Hell, I went to Andrew's blog (the 2nd entry) and offered a comment too. It'll likely get blocked there, but I can't be shut up, I can still post it here!

**********

Andrew: you write about losing "the ability to make value distinctions." Of course it can sometimes be useful to make distinctions, but we can be aware that we're *making* them. For example, when you wrote in the previous blog entry, "As far as I’m concerned, the spiritual life is just like any other endeavor—you can succeed or fail"... you're making "success" and "failure." When you write in this blog about individuals who are “not completely ‘cooked,’ or ‘finished,’” you’re making ideas of “cooked” and “not completely cooked.”

You write in this blog that "the traditional definition of enlightenment refers to coming to the end of the developmental process, to having 'arrived.'" The "traditional definition" of "enlightenment" depends on which tradition you choose to look at! In the Zen tradition, for example, "enlightenment" is a word that means putting down concepts, perceiving this moment, and responding to it.

You write that you teach that enlightenment "is not about coming to the end of anything, but rather, to the beginning of something else." This is likewise a concept of enlightenment; it's just a different concept (that of "beginning" rather than "end").

You write, "my own understanding of what enlightenment is has evolved so much over the years that these days it really has very little to do with what my teacher was teaching." Is it that your concept of enlightenment was wrong back then, but it’s right now? If your ideas have changed so much over the years, will they continue changing, so that some day you'll consider your current ideas of enlightenment just as wrong?

In other words: as you exchange one idea of enlightenment for another, do you question: “Why make and hold any idea? For what? For who?”

Stuart
http://home.comcast.net/~sresnick2/socalled.htm

Stuart,

You got it - anyone who posts at Cohen's site should then repost that somewhere else - it points out the controlling nature of the site, rather than the supposed "transparency".

The moderator at Cohen's blog refused to post my comment to the second entry. And he advised me not to post again! I think my comment concisely addresses the issues raised in the "What is Enlightenment Anyway" article and it forwards the dialogue. Here it is. What do you think?:

Andrew, you wrote that people who experienced breakthroughs with you in the early days did not demonstrate “profound surrender of the ego.” Neither did you when you had your first breakthrough at 16 years old. I don’t believe the problem was the weakness of those who had breakthroughs; rather it could have been your expectation that “pretty soon the world wouldn’t know what had hit it.” You only had to warn people not to stop short. If you had have continued teaching in the same way as you began, thousands would have had the same experience you had when you were 16. That would have had a big effect. It’s a numbers game, so maybe you should trust life more.

You mention “ego” six times. It could be argued that the difference between you and others is that your definition of ego suits you. Your ego fixation is perfectionism i.e. morality as defined by you, which you interpret as being “soul-level integrity”. Can you see that in each drama of your life, your own morality fixation may have been the hitch? Rather than controlling life, you can use life’s feedback to find better ways. Wholesome understanding and explanation makes the next step in “evolution” obvious and easy.

In this article you write, “even more importantly, these men and women uphold a level of moral integrity that most people find truly impressive,” but in the previous article you wrote, “being a vehicle for the evolution of consciousness itself … is what this teaching is all about.” Which is more important - “moral integrity” or “higher states of consciousness”? Moral integrity is not required for the establishment of a higher state; the only requirement is understanding what works and what doesn’t work.

Why do you call your purpose “the evolution of consciousness” or “the emerging mind of God”? God doesn’t need Andrew Cohen to hold Her up. Rather than God evolving, don’t you think it is merely human potential unfolding? From the way you write, it appears that you (with Ken Wilber) invented evolutionary enlightenment, but Jesus’ statements that the Kingdom of God is at hand shows that the idea is at least 2,000 years old.

Your “concept of verticality” seems to be a manifestation of your hope to leave the lower behind. Instead of verticality, our unfolding potential is more like the sprawling growth of a vine, which needs the lower roots. The initial stage of breaking through the soil is violent (our past), but the flowering and fruiting is gentle.

You wrote that people “crumble before my very eyes.” Anyone will crumble under the right pressure. If you don’t apply pressure, then people won’t crumble. In your previous article, you said you were “emotionally shattered” when Papaji merely lied. Is that not crumbling? Big events are only frightening when thoughts of dying or losing control or losing connection arise, which is natural anyway, so why push it? It seems you push it because you mistake your perfectionism for the “mysterious compulsion to evolve”. That muddies the water. You can clear the water by spreading wholesome understanding.

Martin Gifford.

Hi Martin,

Yes, I've now heard the same experience from many people. Transparency clearly doesn't have the same definition to the Cohen-ites, as to you and me, does it?

And definitely, your post stays within the bounds.

Still, it's good to publicize your experience - that there is a disconnect between what is said to be the case - transparency - and what is actually the case.

There is a new post on the What Enlightenment?! blog concerning very questionable financial practices by Cohen:

Andrew Cohen and Donations Under Duress

This statement of integrity is risible - after being a student of andrews for a substantial period of time - it comes as a slap in the face. To clarify, the fact that all his close students were over a period of two years reading the whatenlightenment blog-and colluding in silence was bad enough, but the fact that at certain points, with certain groups it was causing trauma and confusion and pain should not be explained away with this statment of 'integrity' The fact he says -

'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'.

He also says tritely in that same section 'To be honest, I simply didn't know how to even start'

Can you imagine one of his student using this as an excuse not to respond - remember that little gem - face everything avoid nothing. A total disregard for the whole - to just ignore what is going on with the group of people who have come together to radically change our conditioned, selfish motives. Even when it came to some students seriously doubting and questioning the whole thing - Andrew and those closest to him- turned the whole thing into a silly little episode. And it was the students who were brave enough to attempt to face it - it seems to be a statement of spiritual laxity and shows a complete lack of care. He shows such concern with what others are thinking - but not what his students think, more what damage his detractors can do. His students always defended andrew by saying 'he makes mistakes too' as if to humanise him - but to set yourself up as to be so perfect to others, to ask them to bow down to you - listen and aspire to live like you- it just seems a a bit rich to then expect that we should allow him to make such blunderously, gross and idiotic mistakes - there is nothing subtle in those mistakes, they were blatently so inhuman whether you meditate or not - I have learnt since leaving that there are so many simple human souls - who don't have an inflated sense of self, who simply can live human actions (they don't need to have the 'CONTEXT' - as if it is something you can monopolise and exists exclusively in a small select group in east coast america).

On July 10, I sent another comment to the Andrew Cohen's Blog, which wasn't posted by them. It was in response to a post from a student about "UNITY UNITY UNITY", and how their "field of joy and ecstasy" has been "building", getting "stronger and truer", and the message getting "louder and louder".

It seems things are always getting ever more wonderful with Cohenites as if they are going to zoom off in rockets any day soon. I think they drink too much caffeine - Cohen drinks two espresso coffees per day, and when I was with them, they were always doing coffee.

Cohen posts praise for himself, but he doesn't post criticisms, so he stays in a protected fantasyland. My comment wasn't very eloquent, but much better than some of the sychophantic drivel they do post. Anyway, here's my comment:

"...fueled by meaning and purpose and love."

Dare I say, it's also fueled by caffeine. Meaning is supplied by you or others. Purpose is supplied by you or others. Love is supplied by you or others. Meaning, purpose, and love are labels and interpretations of naked experiencing.

Reality is forever unlabelled. You supply the label "UNITY UNITY UNITY".