Emperor's New Clothes?
A Letter from Ed McDougal
I lived in Andrew's community for almost ten years, first in Cambridge and Marin county, then, more recently at Foxhollow. This blog has helped me compare the ups and downs of my experiences with those of others who were also there.
After an absence of five years, I wrote Andrew that I had overcome certain reservations I had previously expressed to him about his teachings. The upshot was that he eventually decided I could move to Foxhollow. I was very glad. Like many others, I had glimpsed the impersonal enlightened perspective as a result of contact with Andrew. It now seemed particularly in reach because of an enlightenment experience that had taken place a year or so after I left Marin that impressed me deeply. I wanted to live permanently in and from that perspective.
I was not successful. No doubt this is owing in part to reasons having to do with my personal makeup. But I also believe no small part was played by the way I handled a particular situation that arose with Andrew after my arrival at Foxhollow. I wanted to speak to him about the spontaneous experience that occurred some years earlier, when suddenly for several hours I didn’t know who or where I was, yet managed to accomplish several physically and mentally demanding tasks, even while being completely distracted by the unfamiliarity of familiar surroundings.
When I tried to discuss this with Andrew, I was given to understand that it would be inappropriate and unnecessary to do so. I did not insist, reasoning that the enlightened perspective, as Andrew teaches, is a matter of freedom in relation to all experience, even enlightened experience, and that dwelling on the past is counter-productive.
I now think that I was mistaken. I ought to have insisted on speaking about this, and in failing to do so, I failed myself. If I had received confirmation that I was on the right track, and had been given more than just a taste of the real thing, it might have gone far toward establishing the base of self-confidence so necessary in the kind of solitary struggle with the ego in which we were all engaged. I was aware that Andrew's own remarkable increase in self-confidence after he met his teacher coincided with just such a communication. As Andrew wrote to his mother and brother:
Since then, of course, Andrew's interests have taken a different direction. Which brings me to a third factor in the mix, crucial during the time I was at Foxhollow—what I think of as Andrew’s “one size fits all” approach to enlightenment. This may well be the result of the increasing emphasis in his teachings on the biggest possible picture of reality, involving an expanding universe, a noosphere, memes, and the inter-subjectivity of consciousness. Impersonal enlightenment has clearly become less important to Andrew than what he now regards as an evolutionary step beyond that, toward the collective discovery and generation of a kind of emerging group intelligence that can be applied to the cultural, social and political problems of our times.
Obviously some of these problems are extremely urgent. But I have seen little evidence that collective intelligence generated by groups at Foxhollow or elsewhere is having an actual effect on the problems it is meant to address, or even, secondarily, that the lives of individuals who are making group efforts have changed so as to make the impersonal perspective more permanent among them.
Andrew once told me and a group of fellow retreatants at Foxhollow that I was "completely oblivious to what’s going on here." Perhaps he is right. And perhaps more time is needed to tell if what is admittedly an experiment is bearing fruit. It would be worse than disappointing to conclude that what we have here is a case of emperor's new clothes.
I lived in Andrew's community for almost ten years, first in Cambridge and Marin county, then, more recently at Foxhollow. This blog has helped me compare the ups and downs of my experiences with those of others who were also there.
After an absence of five years, I wrote Andrew that I had overcome certain reservations I had previously expressed to him about his teachings. The upshot was that he eventually decided I could move to Foxhollow. I was very glad. Like many others, I had glimpsed the impersonal enlightened perspective as a result of contact with Andrew. It now seemed particularly in reach because of an enlightenment experience that had taken place a year or so after I left Marin that impressed me deeply. I wanted to live permanently in and from that perspective.
I was not successful. No doubt this is owing in part to reasons having to do with my personal makeup. But I also believe no small part was played by the way I handled a particular situation that arose with Andrew after my arrival at Foxhollow. I wanted to speak to him about the spontaneous experience that occurred some years earlier, when suddenly for several hours I didn’t know who or where I was, yet managed to accomplish several physically and mentally demanding tasks, even while being completely distracted by the unfamiliarity of familiar surroundings.
When I tried to discuss this with Andrew, I was given to understand that it would be inappropriate and unnecessary to do so. I did not insist, reasoning that the enlightened perspective, as Andrew teaches, is a matter of freedom in relation to all experience, even enlightened experience, and that dwelling on the past is counter-productive.
