[FairfieldLife] Andrew Cohen - Traditional vs Neo-Advaita
This explains the utter difference between Traditional Advaita and Neo-Advaita delusion. Cohen's statement is at the bottom. A Fallen Yogi Recently I received an email with a link to a web blog by a reasonably famous teacher, Andrew Cohen. He said he was stepping down so that he could work on himself and become a ‘better person.’ It was a surprising event because arrogant people invariably live in an ironclad state of denial, the better to project their emotional problems on others. In any case he is definitely a slow learner…evidently the chorus of angry voices that has followed him for twenty-seven years swelled to such a din that it became too loud to ignore. His statement will undoubtedly be seen as a courageous act of contrition, the uplifting resolve of a reprobate taking the first halting steps on the road to redemption. We wish him well and hope that he becomes the person he needs to be. The real lesson here is not his personal story but what it says about his view of enlightenment, since it was behind this view that he perpetrated so much misery. Had he been taught by a proper teacher…he was one of the first Papaji Neos…he might have actually known what enlightenment is and hundreds of people would have been spared so much heartache. Papaji, a shaktipat guru, propounded the experiential view of enlightenment. Mr. Cohen was obviously not enlightened by even the most liberal definition. What he called enlightenment was merely a ‘deep awakening,’ an epiphany that had a profound effect on his ego. It convinced him that there was something ‘more’ than his way of seeing. It convinced him wrongly, that ‘he’ was ‘enlightened.’ In fact. enlightenment, as it is popularly conceived, is not enlightenment because enlightenment is not a special experience, an ‘awakening.’ It is the hard and fast knowledge, “I am awareness, the ‘light.’ It is not something that happens because you, awareness, were never unenlightened. You are unborn and never die. Experiences are born and die. They do not change you, make you into something else. If you take yourself to be an ego, an experiencing entity, you will be apparently modified by what happens to you, spiritual or otherwise. We do not like the word ‘enlightenment’ because of its experiential connotations but if you insist on using it, enlightenment is simply shedding ignorance of one’s nature as awareness. It is not the gain of a special state or status. Any experience is only as good as the interpretation of it. If I am awareness there is no way to conclude that I am special or unique and that I have something that you don’t, because everyone and everything is awareness. The understanding I am awareness neutralizes the ego, because the ego is just a notion of specialness and uniqueness. It does not mean that the ego disappears or is transcended. It means that it is known for what it is, an idea of separateness appearing in me, awareness. We do not doubt the profundity of Mr. Cohen’s experience. We question his interpretation. Because anyone is free to define enlightenment in any way he or she chooses, he is free to call his epiphany enlightenment. However, it should be noted that most of the mischief in the spiritual world in the last thirty years from Muktananda to Osho and Adi Da right up the present…the examples of fallen gurus are too numerous to mention…can be laid squarely at the feet of the experiential view of enlightenment. What actually happened? Under the spell of apparent ignorance, the self…limitless awareness…mistook itself for an experiencing entity, an ego, had a particular type of experience known as an ‘awakening’, declared itself enlightened and imagined that it had transcended itself. It came to believe that it now inhabited a special experiential niche reserved only for the few and that said experience empowered it to enlighten others not so blessed. Evidently, in Mr. Cohen’s case his exalted status came with the companion belief that the end justifies the means, opening the door to abusive ‘teaching’. This is the story: an ordinary ego had an extraordinary experience, one that changed its idea of itself but little else. The impurities that were there before the epiphany survived…as they do…and immediately out pictured when the experience ended…with predictable results. I recall hearing many stories of abuse at Mr. Cohen’s hands over the last twenty plus years. The enlightenment scenario he envisioned, which he obviously did not critically examine, is classic duality. It amounts to splitting the ego into a transcendental self and a self to be transcended. To make this idea work, the ego needs to be in a state of complete denial. It must imagine that the non-transcendent part of itself doesn’t exist. It didn’t exist for him but sadly it existed for everyone else. To keep the myth of transcendence alive, he was forced to lay the problem at the feet
