WHAT enlightenment??!: 10/01/2004

Friday, October 29, 2004

Letter to a Seeker

[Note: I was a student of spiritual teacher Andrew Cohen from 1990 to 1997. This is a letter I wrote today to a seeker who spoke with me because he was both attracted to Andrew and concerned about things he had heard and read about him.]

Hi _____,

Once again I found it interesting, enjoyable and challenging speaking with you last night. I am happy to discuss these things with you any time.

I am intrigued by the question of what went wrong with Andrew and his realization. I think so much is contained in that. Not being self-realized myself, I find it difficult to say with certainty. But I think there are enough pointers I have heard that correlate with my experience with Andrew.

As I mentioned last night, I recall hearing from Andrew and Jerry, an old friend of mine who was a former student of Sasaki Roshi's, and later a student of Andrew's, about Andrew and Sasaki Roshi's meeting. The story is recounted in a very early edition of What Is Enlightenment magazine, Jan. 1993, vol.2, issue 1: "Death of a Zen Student." I just looked it up. Sasaki repeatedly stressed the centrality of love to Andrew. What struck me most from their meeting was how Sasaki cautioned Andrew to not be too "flurried" in his passion. He is quoted, "Some will agree with you, some will not. All are your friends."

I was with Andrew when he met (not for the first time) with the great Tibetan lama Chatrul Rinpoche, near Kathmandu. I think it was 1993. Chatrul kept saying over and over that you must have compassion; there are as many gates to the dharma as there are individuals; there is no one right way for everyone. Andrew did not seem to get the relevance of all of this to their meeting, and could not understand why Chatrul kept repeating this.

Both of these teachers were pointing early on to something in Andrew that has manifested in increasingly more disturbing ways over the years. Andrew has absolutized his own understanding, and his own teaching, believing it is the one true way for this time and for everyone. Anyone who disagrees with him he sees as weak, an enemy, a defector, or all three. Everything is black or white for him. In an attempt to bring the absolute into manifestation, he has absolutized the relative. As you said last night, he has lost touch with the innate perfection of being, and for that reason becomes "overwrought" at the imperfection he perceives in others. By doing so, he has lost touch with real love. And this explains why he feels justified in using extreme measures such as insult, humiliation, verbal abuse and worse to try to effect change in his students.

In the Dhammapada, Buddha is quoted as saying:" 'He insulted me, he beat me; he threw me down and robbed me.' Put away such thoughts and hatred will never arise.For in this world, hate never yet has dispelled hate. Only love dispels hate. This law is ancient and will last forever."

Jesus said, "Resist not evil." Advaita teachers point to the unreality of maya and the importance of staying in the absolute perspective that is love. For this reason they go so far as to say there is no good and bad, etc. This is not to advocate unethical conduct or foster the "advaita shuffle", although such teachings have been misused that way. Rather, I think that such teachers realize that it is only from a deep knowing of the beauty and perfection of being, and its intrinsic nature as love, that proper conduct comes. So the emphasis of Ramana, Nisargadatta, and all the other advaita greats is on staying in the proper perspective and then acting from that living understanding.

Of course, Andrew claims to be doing this. What appears to be anger, guilt-tripping and punitive conduct is, he would say, really just the manifestation of his love and passion for evolution. But how is saying that any different from the "advaita shuffle" that he so vocally criticizes?

I applaud your investigation and willingness to speak with people who spent a long time with Andrew. While you may wish to take Andrew up on his offer to speak to some who are still with him, I would caution you to consider this: every word they say to you and every word you say back will be reported to Andrew; and they will be subject to severe censure for anything they say that Andrew disagrees with. This is just the nature of the situation they are in. I know, I was there. Needless to say, such circumstances don't encourage honesty and forthrightness. But even if those who say their heroic suffering was all worthwhile honestly believe it, it doesn't make it so. As far as I know, not one of them is permitted to make their own decisions about important matters in their life, without receiving permission from Andrew. Not one of them have become truly independent and free.

One personally gratifying thing that I've learned from my conversations with you is that I have little personal animosity for Andrew left at this point. I actually appreciate much of my time with him, and in many ways respect his efforts and his intentions. I do vividly recall the oppressiveness and the complete loss of personal autonomy on every level in his community that eventually caused me to leave. But I also remember many good times. Most of all, I think we--myself, Andrew and the others in the community--gave all we were capable of giving in an idealistic effort to create an enlightened society as an exemplar for the creation of an enlightened world. What more noble thing can one try to do? I don't regret a minute of it. And, strange as it might seem in light of things I've said to you, personally, I somehow still find myself fond of Andrew.

But I think things have gone seriously awry. Like living in a dysfunctional family, my own experience of this awryness was in some ways subtle, yet powerful and pervasive. It has taken years to come to the point where I can see both the good and the bad of the experience. Most people who leave find it takes years to extricate themselves from the pain, misgivings, personal self-condemnation and doubt, anger at Andrew and the community, a sense of betrayal and hopelessness, and the fear of opening their heart spiritually to another teacher. Some, I'm afraid, may never get over it. Almost no one wants to even talk about the experience at all for months or even for a year or longer after leaving. For example, ________, who you've heard left about 6 months ago, is still completely unwilling to speak with anyone about it. That alone should tell you something.

I don't blame Andrew for all of this. I think we all play a part in the creation of the painful mix of enlightenment and insanity, of hope and fear, of bondage and ecstasy that he and his community embody. What I mean to say is that Andrew is not the first and won't be the last to lead folks down this road. The forces at play are much bigger than any one individual. We are all subject to such forces--manifesting in ultimately misguided utopian dreams taking religious, political, social, and even romantic forms. We each will probably continue to be subject to such delusions--or to a cynical disillusion that may be just as bad, if not worse--until we take complete responsibility for our own awakening, our own perfection, our own being as love.

That's a lot to ask and few seem able to do it. I'm struggling with it day and night. But one thing I learned from my years with Andrew for which I'm forever grateful is that it will never occur through forcefully trying to erase oneself--through self-annihilation and destruction of one's ego--by submission to another, to a group, or to an ideal, no matter how noble that other, group or ideal might seem. It has to come from within oneself, and by oneself. A teacher might point the way or provide an example. But you can't replicate another's journey. As my teacher Ranjit Maharaj used to say, "The Master can only give you the address. You have to go there yourself." Or, as UG Krishnamurti, another friend I made post-Andrew, says: "Why would you want to be a cheap imitation of Jesus or Buddha, when you can be perfectly yourself?"

