EDITOR'S COMMENT:
In previous posts, I have trumpeted how important I felt the work was that Andrew Cohen was doing, especially through his
"What Is Enlightenment?" magazine. In June of 2003 I wrote:
"I have been a subscriber for a couple years now. In my opinion, there is no other publication on the planet that comes close to covering life's big questions as thoroughly, honestly, and aggressively as this magazine does. Along with tackling life's most compelling issues, the magazine is packed full of no-nonsense interviews with today's most well known (and often very controversial) spiritual masters, gurus, teachers, leaders, teachers, scientists, visionaries... If you want to stay fully informed of humankind's real bone crunching, soul searching issues 'What Is Enlightenment?' is a must read..."
While I continue to be impressed with the depth, breadth, and soul-searching qualities of the magazine, dark clouds have begun to gather around Cohen and his community. Actually, there have always been dark clouds. In 1997, for example, Cohen's mother wrote an unflattering account of "her experience as a disciple of her own son... and her struggle to free herself from his control." What makes this time different is the number of people speaking up, the caliber of the people speaking up (two former editors of What Is Enlightenment?, among others), the similarity of their abusive stories, and a website that has emerged to exchange, explore and chronicle their experiences.
While not pleasant reading, the issues that are raised are important. They are also not exclusive to Cohen and his followers and ex-followers. Stories like these surface again and again, with unnerving predictability, in many disciple-guru, student-teacher, novice-master settings. Because of this, they deserve/need/beg for closer examination.
We are, therefore, about to embark upon a four-part adventure. Part 1 will be Cohen's ex-followers describing their experiences; Part 2 will be Cohen's public reply to these accusations; and Part 3 will deal with Ken Wilber's support of Cohen (and related topics); and Part 4 will involve creating a space on NHNE's new website where those of you who are interested can share your thoughts about this situation.
Buckle your seat belts.
--- David Sunfellow
............
RELATED BOOKS:
THE MOTHER OF GODBy Luna Tarlo
"A mother's account of her experience as a disciple of her own son, a well-known American guru, and her struggle to free herself from his control."
...............
ENLIGHTENMENT BLUES: MY YEARS WITH AN AMERICAN GURUBy Andre van der Braak
"Enlightenment Blues is Andre van der Braak's compelling first hand account of his relationship with a prominent spiritual teacher. It chronicles both the author's spiritual journey and disenchantment as well the development of a missionary and controversial community around the teacher. It powerfully exposes the problems and necessities of disentanglement from a spiritual path."
............
RELATED NHNE NEWS LIST POSTS:
INTEGRAL NAKED: 'EVOLUTIONARY SPIRITUALITY' (10/20/2003):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/6127
COHEN INTERVIEWS WILBER, MURPHY, BECK (1/9/2004):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/6570
'WHAT IS ENLIGHTENMENT?' MAGAZINE (6/26/2003):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/5593
------------
BREAKING THE CODE OF SILENCE (Part I)
By Hal Blacker
January 27, 2005
Original LinkMay all beings be happy!!!
I am certainly happy because I have been granted the privilege of non-anonymously breaking the Cohen Silence Code on our What Enlightenment?! blog. And it feels real good. Don't be shy and don't be the last one on your block or on this blog to join in. Come on in, the water's fine!
My name is Hal Blacker. As many readers here may recall, I was the editor in chief of What Is Enlightenment? magazine from 1994 until late 1996 -- the period during which Andrew Cohen's periodical made the transition from being a small in-house newsletter to an international spiritual publication.
I left Andrew's community in early 1997. Since that time I have experienced a gradual unfolding of understanding about what happened during my time there and what went wrong. My own personal story is not that important. In many ways, I think, I personally suffered less than many. I was one of the few who left with Andrew's blessing (although against his wishes), and with the door (initially) left open should I wish to return.
In the past, I have not wanted to speak publicly in any way that might be seen as negative about Andrew, his community or his teachings. I was hesitant to do this at first because, despite misgivings, I felt some loyalty to Andrew. I was concerned that due to my renown as the former editor of and frequent contributor to his magazine, anything I said that might sound critical would receive undue attention, and possibly cause him harm. I was also not sure how to sort out events and their meaning. I felt that before I said anything critical, I wanted to be certain that I was not motivated by personal hurt or animosity. I wanted to wait before speaking out until I was no longer subject to anger that might skew my perspective. Finally, I felt it was more important for me to move on with my life, and continue my own spiritual path. I did not feel it was healthy to shovel energy into a bottomless hole of resentment or recrimination. So, except for personal conversations with friends who were also in the community and who had left, I remained largely silent.
But a few years ago I began to learn of things that caused me great concern. An old friend who I worked with on What Is Enlightenment? magazine called and told me she had left the community. I told her a little about my thoughts about it -- how I had come to see how oppressive life in the community was, how wrong it was that there was no personal freedom or autonomy permitted, how abusive the confrontational methods used to enforce conformity now seemed, how frequently we lived in fear, and how criticism was always forcibly squelched. She interrupted me and said, "Hal, things have gotten a whole lot weirder since you left." I asked her what she meant, and she told me stories involving the use of physical force and abuse against students. She spoke of being ordered by Andrew to deliver "messages" to fellow students consisting of slapping the student in the face as hard as she could. She told me she had been ordered by Andrew to paint messages in blood-red paint on the walls of a student's room at Foxhollow. She described to me the conversion of the spa at Foxhollow into a kind of psychological torture chamber.
As the years passed I spoke to many other former students who confirmed these stories, elaborated upon them, and told me many more. I learned of students having large "contributions" psychologically extorted from them. I heard how a student was required to sign a "gag order" agreement prohibiting him from publicly criticizing Andrew as a condition of having his "contribution" returned. I was told the story of community women prostrating in a freezing cold lake in the winter, some suffering dangerous exposure, as a symbol of their devotion and repentance for "women's conditioning." I learned of a student being forced -- against his will and his moral compunction -- to engage in daily visits to prostitutes in Amsterdam for weeks on end as a kind of penance for past sexual indiscretions. I was told by a student how he was ordered to reveal to his estranged teenage daughter her mother's infidelity that occurred many years in the past, in order to teach the daughter not to hold her mother, now a critical former student, in such high esteem. I heard these stories and many, many more. As the weight of the awful truth about what Andrew and his community had become accumulated, I began to feel that something must finally be said. People must be warned. At the very least, any prospective student should know what they are signing themselves up for when they join Andrew Cohen's community.
As a result, I've decided to begin to write publicly about these things. I'm throwing off the cloak of anonymity. I hope to write as frankly and revealingly about what I've learned as I can. I plan to contribute my own opinions about Andrew's methods and his teachings, but in the end, each of us must decide for ourselves what it all means. I hope that others will join in with their own stories, comments and contributions, anonymously or not.
Please join in. May this discussion be of benefit.
