Looks like What Enlightenment, the blog exposing the control tactics of Andrew Cohen, is signing off.

I can fully understand this, as at some point, you simply deal with - as much as possible - any abusive tactics thrown at you by an abusive guru, step away from the PAST, and then continue on into the now.

Still, lots of gratitude for the exposure, to Hal and friends.  A quote:

Three former editors of What Is Enlightenment? magazine, including myself, spoke out strongly here about the abuses in Andrew Cohen's community. Other close students have also put their names on the line to attest to what went wrong with the community's beautiful dream of creating heaven on earth. The woman who financed Cohen's Foxhollow EnlightenNext world center wrote about how he unfairly took advantage of her vulnerability and largesse. Numerous other students have also contributed here, both named and anonymous, shedding light on the authoritarian abuses around Cohen, their causes and their harmful effects. In contrast, not one specific or credible factual denial has emerged from Andrew or anyone associated with him about what has been reported here in great detail and depth. Instead, we have only heard the refrain that we have failed to include the "context," as if any overarching purpose could justify the abuses described here and the pain they caused. No cry of "context" could obscure the devastating truth that the participants in this blog have had the courage to reveal.

The number of individuals alone, involved for many many years, high up in the organization, speak the tale, not to mention previous exposes, such as Mother of God, and Enlightenment Blues.   That much smoke, over more than a decade, it speaks for itself. (When your mother outs you as an abusive control freak, while at one time an enthusiastic supporter, that is really strong evidence.)

Hal hopes for a final exposure, but this isn't usually how this happens.  Most of the time, there is no "final exposure" for a guru.  The guru or other followers, modulate their tactics a bit  (which has happened with Cohen in this case, after the outing by WhatEnlightenment, and that is to the good), but the charisma, speaking ability, writing skills, etc, that initially attracted people, still operates, and still continues to attract people.  How many older cult leaders, and their cults, still exist?  Quite a lot, even after exposure.

And so it goes.

My own interest remains is to not have Cohen's spirit and energy contaminate Integral Institute, or Zaadz, but clearly both these organizations have taken a neutral "I see nothing!  I know nothing!"  mentality regarding Cohen, and do the branding thing together.  Luckily, Cohen is fairly easy to avoid on Zaadz. 

It's been demonstrated to my satisfaction that What Is Enlightenment magazine, doesn't have independence from Cohen.  No "I disagree with what you say but will defend your right to WRITE it to the death" at What Is Enlightenment.  As long as you know that, you are good to go.

I've been traveling, and have had no access to the internet for about a week.  Today's the first day I am in a room with internet access. 

Lots of stuff to ponder, when you have been away from the internet for a week. 

At any rate, one important note, that I've seen from Hokai, is that Daniel Ingram has put his book, Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha, in blog format.

Worth reading, a bit at a time.

Actually, a link to another group which has cooperated with Al-Queda, but a lot of these  Pakistan/Afghanistan Islamic groups exchange people, information and resources.

Here is the article. Notable quote:

A three-tier security ring has been thrown around the 72-year-old Buddhist head, who lives at Dharamsala, in the Himalayan foothills, Indian police spokesman Prem Lal said.

All those approaching the exiled Tibetan chief will be closely watched by highly trained Tibetan security guards as well as heavily armed deployments of Indian police.

Visitors are being body-searched before being allowed to approach him.

This makes me incredibly sad, but it's part and parcel of the age.  

And then it brings up, of course, how non-violence may be an inappropriate response, to determined aggression.   We knew this of course, simply from China's extermination of the Tibetans as a separate people, over the last 50 years.

Thanks to Matthew Dallman for the link.

The National Review article, throughout, conflates priests practices Buddhism, with people who are primarily Buddhist, but acting out of nationalism - but the main point still remains that in certain situations, even practicing buddhist priets have responded to force, with force.

Here is the link.

Some interesting parts:

The way to build self-discipline is analogous to using progressive weight training to build muscle. This means lifting weights that are close to your limit. Note that when you weight train, you lift weights that are within your ability to lift. You push your muscles until they fail, and then you rest.

Comment:  This seems to be true for some things, but not others.  Example:  I can be disciplined for meditation and exercise, but not, say, IT study.

It’s a mistake to try to push yourself too hard when trying to build self-discipline. If you try to transform your entire life overnight by setting dozens of new goals for yourself and expecting yourself to follow through consistency starting the very next day, you’re almost certain to fail. This is like a person going to the gym for the first time ever and packing 300 pounds on the bench press. You will only look silly.

Again, I'm not sure how true this is.  If I set a goal of 30 minutes meditation, and 30 minutes exercise, I will do those goals, but if I set a goal of 10 minutes guitar playing (which I love) or 10 minutes IT study (which is okay, interesting), that I don't do.

So something else is going on, besides building the "self-discipline" muscle.

