Help
Sign In
abusive guru
May 2009 
Reflections on Andrew Cohen
Posted on Oct 12th, 2007
by 
M. Alan
M. Alan
This blog past is subtitled "Can an abusive guru contribute to global transformation?"
Yesterday I watched an interesting YouTube video. Here is an interesting case. Andrew Cohen, a well-known abusive guru talks about evolutionary enlightenment and transformaing yourself to change the world. Apart from the rather materialistic identification with the Big Bang cosmology (as opposed to involution), which seems inspired by the "Great Story" pantheism of Berry and Swimme (I'm not saying it's wrong btw, only, to borrow a phrase from Wilber, that it's partial), I really found the first half of the video quite inspiring, an in tune with my own understanding and experience. I wa sthinking wow, this is incredible. But then the second half launches into a sort of worshipful phase with various global evolutionists (Dan Beck (Spiral Dynamics), Jim Garrison (president of World Forum), etc) saying how wonderful and enlightened Cohen is. It is pretty sad, that these intelligent guys should feel the need to bow down to this guy like that. I mean, it's not like he has any sort of Wilberesque charisma, just view a video of Cohen and a video of Wilber if you doubt me.
Then right at the end, bizarrely, there is footage (but with special effects, like through an old fashioned TV set with bad reception) where a woman, i guess one of Cohen's devotees, starts talking about what all this cosmic evolution means to her, and rather than let her speak, Andrew Cohen cuts her off, as if he can't stand to hear the sound of anyone else's voice, talking over her in a really arrogant way, and she just shrinks into this passive and disempowered devotee saying "right...right...right..." each time he pauses. I never saw anything like it. And if I ever had any doubts about the claims by ex-devotees, these were instantly removed at that moment.
But what is really wierd is that Cohen actually included this on his video. You'd think he;'d be embrassed, and want to keep all this stuff hidden. But no, he is so unconscious of his own narcissism, and his devotees so sycophantic and passive, that they cannot even see what is happening.
I believe the same thing happens with abusive gurus, and even with folks like Wilber, taht happen with these celebrities who are out of control. Surrounded by minders (with their own agendas) and sycophants and wannabes, they lose touch with the outside world, and retreat into a narcissistic bubble in whicjh they have no responsibility for their actions. The difference is that with celebrities the law does catch up with them, and they spend a brief stint in jail or (as with Brittney) have their kids taken away. But this doesn't happen with abusive gurus like Cohen because they are completely unknown outside a very small circle or subculture such as (in this case) the integral movement, so no paparazzi are going to pursue them and no one finds out about them - except through the courageous actions of ex-devotees who spill the beans. The real difference of course is that celebrities only harm themselves, whereas abusive gurus harm others. That's the difference.
Cohen is also editor-in-chief of What is Enlightenment magazine, which mixes narcissistic worship of himself and sometimes sloppy scholarship with some very good articles. Ina sense it is the journal of the integral movement (although many would see it as "New Age, there is a lot of overlap).
So this is how the guy who is the main inspiration behind the Integral Movement's most popular magazine behaves!
What does that say for the Integral Movement? What does it say for leadership of that movement?
I've been involved with the "Integral Movement" for several years, because I see a lot of promise there, and a lot that corresponds to my own thinking, and also to integrate Sri Aurobindo and the Mother's teachings (the mainstream integral movement has no idea about SA & M, they respect SA but are absolutely ignorant, and except for brief mentions on Cohen's WIE magazine and website, ignore the Mother altogether). Here is my latest essay on Integral World
The high profile of people like Cohen in the Integral Movment is due to the fact that there is a poverty of moral leadership in the movement in America (the Europeans in contrast have it together a lot better - look at Laszlo and his Club of Budapest). This will only change as the integral movement outgrows its infantile roots, and new integralists like Steve McIntosh and Mike Psyka & co (Integral Praxis) are able to provide a healthy alternative to the Wilber-Beck-Cohen "old guard". In addition, there are highly admirable people like Robb Smith within the Integral Institute itself (see Robb's statement on Open Integral). So I'm pretty optimistic about how things will work out.