May all beings enjoy happiness and the root of happiness; be free from suffering and the root of suffering; and dwell in the great equanimity that is free from passion aggression and prejudice!
............
WIE EDITOR ADMITS SLAPPING, SMEARED "BLOOD" INCIDENT
By Craig Hamilton
February 04, 2005
Original LinkI nearly laughed out loud when I read Hal Blacker's preamble to his "Breaking the Code of Silence" entry on this blog. How noble of you, Hal. You're finally going to enlighten us all to what's really going on around Andrew? What "code of silence" exactly are you referring to? As far as I can tell, so far the only code on this blog seems to be a code of kvetching. Let me try a new approach. I'll call this entry "Breaking the Code of Victimization."
My name is Craig Hamilton. I'm the managing editor of What Is Enlightenment? magazine, where I've worked full time since 1997. I've been a student of Andrew's for nearly thirteen years, and have been a close friend and colleague for the past eight of those years. I've been watching this latest incarnation of the anti-Cohen cult with mild curiosity since its small handful of founders started repeatedly emailing announcements about it to all of the magazine's advertisers and contributors. I never planned to respond, but at a certain point, the rhetoric of mischaracterization got to be too much to listen to.
So, for anyone who, upon reading the entries on this blog, finds themselves scratching their head at the bizarre, two-dimensional, and often surreal picture it paints; for anyone who finds it nearly impossible to reconcile the diabolical PowerLord depicted here with their own experience of Andrew Cohen (either through his writings, his magazine, his video dialogues on the web, or his public talks and retreats), I thought it would be worth offering a few words of explanation to help set the record straight.
First, a couple of questions:
(1) if the community around Cohen even remotely resembled the sort of life-destroying police-state this blog depicts, why would most of those writing on this blog have stayed with Cohen of their own free will for ten or more years? And why would so many others report it to be the most enriching, life-affirming, and genuinely evolutionary environment they have ever experienced?
(2) if Andrew Cohen really were the menace to society this blog describes, why would so many of today's wisest and most respected spiritual and cultural authorities have expressed such strong support for his work? (
A small sample of these can be found here.).
For starters, just to be clear, yes Andrew Cohen is a demanding teacher. And if he accepts you as a student and you get close enough to him, he'll likely challenge you in ways you have never been challenged. Sometimes warmly. Sometimes affectionately. Sometimes fiercely. But if you've been even a few steps down the path of transformation, and have begun to glimpse the usually obscured face of that dubious cluster of self-serving motivations traditionally known as ego, you've probably realized that, frankly, sometimes you need to be challenged. I know I had. In fact, a big part of the reason I came to Andrew for help was that, after years of meditation and therapy, I had managed to see myself just clearly enough that I was starting to become faintly disgusted by the self-aggrandizement, narcissism, and deep-rooted selfishness that was playing itself out in all my relationships. And it was clear that, despite my growing concern about it, I wasn't in a hurry to give it up on my own. Andrew made it clear from the word go that he was in a hurry for me to give it up, and that it wouldn't be easy, that I would at times resent him or worse for forcing me to confront and leave behind the self-image I had grown so fond of. But I was pretty convinced that without the kind of "evolutionary tension" a relationship with a teacher like Andrew promised, I would likely spend the better part of a lifetime in spiritual self-delusion, in love with my own image as a seeker.
In case there was any doubt, Andrew delivered. And then some. And he was right. There have been many times when I have resented him and worse for the sometimes stark or even severe reflection he has unfailingly provided. (I was the one mentioned in Hal Blacker's letter who got slapped in the face and also had fake blood smeared on his wall -- which, incidentally, we already wrote about in the magazine three years ago -- so much for the "code of silence"). And if I had, at any one of those times, followed my bruised ego out the door, as a number of others have, I might well be joining the feeding frenzy along with them. The spiritual path has always been a high-stakes game. The mystical literature isn't filled with metaphors like "Razor's Edge" and "Chasm of Fire" simply for poetic effect. Indeed, before I met Andrew, I always wondered why the traditional stories were so replete with images of demons trying, and often succeeding, at tempting people from their own highest aspirations. For all of my meditation and therapy, I had encountered nothing in my own experience that could help explain their existence -- metaphorical or otherwise. But in my thirteen years with Andrew, where the fires of transformation burn bright, I have seen in often painful living color just why the traditions made such a strong, if metaphorical, point of this. The sad and at times devastating truth is, not everybody makes it. And some barely make it to the starting line.
But for those who have remained steadfast through the struggles that come with the territory, something miraculous is unfolding. On an individual level, it manifests as a deep authenticity and vulnerability, a profound freedom of being, whose human face is care for others and for all of life. But the greater fruits of this sacred labor are revealing themselves on a collective level. Coming together beyond the fears and desires of ego, we are discovering a new way of being together, in which the autonomy of each individual is fueled and animated by the power and love of communion beyond difference. If you want to get a glimpse of what heaven on earth might look like, I strongly encourage you to pay us a visit. Our doors are always open, and many who have come through have commented that they've never experienced anything like what they tasted here.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying that Hal Blacker or any of the other writers on this blog shouldn't have left. Nor am I suggesting that everyone who leaves this path does so because they have an ego tantrum. No path is for everyone, and least of all this one. But having known Hal for many years, I have no doubt that the reasons for his departure were as I described above. And that in light of that, we would do well to question his motives for writing what he has, and the accuracy of the picture he paints. (For the record, Hal served very briefly as the lead editor of What is Enlightenment? while it was making the transition from a two-color in-house newsletter to its first issue or two as a small, four-color magazine. Those of us who worked with him remember him as an emotionally unstable and often aggressive colleague. Indeed, it was his unwillingness to make any effort to control his fitful aggression that eventually compelled Andrew to give him the nickname "Raging Bull," and which also ultimately led to his departure).
Finally, I think it needs to be said that this blog's portrayal of Andrew as a self-proclaimed infallible authority who answers to no one is little more than a cheap shot. It ignores the fact that since he began teaching, Andrew has gone out of his way to seek out meetings with other teachers, traditional and non-traditional, with whom he shares not only his insights but his struggles and questions. It also leaves out the fact that Andrew regularly speaks about his own continued evolution as a teacher.
I was hesitant to write this letter. I recognize that, given the level of aggression we are confronting here, this small effort at explanation may well backfire, generating a yet greater wave of animosity, even if again only from that small minority whose axe will not be sufficiently ground until it is but a stub of a handle. But at some point, silence on such matters starts to look like consent. And if nothing else, perhaps this small statement will at least raise a question for anyone who might have been fooled by Hal and his gang. I guarantee that if you dig deep enough to find out for yourself, you'll discover that the picture of Andrew Cohen portrayed on this blog is nothing more than a small-hearted rendition of loosely assembled half-truths, a coward's caricature. Yes, there is another side to the story. It's a side whose glory cannot be contained in the space of this letter. But one well worth investigating for anyone in whom the heart's cry for freedom cannot be drowned in the clamor of cynicism.