Similarly, if you’re very undisciplined right now, you can still use what little discipline you have to build more. The more disciplined you become, the easier life gets. Challenges that were once impossible for you will eventually seem like child’s play. As you get stronger, the same weights will seem lighter and lighter.

Perhaps you try to work a solid 8-hour day without succumbing to distractions, and you can only do it once. The next day you fail utterly. That’s OK. You did one rep of 8 hours. Two is too much for you. So cut back a bit. What duration would allow you to successfully do 5 reps (i.e. a whole week)? Could you work with concentration for one hour a day, five days in a row? If you can’t do that, cut back to 30 minutes or whatever you can do. If you succeed (or if you feel that would be too easy), then increase the challenge (i.e. the resistance).

That example simply isn't my reality.  My own experience is, you truly need at least 30 days, maybe 90, for a new practice to become habitual.  (This is also something that Pavlina says, which is true, in my experience.)

But what will happen with a "new" practice, practiced independently, is that I'll keep it up for a few days, then fall off the wagon, then sporadically continue, until I give up again. (Or come back to that practice a couple of weeks later.)

So, in my case at least (and I'm being honest here about my lack of self-discipline) it seems to me that there are two options, for those who obviously never learned true self-discipline, but simply learned enough to "get by". 

a.  Immersion:  Especially for any new trait, the "AA" route is useful.  Full immersion, and daily support, for the new trait you are attempting to instill - until it becomes a habit.
b. Immersion again - in a program to learn "self-discipline" as a trait, in and of itself, separate from any actual practice.
c.  Bill mentioned this once - work with one's psychology, or inner voices, to understand what inside of one's psychology is indulging in self-sabatoge of growth. 

I would criticize Stve Pavlina, actually, from presenting a "system", or a guide of how-to's, that in a lot of ways, "assumes the close".  Meaning, assumes the self-discipline already exists, with which to "improve".
The A to B straight line of self-improvement that Pavlina endorses, while sounding wonderful, glosses over the challenges to the "normal" person.  As such, is of very limited use, to effectively creating change.

From Zen Habits:

Thanks to Integral Options for the link.  Good advice for integral practice.

For myself, sporadically keep various goals.  Sometimes it is better, sometimes worse. 

That's something you don't see the Steve Pavlina's of the world talk about. 

For me, there are three versions of what to do - "what I must do", and "what I want to do that's rewarding", and "what I do that fun, but an empty time waster". 

1."Must do", includes things like going to work, cleaning up, paying bills, etc. 

2. "What I want to do" are the various integral practices that make for a fulfilling, balanced life.  Exercise, meditation, volunteering, playing my guitar, learning a language, tech study, etc.  Even better, expanding my career, finding the next opportunity, integraly study, etc.

3. "What I have fun doing that's an empty time waster" is things like browsing the internet for hours on end, playing a video game, reading a pedestrian sci-fi novel, etc.  Watch movies, comedy shows with my sweetie.

I'm not too bad at the first category on the list.  And some of the activities that would be in category 2,  I do well - I meditate regularly, and I exercise regularly.  But some of the other goals there, I do much less.

Now category 3?  3, I'm pretty good at.  If I spent as much time on category 2, as I do on category 3, wow, I'd be an accomplished guy!!    (Internet, and the tv, as wonderful as it is, is a great tool for mental masturbation).

My longterm goal is to substitute more category 2 activities, for category 3 activities.  In terms of time.

And I've done a lot on this ground -

a.  Visualized my motivations - daily
b.  Setup umpteen schedules for activities.
c.  Started a regular practice of activities - that then falls away.
d.  Attempted various, and different, structures, to do more  activities. 

Still, 3 always ends up being what i do more of. I fall of the wagon.  I get distracted (except for meditation and exercise).  I go for three days, then go three days off, or a week off.

I've probably gone on a self-improvement kick - attempting to do more of category two activities more than category three activies - more than one hundred times in my life.

It's REALLY annoying to read these self-improvement guys, such as Pavlina, who basically don't acknowledge the move towards the baseline, of human nature.

Funny enough, I'm old enough now, that I don't "beat myself up" about doing less of category 2 than category 3.  First off, lots of time I spend "doing nothing" is spent in a pretty incredible place, where the "I" slips away, and only Being is happening.

But it is also pretty clear that the inherited habits (my own childhood background, was lacking both in any form of wealth, or much actual examples of spending a lot of time in category 2), tend to dominate actual living, the activity of this body.

Which is a shame, really - as the information on "how best to live", is pretty much all over the internet.  Working with resistance, changing those habits, moving out of baseline - as Wilber has said, what ACTUALLY causes change, in a person, what ends up actually motivating a person, despite the tens of thousands of hours of research, is still a mystery.

