Joe Perez left a comment on my last post pointing to a What Enlightenment? article.  I would like to respond more fully here.

I think it is worth exploring more fully, my current perceptions and motivations re: Cohen, and why I keep exploring this stream. 

In that vein, the below are exploratary thoughts to this seesaw phenomenon of guru-condemnation, not "final set in stone" opinions.  I am drawing first back to a larger picture, and as such, this post is sure to please nobody, but I will forge on anyway...

Joe starts with "I for one won't join in the crucify-the-guru mentality of the blogophere." 

I think Joe has a good point, and I would like to address it more fully here. 

There are a few types of "criticize the guru" elements, which, seem to me, to be offbase, unhelpful, and childish/defensive.  And one deeper challenge for guru critics.

1.  Gossip-mongering criticism.  Where what the guru does, gets pored over, with a fine-toothed comb, and an unrealistic attention to one or two "off-days", or bad moments, happen.  And those bad moments become the "excuse" to do "guru condemnation". 

In that case, the one or two moments are an EXCUSE for existing guru-condemnation that exists in the person.  This can especially be the case, in the blogosphere - where it is par for the case to be critical - this is the medium.  Usually this type of criticism is based in unhealthy and immature projection (as opposed to "healthy projection, I guess!)

2.  A lack of weighing of "bad" behavior.  So - for example with Wilber - for having a single blogpost with bad words, Wilber comes in for the SAME CONDEMNATION that a guru comes in for molesting students sexually, or physical abuse. 

An example of this is, if you read Goeff Falk, the same blistering tone of condemnation rings out, whether discussing Wilber's misrepresentation of philosophers/scientists, or whether discussing Scientology or the Unification Church.

This lack of perspective is incredibly damaging to any case - far to easy to dismiss as "ravings", given the presentation, even if the facts are accurate, the judgment is skewed regarding the interpretations of those facts.

The larger, Western issue, is regarding the whole "surrender" or "submission" area of spirituality. 

There is a deep - and justified - suspicion, of any type of spiritual group that asks you to "submit".   For some attitudes, any person who is asked to submit, is considered small-minded, weak - pathetic, if you will.

However, those people who join the military - where that type of will surrender is required - do what your superior tells you - this is acceptable, to the same group of people.

It seems to me that, that the type of power relations that exist in the military - and are respected - that same type of power relation should also be acceptable in spiritual circles, if that is the arrangement that helps move people.

So, it is incumbent on those of us who think Andrew Cohen is doing damage, to not source our objections in "only" the fact that Andrew Cohen demands "surrender" of his students - not at least without accurately holding forth a couple of acceptable versions of an arrangement of surrender in ACTUAL teacher-student relationships. 

(Any ideas on this, anyone?)

For myself, I believe that Joe's assessment of "crucify-the-guru mentality of the blogophere", can become a strawman - applied to some of the "false" criticisms as described above, but not applied to more sober, careful evaluations.

As well, Joe makes what I think is a false judgment: "there doesn't appear to be any illegal behavior on Cohen's part". 

I would submit that this isn't the final arbiter.  A lot of things that happen are damaging to people, without being illegal.  That shouldn't be the criteria.

The reason I am focusing on Cohen, of course, is because of my interest, participation and support of the Integral Institute.  Just look at the December archives of Integral Naked, and you find Cohen holding court on Dec.4, 11, and 18.   (Ironically enough, Cohen on the 4th is speaking on "Watching the Shadow", a model case of "teacher heal thyself".)

So Cohen is continuing to be "a part of" or in dialogue with, Ken Wilber and Integral Institute, an place where my money is going.

And Cohen has a history of psychologically abusive and manipulative behavior, as documented by his mother, his previous students, and WhatEnlightenment blog.   There has been a continual stream of evidence for Cohen's psychologically abusive and manipulative behavior - using the excuse of the guru/follower model, for up to two decades.

So, again, I will say - it is my wish that Wilber and I-I have nothing to do with Cohen - great magazine or not. 

That is the other excuse, and used by some of my favorite bloggers - "I don't know about Andrew Cohen [ ebuddha : despite the twenty years of evidence of psychological abuse] but man What Is Enlightenment is a great magazine!" 

Which, in my opinion, is again simply another way not to deal with the evidence honestly.

Flames, comments, excuses - always welcome.