Sincerely,
Craig Hamilton
............
CRUELTY, VENGEANCE AND CRAZY WISDOM (Part II)
By Hal Blacker
March 3, 2005
Original LinkMay all beings be happy!
It is now more than ten days since I wrote Andrew Cohen an "Invitation To Truth And Reconciliation." So far, there has been no response.
This is a disappointment. Andrew's utter silence now, after previous hostile posts made here by his representatives, seems to signify a complete unwillingness to face the harm he has caused. So now I am compelled to continue this journey into Andrew Cohen's heart of darkness. Because this is bitter medicine, it will be served in small doses.
Let no one think that the few specific instances of slapping described previously here were the only ones. There were many others. The slapping of several What Is Enlightenment? staff members by another staff member, on Andrew's orders, has been chronicled earlier on this blog. A former senior student reports slapping other students on Andrew's orders, including former and present students such as Steve Brett, Harry Dijkshorn, Bob Voss, and others. He saw Andrew personally strike Calvin Phipps, Arjan Kindermans, Mike Dutka and several other men. A former female student reports that women were slapped at Andrew's direction even more often than the men.
In addition to slapping, groups of male students were ordered by Andrew to assault other students. In 1997, while the community was still in Marin County, California (shortly before I left it), a group of men roughed up former student Ingo. He had recently been "promoted" and was living in Andrew's household along with other closer students. I did not find out about this until years later. I was incredulous at first, thinking it must have just been "rough-housing" with obviously no harmful intent. Ingo stressed that this was not the case. He was very frightened by the incident. He was not seriously hurt, but while it was occurring he feared that he might be. He fled the community soon after, never to return. Around this time Stas (Ernest) was also jumped and "beaten up" a number of times by a group of fellow students. He also was extremely frightened and panic-stricken by the attacks. Again, he was not seriously harmed physically, but felt emotionally traumatized from the events. These kinds of physical assaults were rationalized by Andrew, however, as a way to get certain men in touch with their inner rage.
Some forms of physical abuse did not involve direct assaults on the person. For instance, at the Foxhollow World Center, Andrew once ordered that a large plastic bag of garbage, containing food waste and other trash, be obtained from the center's kitchen. He had a student empty its entire contents on the bed of a student living there named Mary Acton-Adams.
Andrew also appears to be capable of engaging in a sustained effort, lasting over years, to demoralize a student with whom he is particularly angry. This seems to have been the case with Donna, Stas' (Ernest's) former wife.
Donna and Stas became students of Andrew's in the late 1980's. By the time the community moved from the East Coast to Marin County, California, they were among his closest. When I joined the community in Marin in 1990, I lived briefly with Donna, Stas and their young daughter, Sophia. Donna and Stas achieved the rank of "senior students" (the highest level in the student hierarchy, for a time) and were leaders of the community for years. For years, they were also one of the only -- perhaps the only -- married couple in the community that Andrew did not break apart. By the time the community moved back to the East Coast to its new home in Foxhollow, however, Donna had fallen from grace, been separated from Stas, and Andrew was very unhappy with her.
In approximately 1999, Donna was a lay student, living off the Foxhollow campus. Although she had fallen into disfavor with Andrew, she tried to keep some connection with him and the community. The community was involved with extensive re-modeling of the Foxhollow Center, and Donna volunteered to help. One day, she was working at the center with others, painting, and during a lunch break, close student Bob Voss approached her. He asked her if she could "come downstairs" into the basement. She was met there by four close female students, including Andrew's wife, Alka. They guided her to a plastic sheet that was on the floor. Alka approached Donna and told her she had a message from Andrew. Saying "Thanks a lot" (or words to this effect) in a sarcastic voice, Alka poured a full bucket of paint over Donna's head. The other students proceeded to do the same, pouring a total of 4 buckets of paint over Donna.
Donna recalls being completely devastated. She remembers standing covered with paint and crying. One student helped her to a shower, where she disrobed and stood under the water for 45 minutes, broken and sobbing. She was given coveralls to change into before she left. She tried as hard as she could to hold herself together emotionally long enough to leave the premises without breaking down and making a scene. She had trouble keeping control. Later, a fellow student telephoned Donna and called her a "coward." After the incident, and perhaps because of its emotional trauma, Donna became very ill with a bad flu.
Donna never returned to Foxhollow. She drifted away from the community, although she maintained contact with Stas, in part because of their daughter Sophia. But this was not the end of Donna's humiliation at Andrew's hands. Andrew seemed to feel the need to cause Donna more pain. He would eventually accomplish this through emotional abuse and manipulation involving her daughter Sophia.
As Stas described in his letter posted on this blog, he often had little time for his daughter Sophia due to Andrew's demands on him. Sophia, naturally, came to resent this. Several years after Donna was assaulted with paint in the basement of Foxhollow, Sophia, then 15 years old, and her mother were living together separately from Stas. Sophia was angry with Stas for his neglect, and wanted little to do with him. She was, however, very close to Donna and held her in high esteem. Andrew became aware of this, and felt that something should be done.
Some years earlier, Andrew had learned about infidelity by Donna that had occurred in the distant past, years before Sophia was born. Over time, Andrew had used this against Stas and Donna on a number of occasions. He revealed this embarrassing information to many people in the community. When Andrew heard that Sophia wanted little to do with Stas, while holding Donna in high regard, he decided Sophia's love and respect for her mother should be undermined by telling Sophia of her mother's past infidelity. Andrew was outraged that Sophia would dare to be disrespectful of her father because he had given his life, his time and his priorities to Andrew, rather than her. Through the years, Andrew had often told the parents that they should not hide from the children that their dedication to him comes first, even before them. He also said he felt that it would somehow be of personal benefit for Sophia to "know the truth" about her mother and that it would help Stas's relationship with Sophia. Andrew discussed this idea with Stas and other close students numerous times.
Andrew kept pressing Stas to tell Sophia directly of her mother's past infidelity. As a result, when Stas was visiting with Sophia, he told her how her mother had been unfaithful before she was born. Upon hearing this, Sophia cried. But Stas felt that telling her might have had the desired effect. He called Andrew and told him this. Andrew, pleased with himself, said jokingly, "OK. So, now you owe me another $20,000."
After Stas left, however, Sophia became physically ill and threw up. She called her mother, upset by everything she had been told. When Donna heard what had happened, she became furious. She rightfully suspected Andrew's involvement in the affair, knowing that Stas would do nothing without Andrew's direct instruction. But before she had a chance to speak at length with Stas about it, Alka called him and told him, "Andrew says, to leave him out of this." Andrew had not only Stas but others told to engage in a "cover-up" for him. Later, when Stas spoke to Donna and was questioned by her, he denied any involvement by Andrew. Shanti (Mary), another long-time student and close friend of Donna's, vehemently denied Andrew's involvement in the affair.