Great post from Per at Mystery of Existence, on Big Mind and Indwelling God:


So where Big Mind is impersonal and everywhere, the indwelling God is personal and right here, in the heart space of the physical body. The experience of it, at least for me right now, is of a fragment of God for this particular individual soul and human self, and a fragment that includes and reflects the whole of God. It is not diminished in any way, yet also right here and for this particular individual.

Make sure to go read the whole post.  I'd love to see Chris at Indistinct Union comment on this as well, as he has commented on other MOE posts - and this seems right up his alley.

Read this Tricycle post to find out why.

Noticed this at Blogmandu.

Since I have a comment by a reader, in a previous post, I will go ahead and point to a new article up at What Enlightenment, by a major contributor (millions of dollars) to Andrew Cohen's work. 

She details out, from her perspective, the process that Cohen went through to secure a 2 million dollar donation from her. 

Now, individual posts like this, you have to be cautious of - but given that, in this post, she details some of her own personal issues honestly, as well as gets some corroboration from other NAMED individuals in the comments, the post is worth paying attention to.

I'm not sure what it will take for Integral Institute and Ken Wilber, to STOP giving any oxygen to this guy, but hopefully it will happen soon.  After a year of exposure, from various sources, it can't come soon enough.  (I vote, with my Sponsor Plus membership in Integral Institute, to drop this guy).  When will Ken wake up about this particular issue?  Anyone at I-I ever do a Q&A with Ken on this particular issue?

(Note - don't do a Q&A NOW - Ken's had a marvelous and inspiring recovery, as detailed in this blogpost, but at some point maybe someone can find out Ken's stance.)

A very interesting post at Parzifal's Blog.

I think this has been linked to before, but what is interesting about this, is that this attempt to define what is spiritual intelligence, and what defines that, is backed up with research that has been compiled through various workshops.

The results utilize the framework of the quadrants, as well as the framework of competencies and assessments, and an attempt to separate out levels - or consolidate ALTITUDE.  Very consonant with Integral Spirituality.

I also simply like the SQ distinction as well.  As multiple intelligences go, why not an SQ?  And the assessments which measure it?

An interesting report from Pongsathorn on meeting Dzogchen teachers.

I had a chance to see the Fountain recently.

It was truly a marvelous experience. Basically, for me, I get throw into recognition of the "always everpresent", which happens sometimes, when there are very good "pointing out" instructions, and the shift happens.

And this film did this for me. 

But the additional realization of this film -(who knows that it is a true realization, but I will share it anyway) is the essential human-ness that we are - that I am, that she is, that you are, that we are - remains.  The laws, feelings, issues, that happen for the bodymind, cco-exist right beside, interpentrating, the recognition of one Consciousness.

The movie, in a large human sense, is a tragedy.  In three different times, in three different worlds, (also a progression through the Bardos here), Man is Striving.  For love, on the quest, to save Her, to save Himself, to save the world. 

Fighting against death.  Fighting for redemption.  And just as it appears he can - it ends.  He fails to save his love.  He fails in his quest.  He fails in immortality.

But IN this failure, the transformation of life happens.  In this surrender, the light of consciousnesss (hinted at in all the myths, dreams, symbols), finally appears completely.

And then the realization is that this light is - and was - always present. 

So for me, at the end, "I" live my dream, and interpenetrating this, is the recognition of the Truth.

And I say YES to both.  Yes, yes, yes, a thousand times yes!



In terms of "logical storytelling", I would say that this film is mediocre.  I reference B.S. and integral criticism in my last post. 

This movie gives an example of how "logical criticism" - analyzing plot, character development, etc - would truly say that this is a mediocre film.

It is only in the recognition of the "deeper message", that the truth of this movie comes shining through.

Video from David Johnson - know NOTHING about this guy, but interesting video - a dry discussion - let me know what you think.

A great post by David Jon here.

"Yet, I was still taken up with the promise of what a comprehensive philosophy would look like. It wasn't Ken Wilber's vision that held me in thrall anymore. It was the underlying nature of a comprehensive philosophy–i.e., a non-reductionistic philosophy–that I sensed as being the original basis for my resonance with Ken Wilber's work and what I might now choose to call 'Integral Cognition.'"

I would agree with this - and I find that those who attempt to embrace the highest forms of - Spirit, Mind, Body, Other, Soul, Skillful Means In Living - these are the people I want to be my "tribe" so to speak.

Grounded in the world.
In communion with the Divine Soul
Self aware, of one's own shadows and B.S.
Learning, giving, growing, creating - "He not busy being born is busy dying".
Relaxing into the Buddha's smile, that is perfect as it is.

A good post from Integral Awakening: 

Integral Criticism:  The Solution Is Easy

"Response through authentic, unbiased, research".
 
The problem - this type of research takes time, from what is already a very busy life - and then, there is little compensation, outside of a "job well done".