I wish you luck with this endeavor. I'm impressed by your courage and your insight and think you'll succeed. If you need to spend a few years in Andrew's spiritual "boot-camp", so be it. But I hope you find a more direct and less painful way. I really don't think false heroism is required.

Here's the Rumi quote I promised you:
"All theologies are like straws His Sun burns to dust
Knowing takes you to the threshold, but not through the Door
Nothing can teach you if you don't unlearn everything
How learned I was, before Revelation made me dumb."
(From Andrew Harvey, Light Upon Light: Inspirations from Rumi)

What a great reminder that every teaching, no matter how seemingly profound and beautiful, has to ultimately be forsaken.

Warm regards, ______________
from http://hellbreaker.blogspot.com/

Thursday, October 28, 2004

Life After the Cult

How to Heal the Trauma?

What is the experience of the student or disciple of the guru if that guru has been abusive or if the guru is a narcissist? This question is often quite confusing for the ex-disciple for they tend all to often to protect the “good” that they experienced while in the guru’s group.

It seems clear, however, that without some degree of trauma and abuse most if not all former disciples would have remained in their former spiritual groups.

A real return to emotional and spiritual health requires that one face into all the implications of the cult experience. Prior to leaving the group, one no doubt was fed propaganda claiming that leavers are losers, that life will cease to have any meaning once you walk out the door, and that guilt for this sin will never leave you. Clearly that is a load of bs – but it all too often works, and it is the first layer that needs to be removed on the road to recovery. This is very difficult for most of us to do. Many will offer sympathy, but few councilors, psychologists, spiritual advisors or even friends can fully understand what is taking place inside the leaver. One must make a personal mission of peeling back the layers of the cultic conditioning and by degrees allowing light back in. This is difficult and can take years to complete, but the result is having your own life back, with the added understanding and clarity of having deeply pondered this experience.

Here is what one expert on healing trauma says about the challenges facing the leaver:

“Many trauma suffers live in a state of resignation regarding their symptoms without ever attempting to find a way back to a more normal healthy life. Denial and amnesia play an important role in reinforcing this resigned state. Though we may be tempted to judge or criticize people who deny that they have been traumatized, claiming that nothing really happened, it is important to remember that this (in itself) is a symptom. Denial and amnesia are not volitional choices that the person makes, they do not indicate weakness of character, personality dysfunction, or deliberate dishonesty. This dysfunctional pathway becomes patterned in our physiology. At the time of a traumatic event, denial helps preserve the ability to function and survive. However when chronic, denial becomes a maladaptive symptom of trauma.
Reversing the effects of either denial or amnesia takes a great deal of courage. The amount of energy that is released when this happens can be tremendous and should not be minimized or underestimated, it is a time of great significance for the traumatized person.”
- Peter Levine, Waking the Tiger, p. 165

Further to understanding the full implications of being someone with a significant experience of trauma in a cult, it is helpful to look at the classic psychological definition of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, or PTSD:

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

A history of subjection to totalitarian control over a prolonged period (months to years). Examples include hostages, prisoners of war, concentration-camp survivors, and survivors of some religious cults. Examples also include those subjected to totalitarian systems in sexual and domestic life, including survivors of domestic battering, childhood physical or sexual abuse, and organized sexual exploitation. Symptoms include the following:

Alterations in affect regulation, including
-Persistent dysphoria (depression)
-Chronic suicidal preoccupation
-Self-injury
-Explosive or extremely inhibited anger (may alternate)
-Compulsive or extremely inhibited sexuality (may alternate)

Alternations in consciousness, including
· Amnesia or hypermnesia for traumatic events
· Transient dissociative episodes
· Depersonalization/derealization
· Reliving experiences, either in the form of intrusive post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms or in the form of ruminative preoccupation

Alternatives in self-perception, including
· Sense of helplessness or paralysis of initiative
· Shame, guilt, and self-blame
· Sense of defilement or stigma
· Sense of complete difference from others (may include sense of specialness, utter aloneness, belief no other person can understand, or nonhuman identity)

Alterations in perception of perpetrator, including
· Preoccupation with relationship with perpetrator (includes preoccupation with revenge)
· Unrealistic attribution of total power to perpetrator (caution: victim’s assessment of power realities may be more realistic than clinician’s)
· Idealization or paradoxical gratitude
· Sense of special or supernatural relationship
· Acceptance of belief system or rationalization of perpetrator

Alterations in relations with others, including
· Isolation and withdrawal
· Disruption in intimate relationships
· Repeated search for rescuer (may alternate with isolation and withdrawal)
· Persistent distrust
· Repeated failures of self-protection

Alterations in systems of meaning
· Loss of sustaining faith
· Sense of hopelessness and despair

Wednesday, October 27, 2004

The Narcissist Claims Infallibility

Recently After Hours has received letters questioning the incognito nature of our site.

This is a legitimate issue, and one we'd like to address, by posting the following letter we sent to the reader who first raised the issue:

Dear__________,

Thank you for your letter. We appreciate how you feel about the anonymous nature of After Hours, and we have given it a lot of thought before coming out "unsigned." Basically, it was decided to do it this way because it gives the cult leader (Cohen) no means of retribution, no leverage, no way to assert his special status as the "leader." We have personally been on the receiving end of all too many of "the narcissist's (Andrew's) panicky and sometimes violent reactions to "dropouts" from his cult. There's a lot going on that the narcissist wants kept under wraps. ...Abandonment threatens the narcissist's precariously balanced personality."

Some would say, why doesn't everyone - including Andrew - just sit down and talk this thing through....hah! Fat chance, as you probably know.

We apologize for the unease that this gives you, and hope that in the future we can open this up and there can be real personal connectedness.

We quote an article below which outlines the basic strategies of the narcissist, and the dangers in being involved with such a person. This gives you some idea of how we see the situation with our ex-teacher and helps explain why we do not want to sign our name(s) at this time to After Hours.

Best Regards,
- After Hours

The Narcissist Claims Infallibility
by Sam Vaknin -

The narcissist is the guru at the center of a cult. Like other gurus, he demands complete obedience from his flock: his spouse, his offspring, other family members, friends, and colleagues. He feels entitled to adulation and special treatment by his followers. He punishes the wayward and the straying lambs. He enforces discipline, adherence to his teachings, and common goals. The less accomplished he is in reality – the more stringent his mastery and the more pervasive the brainwashing.