Donna, Stas and their daughter Sophia have all felt the brunt of Andrew's wrath, in cruelly novel and unexpected ways. They are not the only ones. Donna recalls Andrew once comparing himself to the controversial and scandal-plagued guru Adi Da (Da Free John), saying, "In terms of crazy wisdom, I'm the craziest." Crazy wisdom, something Andrew once vociferously condemned in his teaching, had become a matter of pride for Andrew. The thing about crazy wisdom is, it has no limits. Let us hope -- against the evidence -- that Andrew's cruelty and vengeance does.
...........
SHAME, GUILT AND THE GURU'S BLOOD (Part III)
By Hal Blacker
March 24, 2005
Original LinkMay all beings be happy!
May the truth, no matter how difficult it is to hear, set all beings free.
I have previously written on this blog of incidents of slapping and physical assault against students by Andrew Cohen and at his direction. I told the story of the assault of Donna with buckets of paint, and the emotional assault on her teenage daughter. Stas (Ernest) has shared his story on this blog, and you have had the chance to read some stories from some other former students. But it is difficult to convey, from these various particular stories and incidents, the pervasive atmosphere of guilt, shame and fear created by Andrew in his community, which refugees from the community have communicated to me.
When I left the Andrew Cohen community in late 1996, before its move to Lenox, Massachusetts, Andrew had already begun to speak openly of his fondness for guilt. It went along, in his mind, with his emphasis on conscience and "doing the right thing." I remember Andrew saying at a special retreat of close students in Mill Valley, California that I attended that while other teachers talked of unconditional love, self-acceptance and forgiveness, he did not agree with such talk. "I'm not into unconditional love or forgiveness," he said. "I'm into conditional love and guilt." Andrew would say that while it was not his preference, if that is what it took to force change, using guilt and shame was perfectly alright.
Over the years, Andrew instilled a sense of guilt and shame in various ways, as he deemed necessary. He would often highlight student's weak points by giving them an embarrassing or insulting name. A student who received such a name could only use that name in the community, and community members were required to use that name when addressing or referring to that person, until Andrew said it could stop. Some examples of these names include Vacance, Mad Dog, Raging Bull, Furious, Dizzy, Casual, Unreal, Mephisto, Q the Clown, Sherma the Tank, Tamasa and His Greatness or "HG." The shaving of heads was also used to mark someone who was in trouble. While it was sometimes a voluntary act symbolizing renunciation, shaving one's head became more and more something that you were required to do when Andrew was unhappy with you. These devices of inducing shame were already in force before the move to Foxhollow. But after the move to Foxhollow, the use of guilt and shame as a teaching device seemed to increase dramatically. At Foxhollow, Andrew also began to speak openly of what he called "healthy shame."
Incidents involving writing messages in fake blood on the walls of Foxhollow residents' rooms or offices have been already described on this blog. One such incident was obliquely alluded to in the 10th anniversary issue of What Is Enlightenment? magazine, published in the Fall of 2001, and Craig Hamilton referred to this incident in one of his contributions to this blog. When Andrew would receive a letter from a student or students that offended him, he would sometimes have it blown up, splattered with fake blood and posted publicly. Everyone knew that this fake blood, or red paint, represented "the guru's blood." Andrew made it clear that he felt that when a student questioned, disobeyed or offended him, they were spilling his blood. Fake blood was used liberally to induce shame and guilt in students, or his entire student body, when he was unhappy with them. For a time he converted the basement spa at Foxhollow into a space for practice and penitence, where the walls were liberally smeared with this "blood," his "blood." There was a men's side and a women's side. Both were copiously stained with Andrew's "blood."
One very dedicated long-time student of Andrew's, a physician named Michele, who was a leader in the community at the time, committed the unthinkable crime of contradicting Andrew. When Andrew criticized her about something she had done, she countered that Andrew had told her to do it. Andrew said that she was trying to make him doubt himself, and that was the worst possible crime and sin. For her perceived betrayal of him, her office was moved into the basement under the kitchen in the main building at Foxhollow. She was forced to work in an unfinished room, where the heating pipes were exposed. All four walls, the ceiling and the floor were painted in red paint, representing the guru's blood. One witness recalls there was a large cartoon put up there, representing Michele as a vampire. Another recalls that the word "traitor" was painted on the walls, as well. Michele was required to stay in that room for hours a day.
The period in 2001 preceding the publication of the 10th anniversary issue of What Is Enlightenment? was a particularly difficult time for the men at Foxhollow. As described earlier on this blog, when that issue of the community's magazine was published, most of the editorial staff had been banned from the center. But all of the formal male students had been under extreme pressure and had been recipients of Andrew's displeasure and wrath for some time before then. It seemed that Andrew's shift in emphasis from individual enlightenment to collective evolution translated into group experiments with his male and female students, involving pressure, shame and guilt.
It was understood, at one point, that Andrew was "taking on" all of the formal male students. The women had already been under great pressure for at least several years before then. Now Andrew's attention had shifted to the men. He wanted a "collective shift" to occur in them. At a certain point, frustrated with their lack of movement, he had all of the formal men stand in a circle, surrounding his house, in the winter in the Berkshires, for two to three days. The group has been estimated at 15-18 men. They were permitted to sleep for a few hours a day and were brought sandwiches a couple of times a day, but otherwise they were not permitted to move. Some of them urinated in their pants. An eyewitness to these events reports having seen Andrew emerge from his home and laugh at the men from time to time. During the extended period of intense pressure on the men, approximately 8-10 formal men could not stand it, and left the community.
At various times, it was the women's turn to "collectively shift." The women's side of the Foxhollow basement spa was turned into a multi-media space, where 20-30 women would be required to squeeze into a small space and watch the movie "To Die For" or listen to Bob Dylan's "Just Like A Woman" over and over again. The women had to take shifts, including in the middle of the night, and keep these media playing non-stop, 24 hours a day. One woman described the area where this occurred as 80-90 square meters (about 240-270 square feet) of wall-to-wall blown up comments, letters, cartoons and caricatures, red paint and multi-media. Andrew used a very talented caricaturist who was in the community, and he spent an enormous amount of time making very large, dramatic cartoons for Andrew. Many of the caricatures depicted specific students as devils or demons. Some showed these women eviscerating Andrew, literally tearing his intestines out with their bare hands. Others showed students dancing demonically around a fire, throwing Andrew's dharma books into the flames. Another depicted a female student as a dominatrix, performing sexually predatory acts. At times, all or most of the women had to sleep down there. This went on, even though most of the women had to work all day at outside jobs, as well as perform labor for Andrew's organization, the Impersonal Enlightenment Fellowship. For much of this period the women in relationships were prohibited from having sexual relations. They were not allowed to speak about personal matters, feelings or concerns with each other. They were especially prohibited from expressing any doubt, fear or confusion to anyone. The term "code of silence" was explicitly used for these rules. In general, the men ignored the women, because this was encouraged. At times the women were required to spend 3-4 hours a day in a group, confessing and writing in a document every way in which they had "betrayed the revolution." This document was eventually typed up and presented to Andrew.