Yesterday I watched an interesting YouTube video. Here is an interesting case. Andrew Cohen, a well-known abusive guru talks about evolutionary enlightenment and transformaing yourself to change the world. Apart from the rather materialistic identification with the Big Bang cosmology (as opposed to involution), which seems inspired by the "Great Story" pantheism of Berry and Swimme (I'm not saying it's wrong btw, only, to borrow a phrase from Wilber, that it's partial), I really found the first half of the video quite inspiring, an in tune with my own understanding and experience. I wa sthinking wow, this is incredible. But then the second half launches into a sort of worshipful phase with various global evolutionists (Dan Beck (Spiral Dynamics), Jim Garrison (president of World Forum), etc) saying how wonderful and enlightened Cohen is. It is pretty sad, that these intelligent guys should feel the need to bow down to this guy like that. I mean, it's not like he has any sort of Wilberesque charisma, just view a video of Cohen and a video of Wilber if you doubt me.
Then right at the end, bizarrely, there is footage (but with special effects, like through an old fashioned TV set with bad reception) where a woman, i guess one of Cohen's devotees, starts talking about what all this cosmic evolution means to her, and rather than let her speak, Andrew Cohen cuts her off, as if he can't stand to hear the sound of anyone else's voice, talking over her in a really arrogant way, and she just shrinks into this passive and disempowered devotee saying "right...right...right..." each time he pauses. I never saw anything like it. And if I ever had any doubts about the claims by ex-devotees, these were instantly removed at that moment.
But what is really wierd is that Cohen actually included this on his video. You'd think he;'d be embrassed, and want to keep all this stuff hidden. But no, he is so unconscious of his own narcissism, and his devotees so sycophantic and passive, that they cannot even see what is happening.
I believe the same thing happens with abusive gurus, and even with folks like Wilber, taht happen with these celebrities who are out of control. Surrounded by minders (with their own agendas) and sycophants and wannabes, they lose touch with the outside world, and retreat into a narcissistic bubble in whicjh they have no responsibility for their actions. The difference is that with celebrities the law does catch up with them, and they spend a brief stint in jail or (as with Brittney) have their kids taken away. But this doesn't happen with abusive gurus like Cohen because they are completely unknown outside a very small circle or subculture such as (in this case) the integral movement, so no paparazzi are going to pursue them and no one finds out about them - except through the courageous actions of ex-devotees who spill the beans. The real difference of course is that celebrities only harm themselves, whereas abusive gurus harm others. That's the difference.
Cohen is also editor-in-chief of What is Enlightenment magazine, which mixes narcissistic worship of himself and sometimes sloppy scholarship with some very good articles. Ina sense it is the journal of the integral movement (although many would see it as "New Age, there is a lot of overlap).
So this is how the guy who is the main inspiration behind the Integral Movement's most popular magazine behaves!
What does that say for the Integral Movement? What does it say for leadership of that movement?
I've been involved with the "Integral Movement" for several years, because I see a lot of promise there, and a lot that corresponds to my own thinking, and also to integrate Sri Aurobindo and the Mother's teachings (the mainstream integral movement has no idea about SA & M, they respect SA but are absolutely ignorant, and except for brief mentions on Cohen's WIE magazine and website, ignore the Mother altogether). Here is my latest essay on Integral World
The high profile of people like Cohen in the Integral Movment is due to the fact that there is a poverty of moral leadership in the movement in America (the Europeans in contrast have it together a lot better - look at Laszlo and his Club of Budapest). This will only change as the integral movement outgrows its infantile roots, and new integralists like Steve McIntosh and Mike Psyka & co (Integral Praxis) are able to provide a healthy alternative to the Wilber-Beck-Cohen "old guard". In addition, there are highly admirable people like Robb Smith within the Integral Institute itself (see Robb's statement on Open Integral). So I'm pretty optimistic about how things will work out.
Access: Public
Alan,
I just discovered you on zaadz today. Highly interesting, I have enjoyed scanning your writings and look forward to keeping up with your blog.