The – often involuntary – members of the narcissist's mini-cult inhabit a twilight zone of his own construction. He imposes on them a shared psychosis, replete with persecutory delusions, "enemies", mythical narratives, and apocalyptic scenarios if he is flouted.

The narcissist's control is based on ambiguity, unpredictability, fuzziness, and ambient abuse. His ever-shifting whims exclusively define right versus wrong, desirable and unwanted, what is to be pursued and what to be avoided. He alone determines the rights and obligations of his disciples and alters them at will.

The narcissist is a micro-manager. He exerts control over the minutest details and behaviors. He punishes severely and abuses withholders of information and those who fail to conform to his wishes and goals.

The narcissist does not respect the boundaries and privacy of his reluctant adherents. He ignores their wishes and treats them as objects or instruments of gratification. He seeks to control both situations and people compulsively.

He strongly disapproves of others' personal autonomy and independence. Even innocuous activities, such as meeting a friend or visiting one's family require his permission. Gradually, he isolates his nearest and dearest until they are fully dependent on him emotionally, sexually, financially, and socially.

He acts in a patronizing and condescending manner and criticizes often. He alternates between emphasizing the minutest faults (devalues) and exaggerating the talents, traits, and skills (idealizes) of the members of his cult. He is wildly unrealistic in his expectations – which legitimizes his subsequent abusive conduct.

The narcissist claims to be infallible, superior, talented, skillful, omnipotent, and omniscient. He often lies and confabulates to support these unfounded claims. Within his cult, he expects awe, admiration, adulation, and constant attention commensurate with his outlandish stories and assertions. He reinterprets reality to fit his fantasies.

His thinking is dogmatic, rigid, and doctrinaire. He does not countenance free thought, pluralism, or free speech and doesn't brook criticism and disagreement. He demands – and often gets – complete trust and the relegation to his capable hands of all decision-making.

He forces the participants in his cult to be hostile to critics, the authorities, institutions, his personal enemies, or the media – if they try to uncover his actions and reveal the truth. He closely monitors and censors information from the outside, exposing his captive audience only to selective data and analyses.

The narcissist's cult is "missionary" and "imperialistic". He is always on the lookout for new recruits – his spouse's friends, his daughter's girlfriends, his neighbors, new colleagues at work. He immediately attempts to "convert" them to his "creed" – to convince them how wonderful and admirable he is. In other words, he tries to render them Sources of Narcissistic Supply.

Often, his behavior on these "recruiting missions" is different to his conduct within the "cult". In the first phases of wooing new admirers and proselytizing to potential "conscripts" – the narcissist is attentive, compassionate, empathic, flexible, self-effacing, and helpful. At home, among the "veterans" he is tyrannical, demanding, willful, opinionated, aggressive, and exploitative.

As the leader of his congregation, the narcissist feels entitled to special amenities and benefits not accorded the "rank and file". He expects to be waited on hand and foot, to make free use of everyone's money and dispose of their assets liberally, and to be cynically exempt from the rules that he himself established (if such violation is pleasurable or gainful).

In extreme cases, the narcissist feels above the law – any kind of law. This grandiose and haughty conviction leads to criminal acts, incestuous or polygamous relationships, and recurrent friction with the authorities.

Hence the narcissist's panicky and sometimes violent reactions to "dropouts" from his cult. There's a lot going on that the narcissist wants kept under wraps. Moreover, the narcissist stabilizes his fluctuating sense of self-worth by deriving Narcissistic Supply from his victims. Abandonment threatens the narcissist's precariously balanced personality.

Add to that the narcissist's paranoid and schizoid tendencies, his lack of introspective self-awareness, and his stunted sense of humor (lack of self-deprecation) and the risks to the grudging members of his cult are clear.

The narcissist sees enemies and conspiracies everywhere. He often casts himself as the heroic victim (martyr) of dark and stupendous forces. In every deviation from his tenets he espies malevolent and ominous subversion. He, therefore, is bent on disempowering his devotees. By any and all means.

The narcissist is dangerous.

by Sam Vaknin
http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/journal79.html

Tuesday, October 26, 2004

David Deida muses about Guru Andrew Cohen

The Glorious Mr. Wedgie
by David Deida

What is exhilarating in bad taste is the aristocratic pleasure of giving offense.—Charles Baudelaire

I was standing in an airport, when I saw a well-known spiritual teacher surrounded by his shaven-headed devotees. Immediately, I had an impulse to give him a wedgie. I couldn't help but imagine running up to the group, making my way through the students, grabbing the back of the teacher's underwear, and heaving mightily upward.

Hopefully, he would have smiled. Or, perhaps his followers would have beaten me. In any case, the image came and went, although my mind, exhilarated by its own condescending proclivities, continued to consider this teacher, the glorious "Mr. Wedgie."

If you took a dense mind, a Jewish body, and a need to find the perfect parent, held it all together with mustache and naiveté, and awakened it to the nature of reality, you'd have something like Mr. Wedgie. I believe he is one of the least penetrating spiritual teachers and most endearing awakened beings I have come across.

In this case, shallowness of mind is not a bad thing. On the contrary, like Helen Keller or Stephen Hawking, Mr. Wedgie's deficiency has led to a kind of glory. Just as one end of a balloon bulges when the other end is squeezed small, elegance and simplicity have swollen as Wedgie's splendor. What he lacks in depth or insight, he makes up for by being continually amazed by the plain truth. His enthusiastic simplicity is contagious.

Most people are idiots. And those who are not, become progressively more useless as their complexity of apprehension matures to coincide with the unknowable mystery of existence.

As love's articulation begins to encompass the actual human condition, all rules become irregularities. However, when love squeezes through an idiot, its expression is graspable. You can use it, applying your life to a set of laws. You can list and repeat the essential points.

Truth is inherently banal, but an idiot's truth is more so. To finally know the truth of existence is to trivialize its implications, and this reduction is what makes Mr. Wedgie's teachings so useful.

He offers the real truth in the fashion of primitive art. The outlines visibly hold the bold colors from the imperfections of subtlety. As in a child's paintings, good and bad are clearly separated, like blues and greens, creating a lollipop-tree vision of the flowering of spiritual life. His vision is classic and universally recognizable--never mind that no actual tree has ever been seen that looks remotely like a lollipop.

All paintings are equally just paint; an idiot's truth isn't more or less real than the most sophisticatedly accurate representation. How you like infinity disclosed is a matter of taste, really.