At one point, the women as a group got into serious trouble because some women answered back to some men who told them they were not doing their spiritual practice properly. Andrew heard about this and let it be known that their disagreement was "outrageous." The women went into a panic when they heard this. They decided they must do something extreme to prove their penitence. Kathy Bayer came up with the idea that they should all perform prostrations in the freezing waters of Laurel Lake, the lake on the Foxhollow property. Memories vary as to exactly what month the prostrations occurred. Witnesses have reported dates from mid-October to late November. Most agree November. There wasn't ice on the lake yet, but all agree that it was bitterly cold.
Andrew learned of the plan for the lake prostrations group penitence, and approved it. Some people had performed prostrations in the lake before, but not in such cold weather. For example, Craig Hamilton at one point performed prostrations as penitence in the same lake, shouting "I am an asshole" at each prostration. His sadhana had been interrupted, however, when some local construction workers became disturbed by what he was doing and threatened to beat him up if he didn't stop.
The women entered the lake and walked to where the water was about waist deep, or a little higher. They held their hands above their head, shouted "Face everything and avoid nothing," and plunged down, completely submerging themselves. Then they got up and did it again. Their goal was to do it over and over again, for an hour.
Andrew's wife, Alka, was excused from the practice because she had a bad chest cold. But another woman had suffered a concussion and brain injury the year before. Andrew knew this, because she had undergone a lengthy convalescence at Foxhollow. She was not excused. She passed out in the lake's cold waters after about 50 minutes. She was carried out of the lake, unconscious. She came to in a warm shower, with two other women holding her up. Another woman described making it through the hour. She and some others who did so turned blue. They shivered so hard afterwards that they could not stop shaking enough to undo their zippers or buttons so they could take off their clothes. They went in groups into hot showers, where they stood for 45 minutes at a time until they had finally stopped shivering enough to undress. One woman wound up in the hospital with a serious kidney infection, requiring an I.V. drip, about 1 ½ months later. She attributes this to her exposure in the lake.
Some women did not make it through the practice. The women as a group got a message from Andrew that those who did not finish had to go back again and complete it. Some women had to return to the lake and try two or three times before they could do so.
The sense of guilt and shame, and the feeling that one was constantly "betraying one's Master" could inspire the willingness to make sacrifices that seem extreme and irrational from the outside. Andrew seems to encourage this behavior, even relish it. Some years ago at Foxhollow, a student named Jeff, a very good writer, was having a great deal of trouble with a writing project he had been assigned to do. He was supposed to write an introduction to a book Andrew was publishing, but he was having no success. Feeling terrible guilt about this, he wrote in a desperate letter to Andrew that "if I don't come through, I will cut my finger off." Andrew seemed to like this idea. When Jeff still did not succeed at his writing, Andrew called for Michele, the physician, to come see him. My informant was present when Andrew instructed Michele what to do. Andrew told Michele to go to see Jeff, and to bring her medical kit. She was instructed to tell Jeff that Andrew was taking him up on his offer to sacrifice a finger. She should take out her scalpel, her mask, her gloves, a sponge -- everything she would need for such an operation -- and lay them all out. She was told to carry through the charade up to the very last minute, and then stop.
When Michele visited Jeff, he had barely slept in about a week. He was in a desperate state. Nobody was there but Michele, who is still a student of Andrew, and Jeff, who I do not know how to contact. But Michele confirmed to another informant of mine that she had followed Andrew's instructions precisely. Jeff was severely and obviously shaken by the incident. He left Andrew and Foxhollow a few weeks later.
............
KARMA WILL (LITERALLY) COST YOU AND LEAVING ISN'T EASY (Part IV)
By Hal Blacker
May 31, 2005
Original LinkMay all beings be happy!
This is the fourth and last part of my "Breaking The Code Of Silence" series of articles about Andrew Cohen for the WHAT Enlightenment ??! blog....
Andrew Cohen's extraction of large contributions from community members in trouble has been touched on in this blog before. Stas (Ernest) recounted in his article "Letter From A Senior Student" how Andrew had expressly told students that when a "committed" or "senior" student "blows it," it will cost them $20,000 in karmic retribution. When Stas once offered Andrew a contribution of $3,000 at a time when he was desperate to regain Andrew's good graces, Andrew angrily threw the check on the floor, shouting, "Do you think you can buy me off for a lousy three grand?" As a result, Stas borrowed money so that he could make a $20,000 contribution to Andrew. Later, when he told Andrew the money was given under duress and asked for its return, Andrew coldly refused.
Stas was far from the only student who had large sums extracted from him by Andrew Cohen at a time of emotional confusion and vulnerability. These are only a few other examples.
Another long time close student, named Bill, told me in a private communication, at least one half year before this blog came into existence, about how he, like Stas, gave a large contribution, under pressure, at a time when he was psychologically devastated. Bill had been instrumental in the acquisition of Andrew Cohen's main center, Foxhollow, in Lenox, Massachusetts. In 1996, he found and handled the purchase of that $3 Million, 220 acre former Vanderbilt estate. After years of service to Andrew, Bill, like so may others, incurred his wrath. He endured being slapped, having to attend numerous meetings with fellow students where he was shouted at, being exiled to Australia, then soon after being called back to Foxhollow, where he was told he was not welcome and could not stay. After further similar twists and turns and "demotions," Bill finally received a message from Andrew that he should send in his inheritance of $80,000, an amount he had once offered Andrew at an earlier moment of desperation. Bill complied with the request. Later, after Bill left the community he demanded the money back, and threatened legal action if it was not returned. Andrew did return the money, but only on the condition that Bill sign an agreement drafted by Andrew's lawyer. The agreement contained a release of Cohen's organization (the Impersonal Enlightenment Fellowship, or "IEF," formerly known as Moksha Foundation) from all claims forever, and a "gag order" prohibiting Bill from speaking to the press or making any public statements about Andrew Cohen or his organization, particularly any "disparaging" ones, without prior approval, for a period of five years.
