the ways you learned about Cohen, or were told about him.

Did someone from Cohen's group recruit you from a Buddhist center or meditation group you were in?

Was this in the guise of friendship that turned out not to be a friendship at all?

One thing that makes Buddhist groups vulnerable to penetration by exploitative recruiters is that many Buddhists are socialized to worry about 'right speech' and become
afraid to trust thier own gut instincts and misgivings.

If an attempt is made to warn a Buddhist student, a Buddhist group, or Buddhist practice center, that someone is peddling material that is incompatible with Buddhadharma, all too often the person gi ving the warning is told to stop being judgemental, that they are violating right speech, that they need to deepen thier practice and have no right to judge, or that in the name of diversity, there is no right to complain.

A teacher with a l ong history of damage reports is behaving in ways incompatible with Buddhadharma.

Fetishizing enlightenment esperiences is incopatiable with Buddhadharma.

Brad Warner was almost alone in pointing out the ways that Wilberian material, Genpo Roshi etc were incompatible with Zen and Buddhadharma and he was given a lot of flak for his honesty and efforts to safeguard the Three Treasures.

Quote
corboy
identify the ways you learned about Cohen, or were told about him.

I think this is a great exercise for all of us to analyse our spiritual changes of direction throughout our lives. So here’s my Andrew Cohen story, for what it's worth:

In 1995, I met a guy at Bondi Beach who said he knew me in India, but I didn’t recognise him. Anyway we started to hang out a bit, then he invited me to see Andrew Cohen. He said, “I think you’ll like him.” So I went along even though I said I’m sick of guru types and needed to get on with the practical side of my life. (I actually had no money and needed to establish a career.)

At the lecture, I had mixed feelings about Cohen. On one hand, I literally thought he was mentally ill. He had a weird cackling laugh that burst out at inappropriate moments, his sentences trailed off unfinished, he gazed into space, and he stammered with excitement as a new point came to mind. “Cracked” is the word that came to mind. On the other hand, I was excited that he was talking about changing the world and shaking up the dull spiritual scene. That matched my interests perfectly. Indeed, I was so excited that someone was boldly pushing for this and that it was gaining support that I ended up sending audios of Andrew to friends. (They became involved too, unfortunately.) Then I started going to meetings, and I liked the people and I was inspired by the fact that we seemed to all be on the same page regarding improving the world and the spiritual scene.

Six months later, Andrew came back to Australia to hold a retreat. When I asked him questions, I was dissatisfied with his answers. But instead of admitting he didn’t know the answer, he just got annoyed with me. I also told him a dream: Muslims are all agreeing to kill me, and I blurt out “I’ll die when God wants me to die.” Andrew said, “Don’t worry. It was just a dream.” It seems to me now that it was a clear warning dream that Andrew was pushing for something unnatural and untimely - I don’t remember if he was talking about ego death at the time, but I suspect the dream was picking up on that vibe.

Then I started noticing a pattern where people from his entourage would transmit messages from Andrew to us and transmit info about us back to Andrew. Also, one of his main people, Debbie, said to me, “In Tibet, they have a tradition - if a new guru defeats your guru in debate, the new guru wins all the old guru’s disciples.” That seemed odd to me, but I didn’t think too much about it. I was too focused on maintaining connection with the community. Actually, Debbie seemed to be playing the role of seducer and emissary. She would say things like, “Andrew really liked your question.” Or she would explain why Andrew was irritated with a question. Andrew also seduced by praising people, but then he criticised them when they got out of line.

Soon it was time for what would turn out to be the last Bodhgaya retreat. I didn’t want to go because I had been to India only two years earlier and I had a $5,000 debt, but I kept feeling Andrew’s indirect pressure , “It’s your ability to respond that counts.” Somehow, my ideals got mixed up with Andrew’s demands - that’s a key point. Anyway, I really wanted to stay connected to the community and stay involved in spreading the idea of a better world, so I borrowed money to go. Just before we left, one of the community members returned from America and told us that there are 3 or 4 levels of students - something like, casual, formal, committed, and senior. This seemed ludicrous to me. By this point, I wasn’t so impressed with Andrew, so the idea of a hierarchy below him amazed me. What could these “students” be learning? I actually laughed with derision at this idea of a hierarchy, and started openly making jokes about it until the person who told us about it groaned, “I’m sorry I mentioned it.”