I now think that I was mistaken. I ought to have insisted on speaking about this, and in failing to do so, I failed myself. If I had received confirmation that I was on the right track, and had been given more than just a taste of the real thing, it might have gone far toward establishing the base of self-confidence so necessary in the kind of solitary struggle with the ego in which we were all engaged. I was aware that Andrew's own remarkable increase in self-confidence after he met his teacher coincided with just such a communication. As Andrew wrote to his mother and brother:
"When I told him [H.W.L.Poonja] in detail about the spontaneous awakening I had when I was sixteen he told me that at that moment I had experienced all there was to experience, and he said that if I had had a teacher or someone whom I could have talked to about it, a man of knowledge—then my work would have been over then. Much of what I understood then has [since] returned." (My Master Is Myself, p.39)
Since then, of course, Andrew's interests have taken a different direction. Which brings me to a third factor in the mix, crucial during the time I was at Foxhollow—what I think of as Andrew’s “one size fits all” approach to enlightenment. This may well be the result of the increasing emphasis in his teachings on the biggest possible picture of reality, involving an expanding universe, a noosphere, memes, and the inter-subjectivity of consciousness. Impersonal enlightenment has clearly become less important to Andrew than what he now regards as an evolutionary step beyond that, toward the collective discovery and generation of a kind of emerging group intelligence that can be applied to the cultural, social and political problems of our times.
Obviously some of these problems are extremely urgent. But I have seen little evidence that collective intelligence generated by groups at Foxhollow or elsewhere is having an actual effect on the problems it is meant to address, or even, secondarily, that the lives of individuals who are making group efforts have changed so as to make the impersonal perspective more permanent among them.
Andrew once told me and a group of fellow retreatants at Foxhollow that I was "completely oblivious to what’s going on here." Perhaps he is right. And perhaps more time is needed to tell if what is admittedly an experiment is bearing fruit. It would be worse than disappointing to conclude that what we have here is a case of emperor's new clothes.
8 Comments:
Ward Churchill of the University of Colorado, professor of Ethnic Studies, described those technocrats whose jobs support the USA imperialistic policy abroad (in his article 'Some People Push Back') as 'Little Eichmanns.' Andrew's students that abused other students are 'Little Eichmanns' too. They should stand up and take responsibility for the pain they caused me and others.
To the Anonymous who quotes Ward Churchill about 'Little Eichmanns"--I'm very curious to hear exactly what happened to you. It sounds like you were really hurt. What is your story? I think if your story is told it might help those involved understand, stand up and take responsibility for how they hurt you and others.
Surfing the net late at night I came across this site. I have read most of the blogs and to be honest feel like I'm participating in a giant feeding frenzy. I really think there should be a word of caution here (and I have my own feeding frenzy/lust for gory details to alert me to that) There is good and bad in everything and in all of us and I would caution those who have not spent time in Andrew's community to take all of this with a big grain of salt.
I was in the community off and on for about nine years and skillfully I think managed to avoid getting too close to the fire. I met Andrew in 1991 and was totally bowled over by his presence and teachings. I was also very impressed by his students' clarity, interest and kindness. The years I was in the community were some of the happiest of my life and I do not regret one iota of the care, intimacy and joy (in darkness and light) that I experienced with my friends there.
However, I was always very uncomfortable with not being able or I should say willing to voice my questions about aspects of the community that I didn't understand. This was probably a big lack of courage on my part, but the situation was also pretty endemic. I think the most difficult part of it for me is that there was tremendous good and tremendous (I felt) wrong doing in the community at that time. I know that some of the situations I was in were verbally and mentally abusive on one level but I did believe that this was necessary for my own and others' good. That's a very difficult thing to reconcile.
Anyway, I could go into a lot of details here about my personal experiences, but I think I won't (the Frenzy would just love to be fed more of that stuff I'm sure)
Here's the bottom line for me:
1. Self respect and respect for the commitment of others who are still in the community. No matter what went down for us personally, we all chose Andrew for a reason and we all deserve respect for that reason.
2. What is Enlightenment? is a really good magazine. For anyone who hasn't seen it yet, pick up a copy and judge for yourself if it was put together by cult loonies.
