Andrew Cohen Stepping Down

[Balder]

Apparently quite a big change is taking place in the EnlightenNext organization, and Cohen appears to be issuing an apology for past abuses.

See here.

[kelamuni]

I'm reading (and writing an essay on) the smyon-pa and related types and traditions and I came across a one Lama Zhang who sounds a bit, or perhaps a lot, like Adi Da and Andrew Cohen. Apparently he went off the handle once he had a following and turned into a violent control freak, until he was told to step down by a renowned Karmapa lama.  

I remember reading about this sort of thing happening in Kashmir among the Shaivas, and reported about it at Lightmind, but can't remember or find that source I drew upon anymore. Anyway apparently this kind of thing happens at times, and not just in the West.

[13w6cecaz7s7h]

hi kelamuni

of course this sort of thing happens, that's what the lineage is for.

guru n disciple in a long lineage of guru n disciple ,

these high tantric lineages know the game.

if one wants to play with high powered electricity it pays to have a real trained and examined and approved by other accomplished electricians electrician as a teacher and not someone who just did a weekend online course or a 2week fast intro (as did Cohen) by an unknown maverick hobby electrician.

otherwise "fried brains " is the most likely outcome.

maxing

[Edward theurj Berge]

Even the most highly trained guru cannot overcome the fact that the way of the guru is obsolete.

From Edwards: "The defence of the ancient models of student-teacher relationship, particularly where development is focused on the stage-based lens, seems to me to be a sign of regression rather than evolution."

The next Buddha will be a collective. So-called evolutionaries need to get with the next actual wave, like IPS.

[13w6cecaz7s7h]

hahaha

you my friend evidently write about things you do not fully understand

no more comment needed

mm

[Balder]

A relevant essay that I think is worth including in this thread:  Don't Pray the Grey Away.  It's a discussion of Alex Grey's work, but also a discussion of abusive gurus.

[13w6cecaz7s7h]

terrible article both in it's ad ida descriptions and its own

displayed uninformed Ness. equating Jones Cohen and Tibetan Buddhism all in thecsame breath and then blaming the later for having invented evil crazy wisdom hahahahaha.

Jesus how superficial.what do you want to say, balde r  with pointing US to this undifferentiated  smear article?

[Balder]

I didn't read it the way that you did -- meaning, I didn't see him as equating Jones and Cohen with Tibetan Buddhism.  But even if he is, I don't equate them.  I don't think Tibetan Buddhism is spotless, of course; it has its own pathological expressions as well. 

Grey himself in his comments stresses that he worded something badly and didn't mean to imply that Cohen and Jones were associated with Tibetan Buddhism, but only to say that the notion of "crazy wisdom," which is often exploited by abusive gurus, comes from Tibetan tradition.

As for representing either Cohen or Jones as wholly pathological, I don't support that, either.  But I think the author is right to challenge Grey for perhaps presenting an overly idealized depiction of them (without much balancing critical reflections).  What did you object to in his depiction of Adi Da, specifically?

[13w6cecaz7s7h]

my point being : this needs to approached with the necessary deep knowledge of those traditions (and reading books about them doesnt count because many things are not in any books) and therefore having the clear knowledge to differentiate , I mean adi bum was a Hindu crazy as was Cohen. Buddha pointed out that that Hindu devas are not free.so... then we Ha've 9 buddhist levels and then 4 tibetan schools and only in 3 crazy wisdom exists.and yet even these 3 do not have the same teachings.so.....for me this guru debate needs to be done by those who actually know the different teachings because guru and its functions changes according to the teaching and this inside the Buddhist teachings (9levels).guru in the Hindu version i  consider to be the far dangerous institution especially outside Hindu cultural grounding. so differentiation would be wise.

max miller said:

terrible article both in it's ad ida descriptions and its own

displayed uninformed Ness. equating Jones Cohen and Tibetan Buddhism all in thecsame breath and then blaming the later for having invented evil crazy wisdom hahahahaha.

Jesus how superficial.what do you want to say, balde r  with pointing US to this undifferentiated  smear article?

[13w6cecaz7s7h]

sorry was not clear.I am struggling with my girlfriends android tablet and it drives me crazy.":)

I did not object to his adi bum report, but to his slandering, without any real understanding, the real crazy wisdom teachings.

I personally , apart from all is perfect as it stands , do not see much positive in both crazies:adi dam or Cohen:

typical fried Hindu brains.

linking this to real

liberation teachings, well that is just sad.

and hey : I have no blue eye syndrom regards Tibetan Buddhism.humans always create confusion and mistakes. but real dzog chen teachings , the real crazy wisdom teachings are unique in their clarity.

and without guru-disciple relationship not possible.

after 30 years of Buddhist study and 40 years of general spiritual studies: seeing how callous people assume they know anything just from readings a few books or doing a few years of some meditation or studying academic philosophy.:)) mm

Balder said:

I didn't read it the way that you did -- meaning, I didn't see him as equating Jones and Cohen with Tibetan Buddhism.  But even if he is, I don't equate them.  I don't think Tibetan Buddhism is spotless, of course; it has its own pathological expressions as well. 