During the retreat in India, my joints ached from sitting on the ground and I had a bad cold or flu. Nevertheless, I did the surrender technique he recommended as best I could and I showed up for every session. I told him that I was doing everything he asked but nothing special was happening (others were gasping about experiencing spiritual fireworks). He was irritated and said, “Is that it?”, then he just moved on to the next question. The international model who was part of the organisation at the time gave me some tissues. I thought she was being considerate, but now I wonder if it was an indirect insult from Andrew - I’ve heard that’s how he operates when confronted with weakness.

By this time, I had started to notice that after every session, the senior students sitting at the table would invariably say, “Wasn’t Andrew great!” or “Wasn’t that a fantastic session!” or “Andrew’s amazing!” This was even after the most boring session or after Andrew had said or done something really dubious. And the others were doing likewise. So now I started feeling like an outsider. I wondered if I was missing something, since I was the only unhappy one there. I wanted to think and argue and get to the truth on various topics, not just praise Andrew. But I was already a bit too far committed to the process to pull out.

Anyway, our group had decided that we wanted to start a FACE centre in Sydney. So we met with the senior students who sat us all in a circle and asked about why we wanted to start a centre. I saw people strangely lying and exaggerating, as if they were really keen to impress these senior students. For example, one guy said he was committed to the teachings when I heard him mocking the teachings earlier and I reckoned he really wanted to go for a holiday. Like me, he wasn’t committed to “the teachings”, he just wanted to be part of the community. Anyway, I flatly said to the senior students something like “I’ve been interested in spirituality and changing the world all my life. That’s it.” They seemed to think they were doing us a big favour by letting us serve Andrew or something. Bizarre.

Afterwards, Andrew kept us waiting for over an hour standing in the field. When he finally arrived with his entourage, he said he would let us start a FACE centre. Then he said he was surprised to see me there. Naturally, I was offended. I had gone to every meeting in Sydney, went to the retreat in Sydney, shared his audio tapes and books with other people, gone into more debt, sat through his dubious meetings while sick, and basically did the best I could, but he wasn’t satisfied. I guess he could see that I would be the one to rock the boat.

Then he said some really weird things. He said, “I don’t love any of you.” How bizarre is that? Then he said, “I’ve proven myself to you all so now you’ve got to prove yourselves to me.” Well, words failed me. When had he proven himself to me? And what did proving ourselves to him mean? More significantly, why did he think he was so important? In fact, the whole scenario seemed to be based on the premise that Andrew Cohen was a VIP, and that it was some kind of honour to be in his glorious presence. As far as I could tell, we were interested in pursuing spiritual community and improving the world, but he seemed to think we were interested in him. Then he criticised someone else who wasn’t at the meeting. When I told that person, he went to confront Andrew and Andrew denied it. Liar!

I contemplated the situation over the next week and kept a diary. It seemed to me like things weren’t leading to freedom, truth, improving the world, or experimenting with spiritual communities. Rather it was leading into a spider-web of illusion and control. It felt like it was becoming more and more about Andrew. Also, it seemed that it would only get worse over time. But I wasn’t sufficiently sure of myself at the time. After all, I was the only one not conforming. And I had just been insulted, so was I just reacting to that? And this is about improving the world, isn’t it? How could I have any doubts? But then I saw him strutting around with his rapt entourage like he owned the world. It really felt like he was in his own bubble of narcissism. And it seemed like his senior students were propping up his illusions because they wanted to believe those illusions too.

So I wrote a smoke-and-mirrors letter to excuse myself from the group, and I faxed it to the main Sydney guy. Strangely, I felt I had entered a ghostlike limbo, like I had just denied the only thing that really mattered. It took me years to realise that somehow Andrew gets people to link their highest ideals to him, so that going against him means going against yourself. I don’t know how he does it, but it’s very sneaky. (Indeed, after the big exposes, Andrew and his supporters said that those who left him went against their own souls.)

