Comments on: American Guru Andrew Cohen & Allegations of Abuse

By: Pete

Pete — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:28:19 +0000

That seems a reasonable question at face value but the issues are really very different. The whole story is described in detail in Autobiography of an Awakening. Andrew broke with his guru when it became clear that Poonja wanted to discredit the direction Andrews teaching was taking, which was very different from Advaita Vedanta. The fact there was a philosophical disagreement was one thing but what Andrew could not accept in the end was Poonjas unwillingness to be straight about it. When they met as the relationship was becoming strained Poonja refused to engage with Andrew in any inquiry into their diverging interpretations of enlightened understanding, in fact he pretended that nothing was at issue. I have seen video footage of one of these meetings so I know that is true. Then behind his back Poonja would discredit him and even sent Gangji out to teach in the same places as a foil to Andrew. It was this duplicitous behaviour that ultimate led to the break up as Andrew could no longer trust him. However Andrew (unlike his former student critics) doesnt carry festering grievances and, despite their differences, still expresses respect and gratitude to Poonja for being the Awakener he was.

http://www.andrewcohen.org/blog/index.php?/blog/post/overwhelming-gratitude/

By: Harvey Schneider

Harvey Schneider — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 01:14:40 +0000

An obvious consideration, oddly missing from the criticism and defense pertaining to Andrew and his rebellious students:
Is there any reasonable comparison to be made between those who reject and condemn Andrew based on his unacceptable behavior and Andrew’s rejection / condemnation of his guru based on Poonjaji’s unacceptable behavior?

By: Pete

Pete — Sat, 22 May 2010 16:06:30 +0000

Thanks for your big-hearted and thoughtful reply Marc. Regarding not getting into a discussion about Yenner´s character, well first of all I would say that whatever I have written about him is pretty mild compared to what Yenner has written about the character of his former Teacher of 13 years! My intent has been to give a wider context surrounding his allegations in as straight a manner as possible, (and they are many others who were there at the time who would subscribe to my description of events), so that the discerning reader has more information to draw their conclusions from. While I agree my “critique” of his book is not an essential part of arguing my “position”, many have found it very clarifying. Regarding the “miraculous evolutionary experiment” et al…well yes I am a passionate fellow when it comes these matters

By: Pete Bampton

Pete Bampton — Fri, 14 May 2010 12:40:59 +0000

Dear Mr Levy,

Thank you for your thoughtful response. As I said in the article I do not have first hand knowledge of what actually occurred so I cannot speak to all the details you raise. That said, I will respond to some of your points (by number in the order you raise them). However it must be understood that I am not speaking for Cohen or EnlightenNext, but from my own perspective of having been a close student.

1. Most of the answers to the questions are true according to my experience and some I don’t personally know the answers to. Some would be deemed to be not true if one was already given to a certain interpretation i.e. students had to “confess sins”. Some are apparently false but I would say they are true according to “common definition”. In other words if EnlightenNext were to say that it were true that students were pressured to give money, that would not be true according to “common definition” because, as I outlined in the article, the “pressure” was also issuing from the individual’s desire to reengage their chosen path etc. The giving of money was only strongly suggested on a few rare occasions, and there was a whole context as to why that was deemed appropriate. Anyone who thought this was inappropriate could have refused and also have left at the time if they wanted.
2. I knew about this and think it is understandable Cohen would make that request regarding the proposed interview you describe given that those who make these “allegations” omit the context in which they occurred, and that your article was intended to be “negative” etc.
3. My intention is not to discredit you but rather the motivation of William Yenner and friends who leapt upon the opportunity to use this “interview” as proof of lack of integrity etc. EnlightenNext didn’t lie “outrageously” in my view. Yes some of the responses could be deemed as “clumsy” or even “unintelligent” but they were also put in a very difficult position because one would need to write an essay (like mine!) to even begin to reveal the deeper and higher context in which the “allegations” occurred.
4. I have reason to doubt this statement based on what I have heard about your connection to former students who are on a negative campaign against Cohen.
5. This may appear an extreme response but I think was understandable in light of the perceived intent of your article, and also the fact that EnlightenNext has been subject to sensationalist smears in the past.
6. Firstly, no confusion or disrespect is intended on my part. I have simply endeavoured to be as clear as I can based on the information I have received and the “surrounding context” that I know about from first-hand experience. Regarding “exposing more about Andrew Cohen and his values”, well this is the whole “rub” that the controversy revolves around, as I hope I have illuminated. Are some of the “allegations” true? Yes, definitely, as I have outlined in my article. Do they equate to “abuse”? I say no. If one doesn’t know any of the surrounding contexts, and has not had first-hand experience of Andrew Cohen as a student, then many, especially in our post-modern culture, would say “yes” or understandably be concerned. Hence it is understandable that EnlightenNext was on the defensive regarding your proposed article, and that their lawyer assisted them accordingly. As for “values”, I would say that the fact that Andrew held his students unwaveringly to their stated intention and was willing, on occasion, to take strong measures in doing so, points to a much higher value-sphere, than the one that seeks to discredit him in the fashion that Yenner does. As Ken Wilber wrote in a letter to one of Andrew´s students: “Of course, in flatland post-modern culture, the Master/Teacher/Guru principle is not allowed, so it is a brave group that attempts to introduce depth in the midst of this wasteland”. Yenner and company were once such “brave” men and women. Legitimate criticism is fair enough, but when that criticism is issuing from a motive that wants to destroy or deny that “depth” then it is another thing altogether.