I would like to note that on my first pass, reading your thoughts, I almost dismissed you after about 5 minutes. The reason being that my first impression is that you are hyper-critical of others in the integral movement and you also come off as a bit pompous. I am personally glad that I pushed beyond that initial impression because you have a lot of value to contribute. However, if you have any interest in being widely read and appreciated, I would suggest a little more vigilance in your editing.
Good luck on your book.
Jim Michelshi Jim
yes I agree it is a fault of mine to be over-critical (too much shadow projection no doubt!). In my latest essay on Integral World I have toned down the criticism a fair bit (though it could still be toned down more in places). And in my book I will naturally try to be less critical again. At the same time, I don't want to be totally non-critical, then you have what Wilber calls green pluralism in which everyone is nice to each other in an uncritical way. So the real key is finding the right balance!
Pompous, yes, I guess that gioes with teh territory too! :-)
best regards
alan
It seems like an accurate enough assessment to me.
I was wondering what you think the distinctions between the “new integralists” and “old guard” that you mention at the end would be?
Pretty fair assessment, I would say, Alan. It is really horrible how abusive gurus seem to rob devotees of their autonomy and in the worst case depersonalize them (which is what a lot of “tantric masters” end up doing). I know sometimes we are over-critical of abusive gurus but I feel it needs to be done … anyone who is going to set themselves up as a guru better not let their lower nature pervert or distort the descending Light. It is a test of their authenticity. Mother was sometimes insulted by people from all sides, but she showed the sort of Herculean patience that one would expect of an enlightened being. She is a tough, tough act to follow.
Alan,
regarding Club of budapest: They really have their own Guru. Its Ervin Laszlo. He is the poser boy of European Cultural Creatives and even wrote a book with the label “integral” in its theme.
Wilber ciriticized rightly his approach in “Integral Spirituality”.
Whereas -please correct me if I am roughly wrong - Laszlo is nowhere is discussing Wilbers AQAL apporach explicitly.
And moral Leadership at Club of Budapest???What do you mean? Lots of organizational Choas is found there. And bonfire of vanities too…..:):)
Of course the COB has great value.
Most interersting for me is public communication of different integral approaches. Why not expressing more humor and less self concern ? In most parts of the world these differences and the different aproaches are not even known.
Right now I do not see:
THE Integral Movement
The label has to be clearly defined by everyone who uses it. As in earlier times “holistic”
Bill: this is basically what I talk about in my essay on Integral World. The original movement, the old guard so to speak, are much more intpo a restricted interpertation of Integral according to the framework provided by Wilber and Beck (AQAL and SDi). They also tend to be pretty forgiving of and worshipful regarding Wilber. The new generation, whether post-Wilberian or even reformers within Integral sensu stricto such as Steve McIntosh, retain insights from AQAL and SDi, but are add there own input too. They are also less naive about Wilber; they respect his intellectual contributions but can see his personality faults. The Larger integral Movement includes all the streams of Integral, Wilber, Laszlo, philosophers like Whitehead and Teilhard (although Steve McIntosh also draws from Whitehead and Teilhard. Also they are much more practical. See Kosmos journal and Integral Praxis blog for examples. For taht matter Zaadz too! So it''s all about the movement outgrowing its early baby beginnings. My contribution is to tie it ijn with teeh Integral Yoga tradition of Sri Aurobidno and The Mother, and also the whole New Age/New Paradigm/Global Mindshift phenomenon. Anyway all this will be described in more detail in my books in progress.
Ned: absolutely. Absolutely. And great beings like Ramana Maharshi and The Mother really show the way! Whenever there is any ego, any petulance, any abuse or selfishness, any stifling of the disciple's uindicviduality, you know that that so called guru has to be steered well clear of!
Albert: well I never heard of this. But i would be very interested in hearing more! So if you have any more info, please let me know (you can write to me by email or by Zaadz mail)
And yes I read Wilber's critique of Laszlo in Integral Spirituality. Sorry to disagree, but I think it is just Wilber trying to claim he is the only one who is integral. No-one else is allowed to use the lerm unless they agree with his version, adopt his AQAL system and all the rest (I don't believe that Integral = AQAL). Even Sri Aurobindo has to be dumbed down to Wilberian standards, as I point out in my reply to Joe Perez (who replied to my essay) to be posted on Integral World.
