LETS GET REAL

I’ll probably be excommunicated from this Zaadz for this but is the publisher of WIE and founder of EnlightenNext the person described in these blogs? What is really going on here? I love all the platitudes & happy talk but if people are really being victimized then what?
http://essentialwhatenlightenment.blogspot.com
http://whatenlightenment.blogspot.com/
Thoughts?
Thanks
Tim

     permalink

Re: LETS GET REAL

AC is a Bad Boy. 

Some people really pay the big bucks for him to do that shit to them.  Seriously.  He's well known. 

And there is some real tradition behind the abusive forms of teaching.  In America and the “enlightened” West we mostly really frown on that, but in other places and times, this was the good stuff.  We are really excessively individualistic and not familiar with the forms of power relationships that are the daily diet for the rest of the world.

I think it would just be good if the Buyer was Aware before they wrote the check.  After that, they're on their own.  Like having surgery or taking major prescription meds: if you read the warnings and you still do it, you share culpability. 

—oOo—

Having said all that, I don't want him anywhere near me either.  I'm finding better success without energizing and fortifying the part of me that is afraid or hurt or resists.  Personally, I cannot understand how it would benefit him to do it that way.  It would seem to me that over-inflating the stubborn identity so that it cannot do anything BUT push against him is a complete waste of everyone's time, energy, money, life, etc.  I don't get it.  I really don't.  I just shake my head and keep my distance.

~Ww

     permalink

Re: LETS GET REAL

Thanks Ww
I attended 5 hr seminar yesterday billed as an Ego discussion but got a bad feeling that would not go away about 3/4 of the way through. I guess this is a good lesson in intuition & trusting my gut after your comments & these blog sites.
Thanks again
Tim

     permalink

Re: LETS GET REAL

I went to the same seminar and thought it was an amazing look into the Ego…the only obstacle in the truly spiritual quest.  I have spoken to a number of people that were there and they really responded positively to the event and the topic. 

I can tell you that in the past I've often seen my own ego respond after a positive experience.  What I found was helpful was along these lines: Don't doubt the positive experience, but doubt the doubt.

Brian

     permalink

Re: LETS GET REAL

Thanks, Brian.  This too is needed.

I am really innerested in AC's ideas and adventures of Evolutionary Enlightenment so I'm gonna stick around and keep learning.  I know there are plenty of people who have good experiences, so I like to hang out and mooch off them. 

But methinks both the doubt and the trust are totally legitimate ego experiences.  It's all part of the human experience.  It's all valid.  And in the end, it's all gotta go.

~Ww

     permalink

Cohen: A Visionary

(I'm trying to post a longer reply than is permitted, so my post continues with further replies below.)

Tim and Whitewave, I really appreciate your courage and willingness to bring these issues to light.   Before I start commenting, I should say I've read very little of Cohen's work.  I've only heard from some friends about him (mostly all great stuff), read some good articles by him and also read the disturbing critiques linked from Tim's post.

You could say I'm in the business of conscious evolution–literally in the busine$$ of it–and this is probably evidence of bias in my comments.  Still, while I’ve written a very lengthy, somewhat biased and somewhat ignorant (as I barely know of Cohen), I believe it’s a worthwhile read.

I really like the spirit of what Andrew writes and his level of commitment to positive change.  I also acknowledge the level of courage and love it must take for him to keep standing for what he is standing for in a world so generally opposed to and critical of him.  The toughest thing, for him I am sure, is dealing with the criticism and rejection of those who have most understood him and chosen to join him in accomplishing his mission.  Ultimately, anyone who is so committed will evolve their teachings and practices to align more and more with what works.

Any resistance by him to evolving his methods when he witnesses unintended consequences, if we are to give him the benefit of the doubt, is probably more due the limits of his paradigm–not a default in his character.  My guess is that he has seen his methods work, more often than not, and better than other methods.

One question I'd like to raise is about the objective of his methods.  One's paradigm will shape definition of the objective, th problem and the direction of the solution.  It will shape what you define as “what works.”

If, inside his paradigm, conscious evolution or enlightenment (or whatever he'd say the objective is), requires the total crushing, transcending or eclipsing of the ego (as he defines it), and any resistance to such crushing, transcending or eclipsing is a sign of ego, then perhaps he sees the quickest path to CE/E is head on confrontation–even at the expense of a person's emotions or at the risk of them turning away and becoming psychologically damaged for the rest of their lives.  If the stakes for humanity and our successful evolution are seen by him to be extremely high (for example, if millions of us are dying or suffering unnecessarily), then he may deem such dramatic actions and risks to be worth it.