The mystery that is shows itself to itself through every hole of being that notices anything. Mr. Wedgie's lollipop-truth serves to awaken some, whereas others enjoy a more variegated scene by which to awaken as they are.

The juvenile-arrested simpleton finds spiritual perfection expressed as goodness and lack of damage, often modeled on the harmless parent they never had. But love plays as time in contrasting colors of destruction and creation, often mixed in hues of indeterminate shading. Up close and in the fray of love, good and evil as well as benefit and harm lose their definitive portrayal. Mommy bends you as she adores you. Daddy terrorizes and inspires.

Who is it that longs for beauty as absolute no-harm? The one for whom a lollipop tree, in all its idealistic simplicity, is a sign of truth's perfection. And so it is with Mr. Wedgie.
© 2001 by David Deida. All Rights Reserved.

Monday, October 25, 2004

Enlightenment Blues reviewed by Parabola Magazine

Enlightenment Blues: My Years with an American Guru
By Andre van der Braak New York: Monkfish Book Publishing Company

Reviewed by Joshua Leavitt for Parabola Magazine

Worthwhile accounts of personal work with a spiritual teacher are hard to come by. Because of the intensely intimate nature of the relationship, it is difficult for most authors to maintain the critical distance necessary to present their experience in a way that is meaningful to readers outside the circle of their particular community. Most attempts at this genre fall either into the trap of thinly disguised hagiography or embittered reprisal. In this memoir of his years with spiritual teacher Andrew Cohen, author Andre van der Braak skillfully avoids such oversimplification, primarily through keeping in sight his most basic task as a writer: to tell a compelling story. In this he succeeds admirably.

Van der Braak evokes his experiences in a gradual but ultimately gripping way, beginning with the intoxicating bliss of the early days through his progressive disillusionment and final break from Andrew eleven years later. Written almost entirely in the present tense, the narrative’s honesty and immediacy draw the reader in from the first page. The author wisely allows events to speak for themselves, presenting his struggles and questions as he experienced them at the time rather than in sweeping conclusions or personal diatribes.

Aside from its literary merits, this is an important work because of its subject matter. A controversial figure in the spiritual landscape since his earliest days as a teacher, Andrew Cohen has provoked heated reactions in many people over the years and is likely to be an important figure in the history of alternative spirituality in America. His teachings on the nature of liberation have tremendous depth and clarity and, taken together, form a potent contribution to contemporary Western formulations of spiritual wisdom.

Enlightenment Blues is the first reliable published account of Andrew’s intimate work with his students. It raises complex issues about the dynamics of power, control, and human imperfection in positions of formal spiritual authority, both in Andrew’s case and in the student-Teacher relationship in general. It presents the picture of a heavy handed, “direct attack” approach to dealing with ego in Andrew’s community that is, at the least, unskillful, and quite possibly simply a well rationalized form of personal aggression.

This points to a dangerous blind spot on Andrew’s part, one that will continue to jeopardize his work until it is acknowledged and accepted. The book is, among other things, a powerful invitation to van der Braak’s former teacher to reexamine the myth of his own perfection, and to consider the personal psychological basis from which it has been created. Should Andrew, who has always been a risk taker, prove willing to engage that risk, he might discover subtler and far more effective methods for the transformational work he is attempting.

For his part, Andre van der Braak has shown great courage in chronicling the intimate aspects of his personal spiritual journey in Enlightenment Blues. In doing so he has produced a moving, thoughtful, heartfelt testimony that will serve any sincere seeker on the path to spiritual realization.

Joshua Leavitt is a writer and consultant who lives in a formal spiritual community in Montana. His first book, Playing with Fire, is currently under completion.

Wednesday, October 20, 2004

So Just What IS a Real Sage?

Welcome to the second edition of what enlightenment?!!…After Hours, the e-bulletin dedicated to looking just that extra bit deeper into the big spiritual issues of the day.

In this edition we explore the issue of authenticity of the guru, and let’s use guru Andrew Cohen as the example:

Is Mr Cohen a true guru, or not? Is there a difference between Cohen’s teaching and that of a real sage?

A real sage always wants his disciple to be self-reliant, to realize himself/herself, and then go his own way in freedom, and with the sage’s blessing. While there would naturally be love and gratitude, both should be free of attachment, and the guru would never try to bind the student to him personally. As stated in some of the last verses of Shankara’s Crest Jewel of Discrimination, at the conclusion of the teachings:

“On hearing these words of his guru the disciple prostrated himself before him and with his permission went away free from bondage.
The guru too with his mind immersed in the ocean of Truth and Bliss, and with his mind free of discriminations went on his way purifying the whole world.”

If a guru were not a real sage, how might one describe such a guru?

Perhaps as a cult leader. With a whole lot of baggage. And maybe some psychopathology to boot. Here is one description:

“From a psychoanalytic perspective, the cult leader unconsciously experiences his dependency needs as so deeply shameful that a delusion of omnipotence is developed to ward off the toxic shame.

It is urgent to the pathological narcissist, who knows unconsciously that he is susceptible to extreme mortification (the sense of “death” by shame), that this delusion of omnipotence be sustained. Manic defenses help sustain the delusion, but in addition, followers must be seduced and controlled so that the loathsome dependence can be externalized, located in others and thereby made controllable.

The leader can then express his unconscious self-loathing through his “compassion” (often thinly disguised contempt) for his followers’ weakness. Manically proclaiming his own perfection, the leader creates a program of “purification” for the follower. By enlisting the follower to hold the shame that he projects and evacuates from his own psyche, the cult leader rids himself of all shame, becoming, in effect, “shameless.” He defines his shamelessness as enlightenment, liberation, or self-actualization.

It becomes important to the cult leader, for the maintenance of his state of shamelessness on which his psychic equilibrium depends, that there be no competition, that he alone, and no one else in the group, feels shameless. So while apparently inviting others to attain his state of perfection (shamelessness) by following him, the cult leader is actually constantly involved in inducing shame in his followers, thereby maintaining his dominance and control.”

quoted from: Traumatic Abuse in Cults: A Psychoanalytic Perspective by Daniel Shaw, C.S.W., http://members.aol.com/shawdan/essay.htm

Wow! That’s pretty heavy. Do you agree/disagree?

There’s lots written on this: for example an excellent book by an ex-student of Cohen’s – Enlightenment Blues by Andre Van der Braak. http://www.asem.nl/enlightenmentblues/

Stay tuned to this blog - there's lots of news and perspective soon to follow – from an After Hours point of view!