But please, let me know more about what you have heard of COB. I'm very interested in hearing all sides of every group!
“But what is really wierd is that Cohen actually included this on his video. You'd think he;'d be embrassed, and want to keep all this stuff hidden. But no, he is so unconscious of his own narcissism, and his devotees so sycophantic and passive, that they cannot even see what is happening.”
My God, you're right! You have shown me the light!! :) I can't believe you concluded all of that from a momentary (and pretty compelling, I think) exchange in a video… Could it be, perhaps, that you're looking at Mr. Cohen through our culture's “Abusive Guru” stereotype/archetype and not necessarily seeing the man as he actually is?
Sincerely,
Just Another Hapless Sycophant
He’s not actually concluding all that from a momentary exchange in a video
- but from this:
http://whatenlightenment.blogspot.com/
Thanks Siggi :-) Yes indeed. The Integral Movement needs to lift its game; it surely can't expect to be taken serious by the mainstream if it condones that sort of behaviour (i certainly am not saying that most in the IM do, but the fact that even some do is still relevant)
No problem, always glad to help clear things up.
I’m wondering myself, well it most definitely doesn’t represent The Integral Movement as a whole but more just a part of human nature. Humans make up The Integral Movement, hence things can go awfully wrong from time and again, so there’s no real reason to feel confused. But humans are also intrinsically good by nature, according to many great teachers, so neither do we need to despair. But neither should we coldly rationalise or arrogantly defend any wrongful behaviour, just so to speak for the behalf of the many, so it’s very important that people learn of the trappings, the earlier the better, so they can move closer to actual enlightenment - and in time evolution.
Here’s simply how I see it: This is nothing personal against Andrew Cohen. This is information. And since I don’t see reason for people to lie about him; vital true information that people need to stop by and think about.
Yeah I've nothing personal against him either. I i'm sure like everyone he is trying to do his best, and genuinely believes he is doing the right thing. But obviously that doesn't excuse such actions
But the thing is, those victim stories are obviously very one-sided perspectives. And because we have a strong bias in postmodern culture to “honor the victims” and be suspicious of “authority figures” – for good reasons and not-so-good reaons – then when we hear of a person being “abused by a guru” we almost instinctively side with that person's story. But what if their sense of victimization is actually skewing the reality of the situation to an extreme degree?
Check out Andrew's ”Declaration of Integrity: An Open Letter to My Friends and Foes,” in which he tries to explain the context in which all of those victim stories took place. Because the one thing that those disgruntled ex-students always fail to mention is that they chose to get involved in a non-traditional, non-postmodern spiritual context where the rules are completely different from the ordinary postmodern world. In Andrew's context – and, for that matter, any authentic enlightened teacher's context – the whole point is to transcend ego. And since the postmodern narcissistic world worships ego above all else (in celebrities, in politicians, and in ourselves), any threat to the ego is seen as “abuse”! I've been a close student of Andrew's for seven years. I've known a few of the people who have written on that “WhatEnlightenment?!” blog. And they're presenting, at best, a seriously skewed picture of the events they recount in their stories…
In that “Declaration of Integrity,” Andrew says at one point:
“It has always bewildered me that I have been accused of lacking integrity, when in fact it is my integrity that makes me such a challenging teacher.”
Andrew is the most caring, compassionate human being I've ever had the honor to know. He also has a depth of integrity and dignity that is astonishing. But he cares for the human soul, not the human ego. And that makes all the difference in the world.
Alright, just to be very specific and not to conjure up any type of 2-dimensional character in the mind of anyone. Just focus on one specific point.. I’m not questioning his faith, his integrity, his passion, what he calls lack of compromise.. I’m not going to have any preconceived image of him as abusive, sadistic, corrupt, crazy, unstable or whatever archetype or stereotype. I’m not going to believe what anyone says about what he says, his words or any subtle gesture or hint.. I’m not going to place any judgement.