Then, about five years ago, I did some web searches and saw all this stuff about Andrew advocating the guru-disciple relationship, slapping students, and saying no one should ever leave him, and it all clicked. Back in 1996, it was all indeed heading towards illusion and control - an outright cult! And Andrew had become even more of a Special Person according to the “disciples”. They seemed to be making him out to be a Buddha or a Jesus. Luckily, I knew about the enneagram, which makes it easy to see that Andrew is a type 1 with a 2 wing, which means he controls people with idealism, seduction, and punishment. That helped me get psychic distance.

So that’s my story. I take responsibility to the degree that I was susceptible (although only for one year). Yes, I noticed that rich people in the community were given special treatment by everyone. We all knew that money would help the cause. That’s obvious. Money oils everything in this world. However, I wasn’t rich. I was just trapped by my own idealism and by my attachment to the group. Others were trapped the same way or by having big spiritual experiences and interpreting them as signs of Andrew’s wonderfulness.

Now I’ve written a profound book titled “Worldwide Happiness”, so I’m glad I got out when I did. If I hadn’t, I’d probably be some mindless Andrew Cohen acolyte somewhere, spouting Cohenism like the other brainwashed zombies. And boy oh boy I would have gotten hundreds of face-slaps! (Actually, I wouldn’t have accepted one.) It’s really embarrassing to think I almost fell into a cult. I’m a pretty smart guy and I never follow crowds. Maybe it was like my last temptation. In fact, idealism is often the last temptation before naked reality.

Solomon Asch conducted some conformity experiments in the 50's that illustrate how difficult it is for most of us to go against the group will:

[www.youtube.com]


another interesting illustration of social forces, the Bystander Effect:

[www.youtube.com]



and Stanley Milgram's obedience experiments:

[www.youtube.com]



and Zimbardo's quite frightening Stanford prison experiment:

[www.youtube.com]

Martin, thanks for this.

Even if people choose to keep their exercises private, anyone who has spent time at what I call Andy's Place might benefit from studying the exact point, in time, in place, where one was in emotions and relationships and travels--and yes, finances--when one encountered publicity for AC -- or a recruiter for him.

It is important to ID not only the exact point when we first met our recruiter or heard about AC but what our states of mind and heart and yes, finances--were in the week or even month or more prior.

And at some point we may need to ask whether life in Andys place (or a satillite center) was a re-enactment of how we were trained at home.

*Were we in India or had we been in India? There is a mighty bond that can develop almost immediately if someone has been there or claims to have been there, and you have been to India.

*Were you in India when recruited? Privacy is almost non existent. Homesickness can hit hard. One may be recovering from illness or have the shakes because one has just been away from familiar rituals at home. One may have separated from a travel buddy or a lover. One may have had the grief of being ripped off by a fellow traveller. India is marvellous and it is also mega-stress.

For this reason, the places where Westerners congregate are areas where recruiters can easily find targets. All a recruiter has to do is study the current edition of Rough Guide or Lonely Planet, figure out current venues for travellers or just find someone at a bus or train station and dribble PR for a guru.

Some cities and their particular bus and train routes are especially ripe pickings. Based on my reading, here is a partial list

Arunchala (Ramana Maharshi and his ahsram--mega pickings. You go there to commune with the darshan of Maharshi, and recruiters can sidle right on up to you)

Shirdi (tomb of Shirdi Sai Baba)
Rishikesh--Mary Garden in Serpant Rising, told how she went to join one ashram and on the way there was recruited by a westerner who was touting for a guru who was an abusive monster)
Varanasi
Bodhgaya
Lucknow
Vridnavan
Putthaparthi (Sai Baba)--people get bummed out by ashram politics, try to leave and the next recruiter can grab them when they're on the rebound

The Kumbhmelas

Dharamsala
------------------
If you happen to be well off (anyone who is not in debt and can pay their bills on time and afford medical care medical care, and do a week long retreat at least once a year is well off, even if that person is too embarrassed to admit this to themselves)--if you are in this catagory, you are well off--and an alert recruiter may spot you as a ripe prospect.