Another former close student of Andrew Cohen told me how she gave her entire Individual Retirement Account, amounting to $60,000, and promised to give her future inheritance to Andrew's organization under psychological duress. She had run away from Foxhollow, but was located and persuaded to come back. This was the second time she had left the community. When she returned she was told how she had utterly betrayed Andrew. Her acts were described as being completely "off the map," in the scale of possible offenses. It was stressed to her repeatedly how she was guilty of a hellish crime, and how upset Andrew was with her. She offered to contribute approximately $10,000 as retribution. She was told this was insufficient, that she'd have to "dig deeper" and had to be willing to "give everything." Three days later she offered her IRA and her inheritance. This presented some problems, as her father had some control of the IRA account, and she would have to transfer the funds to an account from which the "contribution" could be made without her father finding out. During the several weeks it took to accomplish this, IEF's secretary, Cathy Snow, repeatedly called her, asking how long it would take, and making sure she was not backing out. She was in great anguish and turmoil, and recalls being essentially insane at this time. She told Cathy that this was all the money she had in the world. Cathy had given her a message from Andrew that "You have to be willing to give up any idea of having a back door." She ultimately gave IEF the $60,000, but left the community for good when her father died, and before she could give away her inheritance.
Such "contributions" were often given under conditions of great secrecy. One student told me that she had complied with pressure to give $10,000 contributions twice when she was in trouble after having left. The $10,000 figure was expressly specified by close students and IEF administrators Steve Brett and Cathy Snow. She was told that a $10,000 contribution was a condition of coming back into the community, and that she should do whatever she needed to get the money, including obtaining a bank loan. IEF director Jeff Carreira tolder her at least three times regarding contributions "Do not tell anyone about this." When she later left the community again she knew she would have to give even more to return. At one point she told Carreira she would give Andrew the proceeds for the rest of her life from a trust for her. He seemed satisfied with this, but, as she told me, "I came to my senses and backed out."
There is a close English student who was kicked out of the community for about two years, but who continued to live in Lenox, Massachusetts, hoping to regain Andrew's good graces. A witness recounted a conversation with Andrew regarding the student's request to return to IEF. Andrew said he would get this student to give him all of his money, so that he would be dependent on Andrew and have no "back door." "Then he'd be mine," Andrew said. The student is now, again, a leader in Andrew's organization.
Andrew became extremely outraged with another student who had taken a celibacy vow and admitted to Andrew he had masturbated. Wracked with guilt and remorse after being called a hypocrite by Andrew, the student wound up obtaining an advance on his inheritance and giving it to IEF.
In addition to direct financial contributions, students frequently purchased Andrew Cohen expensive clothing and other gifts. Most of these students have little of their own money. One student told me how she had purchased him an $800 pair of Armani pants and many $200-$300 sweaters. The giving of flowers to express sorrow or gratitude, common when I was a member of the community, stopped being sufficient years ago.
It is not unusual for nonprofits to ask members for contributions. But it is unusual to obtain such contributions through psychological manipulation and the use of shame and guilt, as occurs in Andrew's community. A glance at the finances of IEF do not appear to show the need for using extraordinary measures to obtain contributions. According to IEF's 2003 Federal Income Tax Form 990 (the latest one viewable at the Guidestar.org web site, obtainable by doing a search for Moksha Foundation), IEF had total revenues of over $4 1/3rd Million Dollars in 2003, with a net over expenses of $2,184,927.00. Its total assets exceeded its liabilities by $7,653,439.00. In the last several years, Andrew Cohen had a large new office built for himself at Foxhollow, despite already having a luxurious office suite in the Foxhollow Manor House. That office suite included a private yoga room, private bath, private secretary's office, fireplace, porch, views and a main room of about 500 square feet. Andrew Cohen's lifestyle, while not as ostentatious as some famous gurus', could be fairly called lavish by most people's standards.
Leaving Isn't Easy
Given the pervasiveness of physical and emotional abuse and financial exploitation in Andrew Cohen's community, it would be reasonable to ask (as some on this blog have) why students don't just leave. In fact, most of Andrew's students do leave. He has far more students who have left him over the years than who have remained with him. Few of his early students remain. I have learned from an inside source that there are currently less than 400 students and "practicing members" combined, worldwide. This is far from the "revolution" that Andrew has always claimed he is spearheading.
For many students, however, leaving Andrew is traumatic. This is due to a combination of factors. Some of these factors are psychological and entrained by Andrew. Students are told repeatedly that leaving Andrew and his community is the greatest betrayal. They are taught that it is tantamount to admitting that they do not "want to be free" and to giving up any chance of spiritual enlightenment. Andrew's close students have witnessed numerous times the way Andrew denigrates and demonizes those who leave him. Andrew frequently complains about a conspiracy of former students who only want to undermine him. Students are repeatedly told that if they leave they should have no contact with other students who left the community. This means that it is likely they will be alone and without emotional support if they leave Andrew and IEF. Close students have generally devoted years of their lives to Andrew, have derived their whole sense of meaning from the community, and have lost touch with other friends, interests and support systems. The prospect of facing a huge void in their lives makes the idea of leaving Andrew very intimidating. But sometimes leaving Andrew is difficult for another reason-Andrew and his community sometimes make it almost impossible to do.
It is generally not possible to openly talk about leaving the IEF community if one has been a close student. If one does leave, one is often hounded by the community. There have been many instances of this. Marvin, a student who left on the pretext of visiting family, was called repeatedly by community members, and asked to come back. He finally agreed to return briefly to discuss the matter. When challenged for leaving without telling anyone, he made the memorable comment, "Leaving is not a formal student topic." Many other students were hounded after they left. Jeff, the student who left after Andrew had Michelle, a physician student, pretend she was going to surgically remove his finger for failing in a writing project (See "Shame, Guilt and The Guru's Blood") was sent a series of e-mails, each with symbolic pictures of the cover of the video "The Picture of Dorian Gray," with the images becoming progressively more distorted and ugly.
Many students have run from the community during the night. A couple of examples of this follow. The female student who made the $60,000 contribution and pledged her future inheritance, whose story was told above, did so after secretly escaping Foxhollow one night. Before she left, Andrew knew she was in a delicate condition and there was a danger she might leave. She had left once before. One night after receiving serious "feed-back", Andrew's wife Alka came to her room, and asked her for her driver's license, passport, and credit cards. She said she could not find her passport, but handed over what she claimed was her only credit card and her driver's license. She had previously hidden, however, another copy of her license and another credit card. She took them, along with her passport, "borrowed" the community car, and drove to a car rental office in Lenox. There she rented a car, left a voicemail message at Foxhollow about the community car's whereabouts, and drove off into the night. She didn't know where she wanted to go, just that she wanted to get far away. Eventually, she drove the thousands of miles from Massachusetts to New Orleans. She figured no one would find her there. A few days after she arrived and got a room, she went to return the rented car. There, to her shock, she found Debbie, an IEF community member, waiting for her. Debbie had waited at the car rental's Lenox office until she overheard a phone conversation from which she learned the student would be returning her rented car in New Orleans. She flew there and waited in the New Orleans rental office until the escaped student showed up. Debbie eventually persuaded her to return.