So - despite the Integral Wiki, despite the great work being done at the P2P Foundation, despite the various integral groups - the integral research project seems to stay the province of the charismatic leaders, the "try this method" people, and the ruminations of the  philosophically-oriented.

I'm thinking about ways to encourage a greater, more practical participation - what are others thoughts?

Who has a lot of time to add to either the Integral Wiki, or integral stuff to the main wiki?  Who has time to participate in a online research project.

Now, that would be pretty easy to create.  Say 40 people in the world - 50, maybe - decide to do the 1 Minute modules every day, for 90 days. detailing the experience, say, to Google Spreadsheets (shared).  During, and after, the spreadsheets can be downloaded, put into either Access, or another database, and statistical analysis run.

That is how EASY it would be, for people to participate.  But even then, who has the time?

There needs to be some carrot, I think, for this stuff.  Peer to peer Foundation began discussing various ways to incentivize the wisdom of the crowds.

I wonder if this could be done with this type of integral research? 

One idea would be, perhaps, some type of community blog, for the research participants, that would publish interesting content, at the same time detailing some of the results.  Then, you add Google Ads, and others, to the site.

Micropayments for participation would probably run in the cents, to the tens of dollars - but there is at least a measurable carrot, no matter how small. 

Of course, you would need to attract enough of an audience to have the site pay for itself - and on top of that have extra!  Which is hard to do!

On the other hand, you can now get a SCOOP community site, for less than 20/month.  That would be easy to raise (or simply pay for) and any extra, again, wouldn't be so much for "making" money, just to have a measurable carrot.

At any rate, it's a good question - participatory integral research projects, that use the web, and pay for themselves. 

Any ideas?

This post from P2P is certainly very true.

No one can be "shut up", in the new era, at least not effectively.  Stories get out.  And the example of Andrew Cohen is a good one, detailing What Is Enlightenment's primary role in getting the world out at A.C.'s abuses.

It's also incredibly humorous, to see Andrew Cohen attempt to "embrace" blogs.   Here is a blog of his on Integrity.

He declares his allegiance to "authenticity, transparency, and integrity", pretty early on, using this new blogform.

Why is that humorous? 

Well, because if you attempt to leave a comment - which I did - it doesn't post, but gets caught, and "reviewed".   The reasons why  a comment wouldn't get posted are many - you can read the subtext - the comment I left was mildly oppositional, slightly mocking,  certainly nothing that supposedly wouldn't get by the filter. 

But it wasn't posted, of course. 

So much for transparency!  I've heard from others, and they have had the same experience.
As well, the post is full of abstractions, strawmen, and defensiveness, when speaking about his "controversial path". 

Also, he mentions why he hasn't spoken of his detractors before:

The motives of my detractors appeared so transparent that I thought they would be obvious to others, and I naively concluded that there was no point in responding. Besides, it just felt beneath my dignity to do so. I was wrong. I have now, obviously belatedly, come to understand that my lack of response is being considered by some as an admission of guilt or wrongdoing, or even worse, as a lack of integrity in itself.

This chilled me, especially, when considering the following story from What Enlightenment blog, about a british 70 year old female follower:

The following day, on Sunday 12 December 1999, her phone rang once more and it was again Steve Brett on the other end of the line. Clearly dissatisfied that in the previous phone call Caroline had not "cracked" under his pressure and "admitted her sin," Steve Brett went on to deliver a renewed but far more devastating attack on Caroline. Caroline said later that the conversation lasted for about forty five minutes and that during it Brett repeatedly insulted her with a ferocity that left her completely traumatized. Caroline said that she had to keep the phone handset away from her ear on many occasions as Brett was literally shouting at her from the other side. She was told that she was going to “die a miserable old woman” and how awful it was on her part that she had dared to leave the venue without waiting to see Cohen. Without any consideration whatsoever for her physical and spiritual frailty, Brett again and again furiously scolded Caroline for her apparent egotistical and independent ways that completely infuriated her teacher. Caroline was told that, instead of surrendering her soul to Andrew Cohen now that she was coming close to dying, she was still holding on to her small life and her ego and would die as such. Caroline also spoke about her intuitive feeling that Cohen was in the room with Brett, listening to the latter delivering his attack.

 Caroline died 11 days after this conversation with Brett - (and the suppositions is, (no proof, I will say) that this was at Cohen's direction), and the case is made that it was mainly due to the severe effect of the "talking to".  I'm sure that isn't all, as bodies go when they go, especially 79 year old bodies - but wow, what a great last gift to a dying woman, huh?

Whether the story is true or not - the story certainly doesn't seem something "beneath Andrew's dignity", to speak about, or clear up.  It seems exactly opposite that.

And, of course, that is just ONE story, out of many, from many, MANY different sources.

So, let's continue to use these peer-to-peer tools to expose the corruption, in the communities we belong to.   Just remember, it's like weed-whacking.  Something you have to do again and again.