I imagine he’s a good man. Now starting with this fresh and positive postulate, ignoring all preconceived complexes, I want to ask objectively without making an assumption about a single topic (single independent topic non-related to any suggestive swarm or cloud of negative impressions) :
Why does he sometimes ask people to personally give him thousands of dollars (sometimes all of their monetary assets)?
With this question I’m ignoring everything else. I don’t make any assumptions that he’s an “abusive guru”. I ignore any claims about his character or personality. I give him a clean slate and I ask this question on a specific action that he performs. You see, this single issue is really something that “sticks out” for me, I don’t care about his impressions, any authority ideas, projections, personality, character or “his Being”. Completely irrelevant to me. If you could clarify this single issue, “clear things up” so-to-speak, that would for me personally dispell alot of what he claims is some kind of imaginary fabricated cloud of negative impression that has been projected upon him. That would be very much appreciated.
Hi Sig,
As far as I know, the two main instances of that being mentioned on that “anti-blog” are both taken wildly out of context and seriously distorted by victimization. With the big, multimillion-dollar donation, it was just that: a donation. From what I understand, she eventually decided to stop practicing Andrew's teachings and then wanted her money back, or assumed that because she'd given money, she wouldn't have to make the same kind of effort as everybody else. Which is ridiculous. You can't “buy” your way to spiritual evolution.
With the other instance, where an ex-student (call him “E.”) (who was one of Andrew's two closest “senior students”) donated $20,000 or something, as soon as he arrogantly stopped making any effort to practice the teachings (which I witnessed firsthand), he started getting rather pathetic and even tried to write Andrew another check to “buy him off” so Andrew would stop insisting that he get his act together. But as E. says in his own victimized story (on that blog), Andrew ripped up the check and threw it back at him. When E. left (and before he started pretending to be a 20-year-old kid on Zaadz to write negative stuff on the forums about Andrew), he tried to get his first big donation back, which is just lame. As every five-year-old knows, it isn't nice to give a gift and then ask for it back, especially when you don't behave very nicely. E. once said to me, “Tom, this is about cultivating integrity of soul!“ But he has no integrity to speak of…
I gave a big donation once, but I wanted to do it, because I saw it as a pledge of my seriousness to committing my life to this endeavor. To the postmodern self, money and material possessions are everything – so if you give that up, well, then you must be somewhat serious about taking a leap beyond postmodern culture. EnlightenNext is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. We depend entirely on donations. So why should it be seen as “strange” for members of the organization to make donations – especially “committed students” who have ostensibly committed their lives to bringing Evolutionary Enlightenment into the world? In fact, it would be hypocritical if Andrew's students didn't make donations. Because if we aren't doing it ourselves, how can we ask anybody else to?
Feel free to make a donation today, by the way. We can't publish WIE or anything else without 'em… :)
Tom
Wait, the way I understand the situation from the blog is that the large donations were personally to teacher Andrew?
Also the way I understand it is that students are pressured to give those large donations to Andrew?
No, they weren't donations personally to Andrew, which is why in one of E.'s posts on that blog, he quotes a letter from the then-CEO of EnlightenNext, Cathy Snow, politely declining his request to get his donation repaid to him. Andrew lives pretty modestly–I've even seen him return expensive gifts from students that were too expensive for him to feel comfortable owning.
As for students being “pressured,” of course anyone who laments having made a large donation is going to justify it to themselves by claiming (and maybe even believing) they were forced. It's a classic case of “the devil made me do it.” But from the perspective of Andrew's teachings–namely, the Second Tenet of the teaching–such excuses don't really fly, especially among such a group of smart, autonomous, free-thinking individuals (as even most of those ex-students seemed to be). Not unless the person was brain-damaged or held at gunpoint or something…
What I find really funny is that, in any traditional Guru-Disciple context, it would be considered normal, even expected, for a disciple to forsake ALL material possessions and surrender their lives to the Guru. In fact, when I left home in Seattle, WA, at age 22 to move to Foxhollow (Andrew's main residential center in western Massachusetts, where I'm typing these words), I was prepared to give up everything except maybe the shirt off my back – and was pleasantly surprised that no such surrender of personal property was expected. Because it isn't a traditional Guru-Disciple context; it's a new, experimental, 21st-century version thereof. Still, if we want to be Free, the price is the same as it always was: we have to be willing to give up EVERYTHING – at least internally. If external, material acts of renunciation help in that process, then so much the better.