One Dutch student, who was close to Andrew and who had been a leader in his communities in Europe, fell into disfavor. He was put in a community home in London, where Steve Brett was told to keep an eye on him and prevent him from leaving. Steve slept just outside the Dutch student's room, so that he could not leave in the night without being noticed. But one night Steve failed to do this. The Dutch student packed a bag and threw it out his bedroom window to the ground below. Then he sneaked silently out of the house. He retrieved his bag, and found a pay telephone a block or two away, from which he called a cab. A couple of weeks before this, Rob, a close community member and an old friend of the Dutch student, had warned him against leaving. Rob was highly trained in martial arts, having been a member of a special division of the Dutch military, roughly equivalent to the U.S. Navy Seals or Special Forces. Rob had told his friend that if he ever left, he would find him and break every bone in his body. After the student escaped, he chose to go as far away as he could imagine, settling in Costa Rica. A few weeks after getting there, he got an e-mail from Rob. All it said was, "I'm coming." Andrew himself had instructed Rob to send this e-mail.
Conclusion
As I mentioned at the beginning of this article, this is the last in my "Breaking The Code Of Silence" series. It also marks the end, for now, of my contributions to this blog. The stories I have recounted in these articles are only examples. There are many more to tell in all the categories of weirdness and abuse I have discussed. There are some areas that I barely mentioned. One such area is Andrew's intense involvement with his students' sex lives, his betraying of sexual confidences of students, and his use of such information to humiliate students. These stories will have to wait for another day, or another author.
For now, the ice has been broken, and much of what was previously kept hidden by unwritten rules has been revealed here. People interested in studying with Andrew Cohen and becoming a part of his community now have essential and previously unavailable information about him, so they can make an informed decision. Students who have left him and are hurt or confused can now discuss these matters openly without feeling they are the first to betray some deep dark secret, because the secret has already been told.
It has been my privilege to have the opportunity to contribute to this blog, and I am grateful to all the readers, commenters and other contributors. I hope that the breaking of the code of silence that occurred here will benefit everyone, that we all continue to grow in openness, and that all of us have success on our path.
May all enjoy happiness and the root of happiness, be free from suffering and the root of suffering, and enjoy the great equanimity that is free from passion, aggression and prejudice.
------------
PART 1 - A RESPONSE TO ANDREW COHEN’S “DECLARATION OF INTEGRITY”
By Simeon Alev
Friday, October 20, 2006
Original Link[Note from the Editors: Apparently attempting to finally give a public statement defending himself against the many allegations of his abuse of students documented previously here (and perhaps also in response to the current heated discussions on
the Zaadz+WIE online forum), Andrew Cohen recently meticulously crafted and posted a "Declaration of Integrity", which in effect avoids the whole thing. Instead of addressing the actual facts, he predictably overwhelms us with his assessment of how great things are in the spiritual boot camp he has created, and why his ego-challenging teachings have proven his ex-student critics to be mere "failures", or losers whose "life mission is to create and spread a negative picture of who I am..." What Andrew does say about the facts is that the stories have been "misrepresented" and given "out of context". He never denies the charges, but only provides us with eleven pages of his self-justifying "context", which is just the standard fare we've gotten from him for years now. The article below is a response to Andrew's "Declaration," by Simeon Alev, a former WIE Magazine editor and long-time student of Andrew Cohen, and is his first contribution to What Enlightenment??!]
I have never until now, with the inaugural posting of Andrew Cohen's "Declaration of Integrity" on his new blog, felt compelled to participate in discourse critical of his conduct as a "spiritual authority figure." However, the misrepresentative nature of Andrew's response to his critics does call for some comment.
Andrew describes certain former students now publicly critical of his methods as having "turned on him," but the truth is that he had turned on them long before they ever responded in kind. During my years in his community it was common practice for Andrew to publicly ridicule and vilify students who left, and to encourage others to do the same. There was no possibility of this practice, or the remarks engendered by it, being misinterpreted or "taken out of context." The message was clear, as well as the mean-spiritedness and vindictiveness behind it, which continues to manifest in Andrew's present post and will likely animate his future "counteroffensives." Whatever else Andrew Cohen may be, in this respect he is most definitely not a mensch. He has never personally addressed his own habit of vilification and ridicule, much less the many abuses of power catalogued by his critics, who experienced and/or witnessed them first-hand and either understood what they were seeing or figured it out soon enough -- despite constant pressure from Andrew himself to give his motivations the benefit of the doubt.
The main problem with Andrew's community is his investment in his perception of himself as a flawless exemplar of his teaching. This is a problem because Andrew is far from flawless, and his actions (ironically) will probably never reflect the genuine nobility of his realization due to his incapacity to see himself and his own baser motivations clearly. None of Andrew's former followers would have hailed him as a "21st-century Buddha" etc. had they not been encouraged to do so by his own overly generous estimation of himself, and they cannot be faulted for changing their minds even after an extended period of devotion to someone who for a time seemed to them worthy of it. Andrew's lack of gratitude toward these people, who labored long and selflessly for the advancement of "his" cause and "his" organization ("his" magazine and "his" jazz fusion band etc.), is egregiously autocratic and narcissistic. I know personally several of the people described by Andrew as having "failed miserably" as spiritual practitioners; in addition to being insulting, this characterization of them is both a myopic and self-serving misperception and a public misrepresentation designed to invalidate legitimate grievances. Their lack of "success" is not difficult to understand in a community where self-induced doubtlessness was often a survival strategy and success was so closely correlated with fear-driven conformity. (If this has since changed, I'm glad to hear it but have my doubts.)
I am concerned that Andrew's public association with Ken Wilber, in tandem with Wilber's recent responses to his own critics, has emboldened Andrew in the belief that he is entitled to a form of "score-settling" similar to
Wilber's vibrant and useful "Wyatt Earpy" postings. There are, however, several revealing contextual differences between Ken and Andrew's respective statements. For example, rather than having to defend his ideas or scholarship, or to elucidate the effects of spiritual development (or lack thereof) on perception and worldview, Andrew has been called upon by his critics to justify acts of physical violence, the translation of students' psychological vulnerability into large cash donations, and apparent mean-spiritedness in the service of the higher evolution of consciousness.
For both Ken and Andrew, it seems to me, the goal of such public dialogue (evolution, mental perspective, enlightened understanding and action) is ostensibly the same and to that extent equally laudable, feasible and urgent. In Andrew's case, however, the grandiosity and presumption of infallibility that made his "alleged" abuses of students possible in the first place are similarly evident in his "declaration," which as a result transmits little of the uplifting inclusiveness and vulnerability to be found even in Wilber's most caustic and challenging remarks. It's easy to accuse people of "rewriting history," but what about that history, i.e., those incidents that witnesses have taken the time and trouble to document? And it's easy to declare dismissively that such incidents have been "taken out of context," but what of that context? The bottom line is not that Andrew has never lied to his students, but that his dishonesty with himself has never been offered a place at his table.