May we indeed face everything and avoid nothing,

Pete Bampton

By: Marc Beneteau

Marc Beneteau — Thu, 13 May 2010 14:42:59 +0000

Pete,
I think this is a well-written and compelling article in many ways.. it certainly helps to understand the situation better from your point of view.
I will only respond very briefly until I see comments appear (it’s great that you have enabled comments but I don’t fully undersand why there haven’t been any). What I want to say is that I am truly happy for you have “discovered a freedom, pure passion and purpose for being alive” and that so many of ex-students have experienced the same “living lives of passion, fearlessness and committment to evolving consciousness”. I trust you on that one, and the testimonials back that. I also think that it’s a higher path to look for one’s own responsibility in creating a situation rather than blaming others — up to a point. There are two major problems that I have with this article, however (and I suspect you will find this a rather common response). First is “the lady doth protest too much”. You really don’t need to go into a discussion around Yenner’s character or sophistries about whether a “gag order” actually occurred or not (I think most people will agree that it occurred and that EnligntenNext lied to the press about it). That only detracts from your position. And second, your article is full of language that might occur as inflated (possibly delusional) “miraculous, explosive, momentous evolutionary experiment, all boundaries and fixed positions dissolve in the liberating surge” and such.. well that maybe, but I humbly submit to you that is posterity to decide. YOu would be a lot more effective, and more credible, if you chilled-out about Yenner et. al, and if you took a more humble position overall. That being said, I support your mission and wish you the best.

By: Yonatan Levy

Yonatan Levy — Wed, 12 May 2010 19:38:36 +0000

Dear Mr. Bampton,

Thanks for the thoughtful post. However, your account of things as to the interview in Israel is not in accord with truth. Let me help you with are a few corrections. Please leave them in their entirety.

1. The main issue you should be asking yourself and the readers regarding these Q&A is not the relative absence of “philosophical” justifications in EnlightenNext’s answers (http://www.myimagehosting.com/u/13130/10939/99318.pdf), but why these answers contain so many lies and what does this say about the organization. I indeed asked for factual answers for factual questions – but this is not a good explanation as to why these answers are in fact untruthful.

2. Contrary to what you have written, Andrew Cohen had agreed to conduct a “free interview” with NRG Ma’ariv solely under the condition that no questions would be raised about the allegations against him.

3. Stating twice the fact I was also the editor of a spiritual gossip column (mind you – a satirical one) is a cheap way to discredit the inquiry – but not a good explanation as to why EnlightenNext lies outrageously in its answers.

4. My article in question was certainly negative, but never sensational. Contrary to what you have written, never was it stated that article was positioned to discredit Cohen’s work. It seems he can do this alone by lying.

5. Formal Student Igal Moria was given the opportunity to give the official philosophical explanations for Cohen way of life in a full-lengthed article, to be set next to mine. But the whole thing was dropped after Barry Fischer, Cohen’s attorney, hinted NRG at a suit, something which we could not financially afford to enter even with a 100 % libel-proof cause.

6. The questions and answers were not off the record. And they were intended for me, not the editor in chief of NRG. Your confusion, unless intended, is perhaps due to the fact I was at the time the co-editor of the spirituality section (which BTW hosted regularly for years translated articles from WIE and columns by Andrew Cohen). The agreement with EnlightenNext was that if all allegations were to be found false, the article would be dropped. They were not. So, the sad truth is Cohen’s gang lied blatantly and clumsily because they thought it would prevent the preparation of the article and no one would ever read the answers. It was a both immoral and unintelligent move. The positive side of it is that it exposed a bit more about Cohen and his values.

May we all face everything and avoid nothing,
Yonatan Levy

By: carl geren

carl geren — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 04:22:52 +0000

I’m Reading most all of these posts from thoes who have a respect for this marvelous psycho, and the more i read the more disillutioned and inspired I become about life, the world, and my identy. you could say that baring and sharing your soul to all who will read is a positive outcome to all the petty BS……always looking up:)