Here are some readers’ comments following our previous issue:

Sounds good. Keep up the good work.
(Your bulletin is) ...as if your reporter fell dead over his or her keyboard, or simply dematerialized
Nice new initiative. On the move again! Did you send it to many people?
Take me off your list!
Great intro issue....
I enjoyed the humor in your first post, but what about something delving deeper into the serious issues at hand?

So you can see we have attracted a lot of attention, and have our work cut out for us!
Stay in touch! Yes, Please write! Your contributions are most welcome - use the comments buttom below to write. (Please also send addresses to either add or delete from our mailing list.)

We hope you have enjoyed this issue of what enlightenment?!!…After Hours

The editors

Saturday, October 09, 2004

What is Narcissism?

Welcome to the inaugural edition of WHAT enlightenment?!! the parody e-bulletin dedicated to looking just that extra bit deeper into the big spiritual issues of the day or rather night ... after the guru has left the building and all his adoring devotees, and gone off to his Napoleonic slumberland of self-grandeur.

Wow kids! Shhhhh! Keep it on the down low, but now we can really explore enlightenment free from the humorless and autocratic editorial dictates of the simple, linear, self-reverent mind of our editor-in-chief (a.k.a. you know who!) In other words, hold onto your zafus, everybody, the little ol’ big daddy’s asleep (don’t we know it?) and we’re ready to rock. (Background audio: We Won’t Get Fooled Again by The Who)

We’re takin’ back the ship, so let’s have some fun!

We hope you enjoy it – and stay tuned for future messages like: “Collective Stupidity,” “The Glorious Mr. Wedgie,” and “Who said the Stockholm Syndrome is so bad?”

We’d love to get submissions from you too!

FEATURE ARTICLE:

WHAT IS NARCISSISM?

In a recent issue of his ?what is enlightenment magazine, publisher Andrew Cohen engages with integral philosopher Ken Wilber in dialogue.

“People are at different levels, some reach a higher level, discovering a trust in Life,” Cohen asserts. “Oh, yes,” Wilber follows, “but stages can’t be skipped, and some even slip back. They see paradise and then see it fade!”

WIE?…After Hours took note of this compelling dialogue between these two luminaries, and decided to pursue it further. It wasn’t easy, we had to send our cub reporter, Donald, all the way to France in order to catch up with these great spiritual pioneers.

?WIE…After Hours found Ken and Andrew at a seaside café table for two, overlooking the Riviera. Ken silently pointed to a chair, indicating where Donald was to sit, and the following dialogue was taped as the sun slowly set and as Ken and Andrew sipped the last of their glasses of champagne.

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: Deal! (They clink glasses.)

End.

We hope you have enjoyed our first issue of WHAT enlightenment?!! where big ideas are revealed and little minds are, well, swept away. We plan to further investigate the true nature and substance of Narcissism, as well as other important topics, so stayed tuned for future issues. Please write - click the comment button below.

(Please also send addresses to either add or delete from our mailing list.)

To the New Revolution!
Joyfully Yours,
The Editors
WHAT enlightenment?!!

Saturday, October 02, 2004

About WHAT enlightenment?!

Who or What is WHAT enlightenment?!

We're a group of individuals, both ex-students of Andrew Cohen and never-were-students-of, who want to "free the mind of mental slavery." And why not start here, critiqueing one of the most rigid, self-satisfied and authoritarian cult leaders around? You might not always agree with us, and we don't always agree with each other either, but the bottom line is to try to shed some light where little has so far been shed.

Why is this group anonymous? Thought you'd never ask. The answer lies in the rude treatment received by anyone who openly criticizes any authoritarian leader. Ideas may flow more freely if there is no personal attachments. Just an open and honest exploration. This will invite active involvement by individuals who otherwise would not want to speak out. And of course, this does not preclude anyone communicating for attribution in any fashion they wish. For example, Andre Van der Braak has written and published his memoirs of his 11 years experience as a student of Andrew Cohen, under the title Enlightenment Blues.

To communicate with WHAT enlightenment?!: Use the comments button at the bottom of each article to send comments about that article. Or to send another message or offer an article to print, email us at whatisnarcissism@hotmail.com.

We have many forthcoming posts planned, so come back to the site often!

Friday, October 01, 2004

Rebuttals by Cohen's Defenders

Here are articles rebutting the main points and allegations of WHAT enlightenment??!:

WIE Editor Admits Slapping, Smeared "Blood" Incident by Craig Hamilton

"You're Bottom Dwellers!" by Don Beck

What Enlightenment??! - another view by Jeremy Lyell

Real Teachers Are Scarce as Hens Teach by Roberta Anderson

IN ADDITION to the above articles posted on WHAT enlightenment??! there are several comments to various articles which are also rebuttals to some of the main themes of this blog. Here are a few of those comments:

At Friday, 04 February, 2005, Craig Hamilton said...
AN EXPLOSION OF LIBERATION
Reflections of a current student
by Craig Hamilton