Grey himself in his comments stresses that he worded something badly and didn't mean to imply that Cohen and Jones were associated with Tibetan Buddhism, but only to say that the notion of "crazy wisdom," which is often exploited by abusive gurus, comes from Tibetan tradition.

As for representing either Cohen or Jones as wholly pathological, I don't support that, either.  But I think the author is right to challenge Grey for perhaps presenting an overly idealized depiction of them (without much balancing critical reflections).  What did you object to in his depiction of Adi Da, specifically?

[13w6cecaz7s7h]

my question the n to u is then:

what's the positive in Andrews cult ?

have you actually read the 3 relevant books starting with his mothers, luna? I just in occasion have re read all 3 in order of publication.very interesting especially for someone who knows Buddhism.i only say 2 words:heaven n hell.

adi dam s stuff I can't comment since I never met the man, I mean I went to his London center years ago , due to ken s endorsements but luckily my  B S detector was going crazy screaming "dangerous crazy cult "at top voice and luckily me listened.read some of his books, though ,seemed to make sense ,but so did Rajneesh. but Cohen and Poonjaji I met myself and I got the Poona approval card inclusive fancy name, but I declined acting as that.so.......being closer to that mess I have more to say.so have you read them books? they are very good, I know many of the early dudes myself, so...I can tell, both Luna and Andre (van de braak) know how to write.

mm

max miller said:

sorry was not clear.I am struggling with my girlfriends android tablet and it drives me crazy.":)

I did not object to his adi bum report, but to his slandering, without any real understanding, the real crazy wisdom teachings.

I personally , apart from all is perfect as it stands , do not see much positive in both crazies:adi dam or Cohen:

typical fried Hindu brains.

linking this to real

liberation teachings, well that is just sad.

and hey : I have no blue eye syndrom regards Tibetan Buddhism.humans always create confusion and mistakes. but real dzog chen teachings , the real crazy wisdom teachings are unique in their clarity.

and without guru-disciple relationship not possible.

after 30 years of Buddhist study and 40 years of general spiritual studies: seeing how callous people assume they know anything just from readings a few books or doing a few years of some meditation or studying academic philosophy.:)) mm

Balder said:

I didn't read it the way that you did -- meaning, I didn't see him as equating Jones and Cohen with Tibetan Buddhism.  But even if he is, I don't equate them.  I don't think Tibetan Buddhism is spotless, of course; it has its own pathological expressions as well. 

Grey himself in his comments stresses that he worded something badly and didn't mean to imply that Cohen and Jones were associated with Tibetan Buddhism, but only to say that the notion of "crazy wisdom," which is often exploited by abusive gurus, comes from Tibetan tradition.

As for representing either Cohen or Jones as wholly pathological, I don't support that, either.  But I think the author is right to challenge Grey for perhaps presenting an overly idealized depiction of them (without much balancing critical reflections).  What did you object to in his depiction of Adi Da, specifically?

[13w6cecaz7s7h]

in this guru discussion what I am missing is a clear distinction between a . Hindu and b .Buddhist. firstly.

in hindu tradition the guru is seen as literal GOD man, this I consider very dangerous outside Hinduism, meaning for any westerner,even for real Hindus (born into Hinduism as it should be)it is not without problems. but for westerners, imo, its deadly.and here theruj is right.both adi dam and Cohen as most other abusers came from this view. then , secondly in Buddhism one has to differentiate : sutra or Tantra. this is necessary because the guru function is not the same, respectively. Zen is sutra.Tibetan is Tantra.now we are then ready to evaluate crazy wisdom.without these basic distinctions, only more confusion results.this article guy did none of the above, so he just added more confusion to this issue, needlessly, since we do have the year 2013, so stuff that was o.k. in the 60's like Alan watts mixing n mashing etc. now is not acceptable anymore.there is crystal clear knowledge available, nowadays, no need to fantasize about crazy wisdom anymore .what it is and what it isn't, is clearly defined ,no abitraryness in it, not even an inch, so no need to listen to jerks who know nothing and assorted self styled American wannabe guru's.

mm

[Balder]

I don't have any trust, ultimately, in Andrew Cohen's ability to serve as a responsible, mature, deeply integrous spiritual guide or exemplar for others.  I've intended for awhile to write a response to his most recent book, and will do so if I find time apart from more pressing projects.  I do think there are aspects of his teaching that are valuable, and I resonate with some parts of his overall project -- especially to create an intensive practice container or generative (en)closure based on integral principles, among other things -- but his execution of these aims, and his conceptual underpinnings for them, are flawed, in my opinion (in part, due to his own issues and blind spots), so I am not surprised that this experiment has come apart.  He did produce a magazine that I enjoyed, and he also attracted some bright and impressive people around him, so I hope there may nevertheless be something valuable that ultimately can flower out of the work that he inspired.

About making clearer differentiations around guru functions in different traditions, and around the place of "crazy wisdom" within Tibetan tradition, yes, that's a good point.  I don't think the failure to do that renders the article I shared valueless, but it certainly was weak in that area.  I shared it more because it pointed to an issue that I have also been concerned about in Integral circles in general: the (over)-idealization of, and hagiographical treatment of, certain godman types.