(Note: not all recruiters are touting for gurus. Some may be hanging around looking to find someone to bum money from for a drug habit, or may be looking for a wealthy suggar momma or sugar daddy. This can happen invisibly even at reputable Dharma Centers and Zen Centers, so be alert.)

The Bias in Favor of Experiences

Western culture and its religions are structured around reports of Big Experiences--Moses on Mount Sinai, Paul on the Road to Damascus, Jesus on the Mountain in the blaze of light. Western art and music exalt Big Experiences. Love is supposed to feel like a Big Experience at all times--so the culture tells us.

If one dares to be skeptical, one is told, archly, 'Well, have you exeperienced this?"

But this ignores the extent to which experiences are based on temporary fluctuations in neurochemistry and that they have to be interpreted in a context to have any meaning.

Two and far more important, experiences can be manipulated and fool us.

If you are at an impasse (or think you are) in your practice and you crave vivid experiences that others seem to be having, one can feel 'left out'. The people having these Amazing Experiences may be possibly

*Pretending to have these experiences. Such persons are termed 'plants' or in casinos, 'shills'. A shill sits at casino tables during quiet times and gambles, just to make the place look busy and give an inviting ambiance so high rollers will be attracted to join the action.

*These ecstatics may have bipolar and be reacting to a disruption in schedule---which happens when one engages in retreats--disruption in schedule

**The teacher or guru orchestrating the event where so many are reporting Big Experiences may be using techniques from Large Group Awareness Trainings and covert trance induction. Baba Muktananda reportedly learned this from Werner Erhard's est progrm.

[www.google.com]

Finally, a note on flattery.

,The terms flattery and love bombing are sometimes too strong terms to describe the effect. If it is obvious to us that we are beign flattered or love bombed, the operator is quite clumsy. The most effective methods of flattery and lovebombing match so perfectly with the longings of our minds and hearts that we feel nurtured, validated and loved, even though we are being manipulated by someone who is a mere flattery technician and has done this to hundreds of earlier victims and doesnt see or love us as a person at all.

The BBC replicated Zimbardo's prison experiment and it aired in 4 hour long episodes in 2002. The outcome was somewhat different to the original, with the prisoners eventually overthrowing the guards.

[www.youtube.com]

[www.youtube.com]

When I watched the programme, I decided that the inclusion of an experienced Trade Union organiser in the prisoner ranks had been the catalyst for the uprising, but that might just be my own bias showing.

The complete film is only available as a paid-for DVD (some kind soul may yet upload it) but various clips are shown here:

[podcast.open.ac.uk]#

[onlineclassroom.tv]

The experiment was still very harrowing and stressful for the participants, and the findings controversial:

[www.guardian.co.uk]

[en.wikipedia.org]

Zimbardo's (2006) final criticism is that the findings of the BBC study lacked external validity, since prisoner domination of guards is not observed "anywhere in the known universe". Haslam and Reicher have countered that the purpose of their study was to demonstrate the theoretical possibility of resistance, noting that this is a feature of most social systems in which tyranny prevails (e.g., as argued by Michel Foucault). They also observe that the imprisonment of leaders is often important for the development of resistance movements and for processes of social change. Notable recent cases include Robben Island and the Maze where it was ultimately the prisoners who ran the prisons, not the guards. The stress observed among guards in the BBC study (see Haslam & Reicher, 2006) also accords with a large body of evidence from the UK and the US that prison officers are particularly prone to high levels of stress and burnout. In 2001 a major report by the US-based group Human Rights Watch also concluded that cases of prison authorities ceding control to inmates was "an all too common occurrence".
(Robben Island was Mandela's political prison and the Maze --Long Kesh, the H blocks--was the notorious N. Irish prison used for internment of paramilitaries, mainly IRA members)

Haslam and Reicher's own website on the study:

[www.bbcprisonstudy.org]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/24/2011 05:30AM by Stoic.

Martin said:

'Then you and I and a few others get to be independent people, which is great.'

This 'getting to be independent people' can only be done one brain at a time and only accomplished, if it is ever to be accomplished, by the owner of that brain.
Which is also great.