Dear Susan,

I’m glad to hear that you had a good sesshin, that you finally feel you have gotten your feet back on the path, and that you have regained your self-confidence. But after reading your diatribe against Andrew above, I have to ask you one question: Do you really believe the picture you laid out? Or perhaps more to the point, did writing all that out so eloquently and forcefully help you to believe it a little more?
Having worked closely with you on the What Is Enlightenment? issue “What Is Ego: Friend or Foe?,” I know you get why I’m asking, but for those who are peering into our little fishbowl here let me lay out a little context.
As Sigmund Freud saw clearly, and as Anna Freud explained in its details, the ego, or self-image, protects itself with an army of defense mechanisms which, in effect, endlessly reshuffle the details of reality in order to keep one’s picture of oneself intact. The “wisdom of the ego” as Harvard psychologist George Vaillant refers to it in his book by the same name, lies in its ingenious ability to distort reality to protect us from uncomfortable, even devastating truths. This is why authentic spiritual paths are so challenging. They attempt to disarm the ego, so we can see clearly, free of its distortions. And as any tradition worth its salt will tell you, except in the rarest of cases, human beings will not give up their defenses without a fight. And most of the time, we won’t give them up at all.
The problem this presents for the authentic spiritual teacher, then, is that it puts him or her in the difficult position of having to, in an often painfully literal sense, start a fight with the student. Granted, it’s a fight that the student has agreed to, perhaps even begged for. But, let’s face it, a fight is a fight. And once it has started, the outcome is never assured. This is probably why many of the great Zen masters would put their would-be disciples through such extreme trials before they would even consider accepting them as students. They wanted to gather some data: how likely is it that they are going to let me win the fight? When push comes to shove, as it inevitably will, are they going to side with the aspiration that brought them to me? Or are they going to side with the part of them that wants absolutely nothing to do with me and the freedom from delusion I represent? And as history tells us, no matter how much data they gathered, still there was no way to be sure.
Now, here we are in the postmodern world. A world in which, as Ken Wilber points out in Boomeritis, and Christopher Lasch makes clear in A Culture of Narcissism, the personal, egoic, narcissistic self-sense has become something of a god without peers. Let’s admit it together. We postmoderns answer to no one but ourselves. And if we have a God, it is a God (or Buddha) we have constructed to perfectly suit our spiritual self-image. A God that serves us well. Certainly not a God who challenges us. So, what happens when an authentic spiritual teacher—a teacher interested only in the real liberation of his or her disciples—walks into the middle of this narcissistic, postmodern world and gets to work? Any guesses?
Well, for starters, he ends up with a blog like this one and a couple of books written by angry former students who, surprise, surprise, got their egos bruised one too many times and decided to retreat to sunnier climes. But the problem is, once they got there, they realized they were still in the fight—only this time the fight was between two parts of themselves—the part of them that had been awakened by the teacher and the part that ran away. Of course, now the part of them that ran away is fully in control, but for all of its internal efforts, it can’t get that other part to shut up. Imagine the predicament. How to respond? You guessed it. Attack the one who started the fight in the first place in the desperate hope that tearing him down will stop the fight. It is truly a horrendous, and perhaps uniquely postmodern, predicament.
So, to return to my question at the beginning, the reason I’m asking Susan if she really believes what she said is that she and I both know that behind all of her confidence and feigned sincerity, she isn’t really quite as sure about this picture as she is making out to be. Although no doubt, she feels a bit emboldened, and at least temporarily more certain, for having said it so well and so publicly. This was, like most of the entries on this blog, an attempt to stop the internal fight, to untangle what she referred to as the “miles of black and white yarn entwined in a big ball at the pit of my stomach.”

But, of course, this isn’t really mainly about Susan. What I’m trying to shed light on here are the three areas that people reading this blog understandably tend to find confusing:

1) Why are some people so angry at Andrew Cohen when he seems to be such a powerful and inspiring teacher so wholeheartedly and selflessly committed to humanity’s highest ideals?

2) Why are people still angry enough to fight this fight so intensely even many years after they’ve left? Why haven’t they moved on?

3) Why are the sentiments so strong when there is no actual scandal to speak of?

I think that so far, I’ve pretty well covered the first two. But in light of how many truly self-serving, corrupt gurus have generated far less animosity, this third question is particularly intriguing. Take note: Andrew, for all of the respect he has garnered among today’s most prominent thought leaders and visionaries, does not have a particularly large following. And in contrast to many of the past few decades’ more prominent spiritual leaders, he has not been accused of any financial or sexual improprieties—nothing at all that would constitute any sort of scandal. And yet, he has already had two books (and one blog) written about him attempting to assassinate his character. Think about it. For all of their dramatic impact, somehow the cries of “he told me to jump in a cold lake,” or “he had my friend draw a cartoon caricature of me and post it on my office wall,” or “he threw me out until I was ready to be serious,” or even, “he had my best friend slap me in the face when I was being a jerk,” or even, “he told me to sleep with three prostitutes a day to try to get me to stop sleeping with prostitutes instead of my wife!” (which only happened once, just for the record) just aren’t the stuff of scandal. Even if they might offend our more conservative sensibilities.
Now, to return to your post, Susan, there are a few specifics I can’t help but respond to. First, I don’t know where you’re getting your data, but your characterization of what is happening around Andrew now is so far off the mark that I would suggest, in any future diatribes, you stick to the usual fare on this blog—rehashing the past. As for the “core group”, whatever that was (some special elite you saw yourself as part of?), it has not only gotten bigger and stronger, but more importantly, it has expanded to include everyone. Far from being the “monument to what might have been” you describe, Andrew’s global community is exploding—exploding with passion, exploding with creativity, and most remarkably, exploding with individual and collective liberation. The revolution in consciousness that Andrew and all of us have worked so hard to bring into being is now bursting out of every corner. It’s bursting out of the magazine (remember the magazine?), it’s bursting out of our new international speaker’s series, it’s bursting out of our new broadcast media website, it’s bursting out of the new documentary film we shot last summer at the Parliament of World’s Religions (incidentally, did you know Andrew spoke at the Parliament, and I hosted a panel on the Future of Religion?), and most importantly, it’s bursting out of every aspect of our collective life together, our meetings, our meditations, our Enlightened Communication groups. It’s by no means a finished product, and hopefully never will be, but some kind of critical mass has happened that is creating a momentum of awakening in the collective that anyone who visits here can feel in their cells. You wouldn’t believe what it’s like at Foxhollow now. Hardly a week goes by that some spiritual or cultural luminary doesn’t drop in for a visit to see what the buzz is all about. And the same could be said for our beautiful new five-storey evolutionary megacenter in London. And, of course to a lesser degree, our smaller but no less thriving centers in New York, Boston, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Paris, and Rishikesh.
Second, your characterization of Andrew as an ivory tower guru who thinks his is the only game in town has to be one of the most absurd distortions I’ve ever heard. I think any of us would be hard pressed to name one other spiritual teacher alive today who has made more effort to personally connect and maintain relationships with as many other teachers as Andrew has. Not to mention his efforts to actually promote the work of other teachers through his magazine, our speaker’s series, our broadcast media website, etc. This was really a low blow.
Third, your (and this blog’s) characterization of Andrew as someone who rejects and vilifies former students is another cheap shot. No doubt, splitting from such a close and involved relationship can evoke all kinds of feelings on both sides. But particularly in light of the fact that it was Andrew and I who reached out to you last year, simply to see how you were doing and try to reconnect, this emphasis in your letter was frankly painful. There are many former students who have maintained good connections with Andrew and the community, and we are always delighted to see anyone who drops in for a visit.
Finally, I have to point out the irony of your using the Lee Lozowick quote to try to build your case against Andrew, given that he’s one of the many people who knew you before you met Andrew who couldn’t believe how much you’d changed as a result of your time with Andrew. I hope some of that change has managed to stick, and that in your next sesshin, you come a bit closer to the truth that might really set you free.