............
PART 2 - A RESPONSE TO ANDREW COHEN'S "DECLARATION OF INTEGRITY"
SOME PERSONAL RECOLLECTIONS
By Simeon Alev
November 7, 2006
Original Link[Former What Is Enlightenment? magazine editor Simeon Alev provides further reflections in response to Andrew Cohen's recent attempt on his blog to explain his conduct which has been the subject of widespread criticism.]
I'd like to add a little personal background to my previous post so that readers can understand the kind of perplexity produced in sincere students by some of the situations described in this blog.
I remember clearly the first time I saw Andrew Cohen instruct one student to hit another. We were seated in a circle talking with him on a beach by the Ganges in Rishikesh. A male student made a remark to which Andrew took exception, and he instructed a female student sitting next to the speaker to punch him in the shoulder. Judging by both the sound produced and the pained expression on the victim's face, it was clearly a powerful blow. However, the student accepted this 'gesture' without protest, and the conversation continued as if nothing had happened. At the time, this did not strike me as so outlandish as to require rationalization, and taking my cues from the group, I allowed myself to accept it. The "contextual" presumption was clearly that the student had benefited from this skillful response to a remark that, in Andrew's perception, was a manifestation of "ego."
I recently recalled this 'early' incident while mulling over a couple of later ones that I have always found far more troubling, and the interesting thing about it is that I vividly remember both a) the negative effect it produced in me and b) my willingness to ignore it. Energetically and philosophically, the atmosphere around Andrew is dynamic and charged, and in such an atmosphere it is a given that many accepted conventions of thought and behavior are suspended. Indeed, it is doubtful that many of us would have been with Andrew had this not been the case. Under such circumstances, incidents such as this one evoked in me -- simultaneously -- contradictory 'levels' of internal response, from cognitive dissonance ('something is wrong here') to business-as-usual ('everything here is perfect').
A few years later, I was in an evening men's meeting at Foxhollow at which everyone was supposedly "together" with the exception of one student who was expressing what was consensually interpreted as "doubt." Andrew's informer for that evening, having left the room to tell him what was happening in the meeting, returned to ask us if, with the exception of that student, we were all "really together." We answered yes, then waited while our emissary went back to Andrew for further instructions. These were not long in coming: We were to gather outside, where enough vehicles would arrive to take us all down to the lake. There, we were each to punch the doubter in the right shoulder, after which he was to submerge himself several times in the cold water while shouting "Freedom has no history!"
As I was riding down to the lake in the moonlight surrounded by my 'brothers-in-arms' in the back of a pick-up truck, I asked myself what was really going on here. Was this what I'd signed on for when I'd become a formal student -- organized group violence, torture and humiliation? Whatever they were calling it -- tough love, purification -- my alarm bells were going off and it was suddenly clear to me that I was in the midst of a situation that would probably precipitate my departure from the community. Under the circumstances, (hopefully) needless to say, these were sentiments that produced tremendous confusion and inner conflict given my genuine devotion to the stated principles and aspirations of our communal life. Was I then a hypocrite? And if so, which was the greater hypocrisy: the toleration of violence against a brother, or of my own doubts as to Andrew's wisdom and purity of motivation? I recognized in this moment that as a so-called 'spiritual commando' I was likely to prove utterly inadequate. Should I be more ashamed of this, or of my craven unwillingness to admit it then and there and accept the probable physical consequences? In the end I participated in this ritual without comment. One of the final shoulder blows was so effectively administered by a military-trained member of Andrew's security team (also a holistic healer!) that it produced a nauseating pop I can still hear and a wince I can still see. After his ordeal was over, however, the student thanked us for helping him to overcome his doubt, and remains (to his credit?) a longstanding member of Andrew's community. On another occasion it fell to me to report to Andrew on the progress of a similar ritual recounted elsewhere in this blog, that of an editorial colleague (since departed) who'd been required to submerge himself in the frozen lake one hundred times while yelling repeatedly, "I am an asshole!" Entering his office I encountered Andrew with several of his committed students, who laughed derisively at my secondhand account of this student's ordeal (e.g., having to relocate to less conspicuous waterfront and start over), congratulating Andrew when he asserted proudly that "things like this happen only around me," and enthusiastically affirming his insistence that no other contemporary teacher had the "outrageous integrity" to prescribe such ruthless austerities.
Why am I reporting these incidents? For two reasons: First, I am tired of hearing it said that people should simply "get over" the effects of such experiences and carry on with their lives as if nothing had happened. Second and more importantly, both the confusion produced by such incidents, and their legitimacy as facilitators of spiritual development, are crucial topics for discussion. Why? Because they help to explain why so many people who had -- and in many cases still have -- feelings of incredible respect, gratitude and devotion for Andrew Cohen, have nevertheless felt compelled to move on. It is far less polarizing to approach the issue with this possibility in mind than simply to impugn the integrity of those who dare to speak out. And if a "context" and "practices" of this nature have prompted so many to leave who might otherwise have preferred to stay, it would be well for Andrew and his present community to be humbly aware of that and, as the saying goes, to face into it.
The imposing infrastructure now at Andrew's disposal was co-created by him and many students who believed wholeheartedly in his realization and vision for humanity, and who in many cases still share that vision and acknowledge Andrew's contribution to their development as cosmic citizens. It is high time that Andrew made his peace with these people by acknowledging and accepting their experiences as his students, and by encouraging his present students to do the same rather than inveigling them into a selective public relations campaign that serves his image rather than the whole truth.
------------
RELATED LINKS:
WHAT enlightenment?!!The Zaadz+WIE Online ForumWhat Is Enlightenment?Andrew CohenWikipedia on Andrew Cohen------------
RELATED ARTICLES:
A LEGACY OF SCORCHED EARTHReflections of a former student
By Susan Bridle
February 4, 2005
.......
THREE RESPONSESPart 1: "My Turning Point" by Richard Pitt
Part 2: "An Angry Brainwashed Person" by anonymous
Part 3: "Hello Anti-Cohen Bloggers" by Carter Phipps
.......
LETTER FROM A SENIOR STUDENTBy Ernest Mavrides
February 7, 2005
.......
AN INVITATION TO TRUTH AND RECONCILIATIONBy Hal Blacker
February 20, 2005
.......
TO HEAL ONE IS TO HEAL ALLBy Anonymous
March 12, 2005
.......
A REFLECTION FROM CHRISTOPHER TITMUSSMarch 20, 2005
.......
REFLECTIONS OF AN EARLY STUDENTBy Brook Stone
April 7, 2005
.......
A CHANGE IN PERSPECTIVEBy Roberta Anderson
April 13 & 18, 2005
.......
THE SEEDS OF ABUSE WERE IN PLACEA VIEW ON ANDREW COHEN FROM 15 YEARS LATER
By Douglas Wallace
May 15, 2005