I would like to follow up on the question of associations.  between organizations and individuals.

This is going to be a serious post, and, hopefully, more thought out than some of the quicker posts that I have done this week.

In a way, this is a response to ~C4Chaos, but also, in a way I am simply reflecting on the question of how to handle and respond to questionable associations.

I'm going to be looking at various perspectives here, and following them through.
this will be a long post, so please bear with me.

First off, let's start with rommel's position:

Having said that, here's my personal opinion of Andrew. I don't resonate with his teachings, his teaching style, and even with his well-trimmed mustache. But that doesn't mean that his teachings are uncool. I'm not in a position to make a judgement on that because I didn't delve deeply enough into Andrew's organizations and theoretical teachings. I read some of his books and he has some cool things to say. But still, like I said, I don't resonate with the dude.

However, I've been reading WIE Magazine for a long time now and that magazine kicks spiritual ass! I should remind you again, ebuddha, that although Andrew is the head guy of that magazine, the features there are collective efforts (writers, guests, etc...). WIE is the best spiritual magazine in my book because of the SPAN and DEPTH of its coverage. Sure there are Andrew propagandas in the magazine (what magazine hasn't?) but it's up to the readers to take them in or not. I choose to take in the "good" ones, and choose to ignore those things that I don't resonate with.

I believe this is the normal perspective.   And it is a very valid one.  But I don't think it is the ONLY valid perspective for this situation.

There is some history, and some examples, of how people have acted, when there is some  association with unsavory characters or organizations.  Some examples -

Politicians will choose not to associate themselves or their organizations with other people, or organizations, that have a checkered or controversial past.  Look at the recent furor over John McCain and Liberty University.

Other examples would be, say refusing to do business with those businesses that have unethical practices, or are run by unethical people.  A lot of this happened in South Africa, back during apartheid (of course that is on a much much larger scale.)

This "right of refusal" to support a person, or the organizations that this person runs, has a long, sometimes noble, sometimes not, history.

Even with the current sad situation with Gafni, there has been a right and proper refusal of the organization, which has DISSASOCIATED themselves with Gafni.  If various Jewish organizations were NOT to dissociate themselves with Gafni, at this point, there would be an outcry.  For example - if Bayit Chadesh were to continue with Marc Gafni in a "founding" role - I think many people would begin to have an issue with Bayit Chadesh.

And that issue would be there - no matter how many other wonderful things Bayit Chadesh had done.  Or, in Rommel's words - even if Bayit Chadesh had "tremendous depth and span".  There would be a leak in that otherwise good work.

Now, of course, it must be emphasized - every situation is different. One can't make this a sliding slope.  The ethics involved will depend, both on the person, and on the situation.  Because really - we are all connected, and if you play six degrees of Kevin Bacon, well - you get to everybody really really fast.

From what I can see, regarding the Gafni situation, Wilber has handled it pretty well.  Not perfectly, but still, in the upper 80 percentile.  So I'm absolutely okay with that.

But what is the situation regarding Andrew Cohen, and What Is Enlightenment?

1.  First off, there are still many allegations against Andrew Cohen - which, since they have never been addressed BY Andrew and his organization, especially after all this time - common sense would tell you that a lot of these allegations are true.  Certainly there hasn't been denials.  (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here, and point me to denials.)
2. Andrew Cohen is the founder and Executive Editor of What Is Enlightenment.  He is the controller of this organization, and I believe, the rest of the staff are his followers  - they aren't independent staff.
3. Andrew Cohen's face, announcements about his teachings, etc, are plastered all over What Is Enlightenment website.  Seriously - all over.

So what we are looking at here, is an ONGOING situation - with no admitting of wrongdoing, no expiation, no resolution with those hurt - and the magazine founded, and directed by this person. 

This situation with Andrew Cohen and What Is Enlightenment, is already PAST the situation with Bayit Chadesh and Gafni, isn't it?  While there would be an amazing amount of distrust, if Bayit Chadesh continued to act with Gafni as teacher and role model - again, no matter how much good Bayit Chadesh may be doing for its community - why is it suddenly "mean green" to point out that ANOTHER organization - in this case, the magazine - is - more than associated - CONTROLLED by an unsavory character? As well as the main mode of profit for this character?

It seems to me that it is as much of a VALID perspective to recommend people away from the magazine, because of who the magazine is controlled by - as it is a valid perspective to point out that the magazine has amazing articles, and does some really good stuff.