Craig Hamilton
Managing Editor
What Is Enlightenment?
www.wie.org

At Sunday, 13 March, 2005, Jeff Feldman said...
I was quite surprised to hear from Richard Pitt, after all these years. With regards to what he wrote about those who leave the community, it wasn't my experience, even early on (in 1989), when I decided to leave the community, then newly set up in California. I have written about it as part of a longer contribution submitted under Ed McDougal's 'Emperor's New Clothes'. Knowing that I was struggling, Andrew actually called me, at the time, and said that although he was disappointed, I was free to go and encouraged me to do it with dignity. Actually, I found that I was given more of a hard time by Andrew's male student body, which included Richard and others who have contributed to this site and spoken of as having being abused, terrorized, etc. during their time in the community. Andrew was a prince, which was more than I could say about a few of the male students.

At the time I am referring to, I did go away and ended up keeping in touch with Andrew, on a regular basis. Every now and then, I received messages from him and had a couple of very sweet and supprotive phone conversations with him, during that period. Eventually I returned, for a few years.

During the past ten years, I have not been part of the formal community, but continue to have a healthy relationship with Andrew and his students, as well as a few ex-students.

Perhaps Richard and others have not yet discovered what it was, in them, that evoked such a strong response from Andrew.

Jeff Feldman

At Friday, 25 March, 2005, Mo Riddiford said...
Hello Hal,

Six days ago I saw a reference to a blog on a discussion list I'm on. Immediately I clicked on the link and, feeling responsible to keep my eyes open concerning everything around Andrew Cohen, I took two hours that day to read the entire blog. What an unpleasant but strengthening experience that has been. I now understand why Andrew wrote a book called "In defence of the Guru Principle" and not just a book called "The Guru Principle".

Sometimes we each have to stand up and defend what's right.

Do you remember me, Hal? Do you remember you were the first one to show me how to use a computer mouse in an office in Mill Valley in California well over a decade ago? I remember and also know well almost all the people you mentioned in your letters.

Having read the entire blog, I feel compelled to stand up in defence of Andrew and in defence of the guru principle. For the record, I live in a country where there is no centre devoted to Andrew's teachings and I am married to someone who, at the time of our wedding, had no connection whatsoever to Andrew or his organisation. No one could describe me now as part of Andrew's "inner circle", whatever that might possibly mean. For the record, no one has asked me to write this letter, nor have I discussed it with anyone.

As you might well remember, Hal, I met Andrew during his first year of teaching over eighteen years ago. Within weeks, it became irrevocably clear to me that Andrew is a genuine teacher and he is also my teacher. This recognition has endured over the ensuing years, whether physically close to Andrew living in a house with him and other students, or far away on the other side of the planet.

You're a lawyer by profession, Hal, so I'll present some legal facts, of the type where a person can stand up in court and declare to the whole world,
"These things I have seen with my own eyes!"
"These things I know from my own direct experience!"

In my eighteen years of relationship and communication with Andrew, we have had very many interactions and communications. When necessary, he has used every creative means possible to keep me true to my own deepest intention to be free.

Over all these years he has NEVER made one mistake, not even one time, in his many communications with me. His advice to me, for my own evolution, has always been PERFECT, and I do mean perfect. Perfect means impeccable. Perfect means also that, try as I might, I could not attribute personal motivation to his advice. Very often I've looked back to what he told me and only later, sometimes many years later, have I understood how perfect his advice has been.

Those reading this testimony might well believe that no human being could possibly live with such integrity. My own mind still finds it hard to comprehend but these are the facts.
But facts are facts and I present them to the court of world opinion.

Every one has to decide for themselves about who Andrew is, and what he teaches.
Everyone has to find their own way from their own experience.
No one should ever just believe someone else's words.
But I will say to anyone at anytime; this is my own *tested* experience over many years.

But there's more, Hal.
It's all about how any of us interpret these reported possible events.

Cast your mind back to a moment in your life in which, perhaps when making your very first steps on the spiritual path and perhaps bursting with transcendent inspiration, you felt willing to face the hottest fires of Hell, just to see one time the screaming fact of non-separation.
Weren't you ready to do whatever it takes, to face whatever, just to discover this glory?

After reading your litany of puny accusations, and in my opinion they are very puny, I came to realise how thrilled I would be if ALL of it is true and accurate!
I have no direct evidence that *any* of it is true but, if it was, isn't this truly the GOOD NEWS? *If* all that you say is true, we would then have evidence of a teacher willing to do whatever it takes to develop his students. Those, endeavouring to be true to our noblest motivations but also grappling with all in ourselves that wants to wallow in the swamp, can then have confidence in a teacher who is so committed to our evolution that he is willing to go that far.

Your puny accusations are such very good news, Hal !
DON'T YOU GET IT, Hal ?????

So I've now given you some facts, personal testimony that could be accepted in any court.
I've also told you how I interpret your puny accusations.
Finally I'll give you my own opinion.
And, yes, it is my own judgement (God forbid!) on what you and others (some without even having the courage of using their name!!) are doing here with this blog.
I find what you are doing here only destructive ― there is so much to be done globally at this critical time in human history and you are wasting your life with this miserable thing?

I concur with Don Beck in what he called you.

I simply have neither the time nor any interest to read this blog further.
I am not anonymous, I do have a name, I use it when I criticise, and I can be reached - so here's my email address riddiford_mo@yahoo.com
Sincerely
Mo Riddiford

At Saturday, 09 April, 2005, Tabitha Cooper said...
I was lucky enough to be a formal student of Andrew’s for 4 years. In the five years I was involved with him and his teaching, I learnt more of value about myself, Life and what’s important than from anything in my life up until that point, it was 4 years ago that I left, and it remains an un-erasable and precious reference point in my heart now. Nothing bar death itself can cause this knowing to be not known in me, and for this I am so profoundly grateful.

In a world so full of doubt and cyncism, it is not difficult to find support for suspicion, in authority, integrity of action and wholeness, and very rare to find people willing to have the courage and faith to find out and live what that might mean at this very confusing time in the story of the world.

Andrew always warned us of the difficulty of the path to Enlightenment, he has always said it is not for everyone, he never forced anyone to be involved in his teachings and making the choice to be his student was never taken lightly. But all of us did make that choice, and this is key.

I know for myself that the joy in awakening to another context, and feelings associated with realising that something else really is possible caused an almost drunken relationship to everything whereby I filtered what I wanted to hear – things Andrew said that acknowledged my interest in Enlightenment, filtering out any other more grounding elements that might conflict, so that I could stay intoxicated. I wasn’t the only one.