People want to have their cake and eat it too. But when it comes to the Absolute, it turns out that if you really get to know it, it actually gets everything and you get nothing. At all.
Andrew Cohen's “declaration of integrity” does nothing but show that he is still stuck in dualistic thinking. Saying that all devotees who have turned against him are spiritual “failures” is just ego. He may have had a few awakenings, sure, but so have a whole bunch of people not claiming to be gurus. I believe he is a well-intentioned guy. But a realized being he is not. Even his philosophy reads like a shallow mental rip-off of Sri Aurobindo – he appropriates terms like Delight and Supermind and waters them down to the extent that they lose all the profundity of the Aurobindonian-Mirran vision. His attitude toward women is rather sexist (he clearly thinks women are at a disadvantage when it comes to spiritual enlightenment).
By the way, I believe very strongly in the guru principle, and that the demands of Love are total. However, an authentic guru can bear the ignorance and suffering of the devotee and provide a presence that sustains all the acts of sacrifice that the devotee may have to make. Cohen doesn't fit the bill.
Ours is an arrogant generation, isn't it?
Sacrifice, sacrifice, sacrifice … but ONLY for the highest authority, the Supreme … never for a human ego or for the guru's outer personality, which will only create attachment, self-righteousness, and get in the way of transformation.
The true guru makes the Supreme's Grace more directly accessible to us. His or her detachment ensures that we never fall into the trap of guru personality worship. Being a guru is a HUGE responsibility. This is why people should think twice (at least!) before they set themselves up that way.
I know it's been long since this discussion was at its peak but I must add an additional comment here as an afterthought:
Soulplex, you are wrong. The only one “arrogant” here is you, yourself and the “omnipotent guru” that you follow devoutly. You used very defamatory language to describe the people that have been abused by Andrew Cohen, called them “arrogant” and “pathetic” and to add insult to injury you implied they must be “brain damaged”. It'll be a bright day on this planet when people stop to truly reflect and stop rationalizing and begin to use their reasoning capabilities, regardless of how that can affect their previous affirmations.
I gave you a slack to see how you would defend Andrew Cohen but in fact the only thing you accomplished was to expose your underlying contempt for anyone that confronts his authority. The fact is he has no authority on spiritual matters, that is the fact, that is the law of this world. The authority is found in our bodies, in Nature, not from Andrew Cohen. The sooner this is realized, the sooner people will come closer to freedom, justice, love and truth.
I've also made a blog post explaining my mind further: http://sorn.gaia.com/blog/
Guys -
This is an old thread but I feel compelled to throw in a few comments in the hope that they may be relevant.
In support of “Creative Philosopher: If being “enlightened” in a “post-modern context” means that its now ok to write statements on a public forum challenging a person's character and motivation because they disagree with you, then let us go back to the stone age, thank you very much - there is less posturing and hypocrisy there, at least. I will say nothing about the numerous documented cases of donations solicited under ethically dubious circumstances, shaming, and physical violence - even in cases where the recipient is grateful for having their “ego challenged”!
What I would really like to see here (and I think we all do):
1)To see Cohen and his students injecting love into the world, as opposed to just talking about it (and I mean this seriously)
2)An integral movement that is led by people with real integrity and at least a little bit of self-awareness of their own narcissistic tendancies (that we are all guilty of from time to time).
Granted these comments are still reactive, what I am wanting is a “consciousness revolution” that is based on love. Love does not reside in the infatuation with large ideas (while treating people like shit), but in daily acts of kindness and the seeking of forgiveness when it is called for.
Let us pray :-).
My further thoughts on this:
http://manifesting.net/2008/09/andrew-cohen-evolutionary-enlightenment-and-enlightennext-is-it-a-cult/
Marc