Re: [FairfieldLife] Andrew Cohen - Traditional vs Neo-Advaita
Spiritual techniques are like learning chords on a guitar. Once you've learned them you can do all kinds of things with them. But it's still just a technique. Of course there is "remains of ignorance" or samskaras with with enlightened people. I once had an employee who told me he had no ego and I replied "should I be contacting your next of kin?" On 01/02/2016 07:16 AM, emptyb...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: This explains the utter difference between Traditional Advaita and Neo-Advaita delusion. Cohen's statement is at the bottom. *A Fallen Yogi* ** Recently I received an email with a link to a web blog by a reasonably famous teacher, Andrew Cohen. He said he was stepping down so that he could work on himself and become a ‘better person.’ It was a surprising event because arrogant people invariably live in an ironclad state of denial, the better to project their emotional problems on others. In any case he is definitely a slow learner…evidently the chorus of angry voices that has followed him for twenty-seven years swelled to such a din that it became too loud to ignore. His statement will undoubtedly be seen as a courageous act of contrition, the uplifting resolve of a reprobate taking the first halting steps on the road to redemption. We wish him well and hope that he becomes the person he needs to be. The real lesson here is not his personal story but what it says about his view of enlightenment, since it was behind this view that he perpetrated so much misery. Had he been taught by a proper teacher…he was one of the first Papaji Neos…he might have actually known what enlightenment is and hundreds of people would have been spared so much heartache. Papaji, a /shaktipat /guru, propounded the experientialview of enlightenment. Mr. Cohen was obviously not enlightened by even the most liberal definition. What he called enlightenment was merely a ‘deep awakening,’ an epiphany that had a profound effect on his ego. It convinced him that there was something ‘more’ than his way of seeing. It convinced him wrongly, that ‘he’ was ‘enlightened.’ In fact. enlightenment, as it is popularly conceived, is not enlightenment because enlightenment is not a special experience, an ‘awakening.’ It is the hard and fast knowledge, “I am awareness, the ‘light.’ It is not something that happens because you, awareness, were never unenlightened. You are unborn and never die. Experiences are born and die. They do not change you, make you into something else. If you take yourself to be an ego, an experiencing entity, you will be apparently modified by what happens to you, spiritual or otherwise. We do not like the word ‘enlightenment’ because of its experiential connotations but if you insist on using it, enlightenment is simply shedding ignorance of one’s nature as awareness. It is not the gain of a special state or status. Any experience is only as good as the interpretation of it. If I am awareness there is no way to conclude that I am special or unique and that I have something that you don’t, because everyone and everything is awareness. The understanding I am awareness neutralizes the ego, because the ego is just a notion of specialness and uniqueness. It does not mean that the ego disappears or is transcended. It means that it is known for what it is, an idea of separateness appearing in me, awareness. We do not doubt the profundity of Mr. Cohen’s experience. We question his interpretation. Because anyone is free to define enlightenment in any way he or she chooses, he is free to call his epiphany enlightenment. However, it should be noted that most of the mischief in the spiritual world in the last thirty years from Muktananda to Osho and Adi Da right up the present…the examples of fallen gurus are too numerous to mention…can be laid squarely at the feet of the experiential view of enlightenment. What actually happened? Under the spell of apparent ignorance, the self…limitless awareness…mistook itself for an experiencing entity, an ego, had a particular type of experience known as an ‘awakening’, declared itself enlightened and imagined that it had transcended itself. It came to believe that it now inhabited a special experiential niche reserved only for the few and that said experience empowered it to enlighten others not so blessed. Evidently, in Mr. Cohen’s case his exalted status came with the companion belief that the end justifies the means, opening the door to abusive ‘teaching’. This is the story: an ordinary ego had an extraordinary experience, one that changed its idea of itself but little else. The impurities that were there before the epiphany survived…as they do…and immediately out pictured when the experience ended…with predictable results. I recall hearing many stories of abuse at Mr. Cohen’s hands over the last twenty plus years. The enlightenment scenario he envisioned, which he obviously did not
