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.