In this case, both are true.

Lastly - I think what is papered over many times - is just how - even though, of course, abusive gurus happen all the time, as abusive parents happen all the time - this type of betrayal - spiritual abuse - is one of more profound types of betrayals that an adult can go through.  And this betrayal can "stick around" psychologically for over a decade, and sometimes over the course of one's life.

Kate left a comment on my previous post on this, recounting beautifully her near-avoidance of a bad situation in a spiritual organization.  It's a beautiful read, if you have the time, and I recommend you read it, then come back. 

What I would highlight, and this has been my experience as well - is just how vulnerable - for good and ill - a person is in their spiritual relationships.  For me at least, I feel the freshness of Kate's post - and for her, it's been years and years later.

So - this is only one man's perspective - but the following is mine. 

a.  Andrew Cohen has shown himself, through many different sources, to be a very abusive spiritual teacher.  And there has been no change, no resolution of the source and methods used by Andrew Cohen, from what I gather.
b. What Is Enlightenment was founded - and is controlled - by Andrew Cohen.  That is a reality, no matter how good the articles by the magazine are.  And yes, they are very, very good.
c. My perspective is - that What Is Enlightenment magazine should dissociate themselves completely from Andrew Cohen.  Of course, the above will never happen, because of "b" above.
d. Any relationship between What Is Enlightenment magazine, and other organizations/teachers, taints those organizations and teachers.  The same way that for Bayit Chadesh would be tainting their organization by not removing Marc Gafni, from their organization (at least for now.)


 I do believe that the perspective above is a valid perspective, while at the same time recognizing that there is room for disagreement.  I do not however, think that this can be solely explained away by "mean green meme" or "projection" or a "lack of critical thinking".  Both are Rommel quotes from his post, of my perspective, however.  Of course, as I said earlier, I was writing quickly in earlier posts, and so he is responding to how quickly I wrote those preceding posts.  If I have this wrong, I will be MORE than happy to update.

I also recognize that Rommel's perspective - quoted above and in italics - is again, the normal, and valid perspective. 

In my opinion however, that perspective does paper over some valid ethical concerns.  And yes, I would WISH that people would adopt my perspective - who wouldn't?  But I am well aware of the reality that this won't happen.

If you have read this far - I appreciate it!  And keep in mind, I consider myself to be wrong quite a lot, and I may be wrong here.  But I will tell speak my perspective, in the hopes of greater clarity.

Peace.

I don't know who might have read this post on Subjective Reality by Steve Pavlina.

It is an interesting mix between the non-dual perspective, and the New Age perspective - (I'm specifically thinking about Seth type of material.)

Certainly, the description of the subjective is pure advaita.

 Simply read any of Ramesh Balsekar's works, and the similarity is quite apparent.

Or perhaps, this is closer to A Course In Miracles outlook.

Where the digression begins to occur, is the entry of what I would call "co-creation".  Here is a section of Pavlina's Q&A:

Question:  So if I were to believe in something that didn’t exist or that wasn’t possible yet, it would actually begin to manifest in the physical universe?

Answer: Yes, it would.  The physical universe is a summation of thought.  So first of all, in order to change this universe, you must adopt the belief that creation by thought is possible.  You must not only believe it.  You must know it.

If you try to create by thought, yet deep down you still believe it’s impossible or highly improbable, then it will not manifest for you.  The physical universe, including time and space, can only manifest in a manner that is congruent with your beliefs.

So here now an INDIVIDUAL belief will begin to have an affect on the OUTER subjective world experienced.  Beliefs are the mediating entity between the true subjective self and the normal objective self.

This is as opposed to the advaita view - that the experienced outer world - the normal world of form - is actually the subjective's dream - Brahma's dream - and not "your" dream.  "Not MY will, but THINE."  And implicit in this, is the surrender to God, the subjective, WHAT IS, rather than an attempt at manipulation through  "belief changing".

But again, it isn't JUST that simple as that because - guess what?  Each individual is blessed with a "creative self", and an ability to affect the world, at least on a social level. 

So Pavlina's version of Subjective Reality for the "world" and how to affect that world, is a bit different from - say, the "two truths" doctrine.

Or, the more sophisticated version of the Two Truths doctrine promoted by Ken Wilber, that is Integral Theory.


I could say more on this, but I would like others feedback as well.  Any thoughts?  Post and trackback on your blogs and I'll link and discuss, or comment here, if you feel so inclined.

A pretty decent introduction