It is very easy to do this, even now, to hear what you want to hear, to remember what you want to remember, and forget what is convenient, to affirm the way that we want to live our lives now. The Context for the life we lived in the Community cannot be compared to a more regular life lived by most of us in the world, and it is misleading to reference events out of this context. The media - as an example – often do this, not to give a fair representation, but to meet their own ends.

I have found peace in facing the fact that I am not the warrior for freedom that I wanted to believe, that as much as I may have recognised the perfection of the goal of Enlightenment, I am not up for the kind of surrender that it takes. I am responsible for what I do and the choices I make, - I always have been.

This forum has been set apparently to warn people against Andrew, but isn’t it a bit patronising to assume that people are not capable of discriminating for themselves? The context being built through the teachings is precious, throwing mud at it so it doesn’t shine for others is as destructive to ourselves as it is to the possibility of Freedom. Should people not be allowed the freedom – without the fear you are generating - to make up their own minds? It is an ugly battle being fought here, and in your hearts you must know that this is not an even playing field.

I agree that the truth matters, which is why I feel compelled to respond. I don’t expect anything I’ve said here to make any difference to the initiators of this blog, but to anyone else reading – if you do draw conclusions, let it at least be free from fear.

Thank you Andrew, and deepest respect to his students.

Tabitha Cooper

At Thursday, 14 April, 2005, Dave Reid said...
Tabitha you're post was a welcome diamond in the rough. You astutely point out the profound calamity that those behind this blog are seeking to wreak.

The calamity is that WHAT they are actually out to destroy is the greater evolutionary context of enlightened communion and knowledge that is being revealed and explored by Andrew, his community and others participating in that with them. They are making this about soiling Andrew's reputation, but really its about tearing apart something even more precious which is the context I quote here in Tabitha's post: "The context being built through the teachings is precious, throwing mud at it so it doesn’t shine for others is as destructive to ourselves as it is to the possibility of Freedom."

These people's ego's got hurt seeking enlightenment from a real teacher, and rather than be man or woman enough to accept that, they instead seek to destroy the profound context that is undeniably being revealed around Andrew. EVEN if you think he's a farce, or a mean guru who hurts people, its still hard to deny the miraculous discoveries he, his community, his retreat participants, fellow teachers and pundits are touching upon as seen in andrewcohen.org and wie.org.

I'm sure the efforts of this blog will fail overall, but its still sad and pathetic to see how willing so many are to jump on the bandwagon of assuming that Andrew is as much of a monster as he's made out to be in this blog. Too all those people - prove you are not weak minded and at least look deeply into all this before accepting that this is "just another cult."

Dave Reid

At Sunday, 17 April, 2005, Jeremy Lyell said...
Here we go again…. someone, in this case Dave Reid (but the same applies to Roberta, Tabitha, Mo and others’ posts), dares to speak out in support of Andrew… and surprise, surprise, immediately there’s another bout of angry, anonymous mud slinging. Interesting how most of these mud slingers post anonymously, whereas those on the pro side post almost invariably with their own names. This anonymous posting is cowardly, invulnerable and oh so safe.

There have been calls to hear from those either still in the community or at least willing to write in Andrew’s support. When some current students wrote, they were fairly viciously put down, so don’t expect any of them to show their faces here. But at least they identified themselves. After I posted several weeks back, I received several positive emails from other former students, none of whom wanted to be involved with a blog in which so much negativity is being expressed.

I wonder how an impartial reader, someone new to Andrew’s teachings without an agenda to jump into the feeding frenzy, would really view the various posts ? Who sounds like they are seething with rage – those that express enormous, lasting gratitude for the time they spent with Andrew, or those who are still furious all these years on ?

What I find so sad is that so many former dharma brothers and sisters, many of whom left before me nearly TEN YEARS AGO, are still stuck in the past, trying to justify their actions on this blog in the name of serving the spiritual community….. well I know too many of you to believe that is your true motive and in my opinion, Dave has really hit the spot where he writes “Tell your readers how you could not bear to realise that you don’t want to be free more than anything else…… and that you are quite angry about that revelation and the loss of your spiritual identity”. I understand that this is a very hard thing for any individual to face, but until it is faced, I’d say it will be almost impossible to move on. I’m left wondering if some of you guys truly want to move on ? There is so much more to life than being a student of Andrew’s, however valuable that may be at the time – so why stay hung up about it for so long ?

It’s also interesting to note that although we have heard stories about face slapping, paint throwing etc etc, we have heard these stories primarily from people who weren’t even in the community when these events took place. Roberta for example was there, prostrating herself in the freezing lake etc – she doesn’t sound so very bitter, does she ?

I remember hearing Krishnamurti responding many years ago to a question about what could one do for society. K replied that society does not actually exist, individual people exist and that the best thing one can do for the Whole is to find true freedom for oneself. So I ask those former students who are giving so much energy to the Andrew bashing – can you honestly say this is constructive to your own spiritual development ?

If you feel like you were misled and wasted years of your life with Andrew, I urge you to take responsibility both for putting yourself at his feet and then for choosing to leave. But victimhood can be a tragically attractive place in which to dwell, especially as a group, and that’s what I see happening here.

I’d like to add that I have nothing whatsoever to do with Andrew’s community, nor have I had since shortly after I left. I nevertheless remain eternally grateful to Andrew for the invaluable time I spent there, which was truly transformational.

Jeremy Lyell.

Back to Navigation Page

WHAT enlightenment??!

Friday, October 29, 2004

Letter to a Seeker

Thursday, October 28, 2004

Life After the Cult

Wednesday, October 27, 2004

The Narcissist Claims Infallibility

Tuesday, October 26, 2004

David Deida muses about Guru Andrew Cohen

Monday, October 25, 2004

Enlightenment Blues reviewed by Parabola Magazine

Wednesday, October 20, 2004

So Just What IS a Real Sage?

Saturday, October 09, 2004

What is Narcissism?

Saturday, October 02, 2004

About WHAT enlightenment?!

Friday, October 01, 2004

Navigate All of WHAT enlightenment??!

Articles by chronology

Articles by Title

Articles by Author

Breaking the Code of Silence Series

Documentation of Abuse

The Psychology of the Guru/Disciple Relationship

Rebuttals by Cohen's Defenders

Links

Previous Posts

Archives