3. For those of us who left the community, we should stop drivelling about it and move on. Connect with each other and work it out with our shrinks if necessary, but stop using this public "expose" forum to feed the worst in ourselves and each other. It's very undignified.
Sarah V
ps I will not be revisiting this blog site, but if you would like to contact me I'm at Vincent_781@verizon.net.
Jeff, having read your thoughtful and loving tribute to your experience with and view of Andrew's teachings, I want to ask you one question. Where in the light of what you describe is there room for slapping students, demanding the suffering of freezing waters, being doused with toxic paint, to mention a few of the reported abuses described on this blog? You are leaving things out of your composition. Surely in the light of Truth, nothing can be ignored or left out.
To focus on what you have related here about the glory of high ideals and spiritual experiences, it all sounds like "Andrew speak".
When we take the energy that we are and dedicate it to a lofty ideal for the noble purpose of evolving Consciousness, we create a fire and a passion. In this discovery of a purpose for living we feel lifted up and out of our ego-centric view. This escape from ego is exhiliarting and love-filled with the promise of freedom.
This is what we are all searching for...freedom from ego, divine purpose, a chance to change the world. When the leader of such an endeavor abuses this sacred yearning what does it truly reveal about that one? To look at the truth of what has actually transpired in the name of this most intimate and holy relationship takes courage. We can profess that we want to know what is true more than anything else, that we want to face everything and avoid nothing, that we are willing to give up everything for the sake of the Whole...but can we actually do it? Can we actually face into the whole truth, even if it means we have been deceived in the most sacred sanctuary of the soul of being?
I invite you to leave nothing out of your reflection of what has actually happened in the name of Enlightenment at Andrew's direction, and then stand fast and alone in that truth. Be willing to burn in that truth and you will find that you are free Now.
Hi Jeff,
I am assuming that your original post was addressed to anyone who may be interested in this blog. Why the need for personalizing the conversation? I would have the same questions whether you chose to post as anonymous or by name. You do not know me and I do not know you. So named or not named, what does it matter? Who would I need to be in order for you to determine whether or not to answer?
If you would like to use my anonymity as an excuse to avoid answering the questions posed, that is up to you. I would sincerely like to hear your answers however, and I am hoping you will respond.
Thanks Jeff. I look forward to your reply. The question for me is how to look fully without ignoring anything. I cannot reconcile the two extremes described in this blog and would sincerely appreciate hearing from a point of view which can and does acknowledge both sides of the issue.
Thanks again Jeff. I keep checking and look forward to your next post. I appreciate you taking the time to reflect and answer my questions.
Thank you Jeff. I have been waiting for your response and truly appreciate you taking the time to reflect and share your experience. I have also read and responded to Roberta's postings on this blog.
If I am hearing you correctly, you are saying that in the context that the incidents described in this blog happened, being with a group of students very close to Andrew and conscious willing participants all the way, that this condones these actions. If one accepts the premise that enduring all this in the name of breaking the back of the ego for the sake of changing humanity, then that is the end of the matter.
This premise does not ring true to me. In fact, I do not want to live on premises, which are mind created structures. In my view, these are dangerous premises. They give you "time" and "process". They block you from waking up Now. And they keep you completely dependant on Andrew.
He has complete Authority over you.
This seems to me to be a fundamentally flawed set of circumstances. I know this situation can inspire incredible passion and deep love for Andrew as God. Thrilling prospects regarding changing humanity...who wouldn't be moved by that possibility? But if it takes such a tremendous amount of ego crucification for so many years for the students who are closest to Andrew, how is it going to change humanity? How are the billions of expressions of the One manifesting as humanity on this planet going to go through this ego death? Even you admit you are reluctant to get too close to the fire.
I do not see humanity changing from this kind of outward crushing of the false sense of self. I see humanity waking up to Presence which is arising from Within. I do not see human beings doing it. I see Presence doing it. When the mind stops, Presence Is Realized. No amount of face-slapping or paint-dousing is going to change humanity. Anyone who has raised children knows that is not the way to create healthy self-aware human beings. You cannot push the river.
Blessings to you on your journey Jeff and thanks again for responding with your heartfelt respect and love for Andrew. May that love and respect be returned to you in full measure.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home