Perhaps, in his eyes, it is not just that the end justifies the means–but that the means is required for the ends.  This could be said of so many of us in today's world —even those of us who are “enlightened” or have visionary ideas.  We are often thinking/acting/speaking/teaching using Positionary strategies. 

     permalink

Cohen: A Visionary 2

(continued)

Those of us with a Positionary consciousness or paradigm share a fundamental set of assumptions that could loosely be summarized in this way:  there is one Truth or right way of viewing reality and my job is to 1) find it, 2) defend it (often at all costs) and 3) promote it (again, often at all costs.  After all, if you do have The Truth or The Way, and all others are lost or unenlightened (and quite often “evil”), then it's not hard to justify the most inhumane of actions–including war and terror (and I am decrying neither of those strategies–my point is about the extent to which the ends can seem to justify the positionary's means.).  Also, with a One True paradigm, your ability to see alternative viable solution options is limited and so a solution can often appear to be The Only Solution.

Perhaps, though, Cohen is less of a positionary, and is simply someone standing for something–and is willing to honestly confront and question his thinking and his methods.  (But he may have made this more difficult, i.e., made his own evolution more difficult, if he has as some say, surrounded himself by those who simply believe and obey; and if he is enforcing such faith obedience to the extremes reported in the alleged cases.  In such situations all dissenters and independent thinkers get crushed or dismissed.  In this case, perhaps all who resist his teachings and methods are thinking and acting from “ego,” and can thus be easily dismissed.).

I am trying here not to assume too much about Cohen as I really don't know him and am not that familiar with his work.  Still, I think the issue of how we each relate to our personal development–or conscious evolution–or enlightenment, and what methods we are willing to employ or tolerate in regards to a belief system, path or guru beg examination.

There is an assumption (often hidden) in most positionary thinkers that we can force or impose our idea of what is good or right on others–and that this is a worthwhile undertaking.  If what is good is right action, and right action is X in Cohen's (or any of our) eyes, then we can easily find ourselves in a situation where we are leading people to value

1) obedience (being true to an authority's guidance) over integrity (being true to our own highest guidance),
2) blind faith (in authority's guidance) over honest introspection and questioning (looking within to our own higher guidance),
3) the authority's vision over our own vision.
4) the courage to follow blindly over the courage to act on one's own highest inner guidance

5) …

Is this not incredibly dangerous if what we want are conscious beings who are willing to face everything and avoid nothing and act courageously on what we see/think?

Could we not be killing the goose (the individual's heroic human spirit and his/her visionary capacities) to get the golden eggs of “right” action or “progress” towards our idea of utopia or heaven?

While we can enforce compliance in the short term, can we really force a person's mind or conscience?  (Victor Frankl and most of those who rise above extreme duress or suffering would likely say that while others can force our actions, they cannot force our thinking.)

Is it always “ego” in a negative sense that resists giving up our own mind, thinking and conscience to another?  Is it always an irrational fear and irrational selfishness that resists surrendering to another's guidance? 

Do we not all have the potential to be courageous conscious beings who guide ourselves with honesty and our own consciousness, conscience and vision?  Or must we surrender to a guru to obtain enlightenment?  (I am not decrying this path, only asking is it The path, and what are the limitations in such a path.)

Yes, most of us have seen incredible results by becoming conscious of the ways in which we avoid facing reality and cling to beliefs/positions that keep us psychologically comfortable.  We've come to have a healthy distrust of much of our own automatic/reactionary “thinking.”

Personally, I think that the ways in which we've come to guide ourselves irrationally, dualistically, self-destructively and “positionally” are more a result of our training and conditioning by mostly well meaning authorities to be “good” or to have our actions look “right” than they are an inherent weakness in human nature.  In their desire to get us producing golden (in their eyes) eggs, authorities have often killed the heroic human spirit and the independent thinking qualities of the potentially visionary goose.

The result is human geese who don't trust ourselves, don't naturally face ourselves and reality, and live lives unconsciously–seeking to appear as good and produce whatever color eggs we've chosen to call golden.

In a society that is so staunchly individualistic, I am a proud defender of the individual and one's own consciousness.  Personally, I do not think that most people, in the West especially, are going to evolve beyond their positionary consciousness by methods that employ more guilt, fear and shame–or surrendering or their minds–even if they are asking for it and paying for it.

Instruction methods that employ guilt and fear dynamics imposed by the authority (or the majority) tend to have the effects of increasing self-dishonesty and cowardice with respect to one's own inner guidance.  So intent do we become on looking good to the authority and what the authority thinks of us, that we look less and less within.  This results in the opposite of what our ultimate objectives are, no?  We become more conscious of what the authority thinks and we come to distrust ourselves more and more. 

Left more and more without our own vision, we become ever more the positionary–relying on what our chosen authority has proclaimed to be Right and True–and relying on his/her position and vision.  And ever more fearful do we become of facing the idea that we may have sold our minds and souls–or more, we've paid others to take them.

At this point, I wish to state again, this is less a critique on Cohen, as I am not that familiar with him, and more a defense of the human spirit in all of us–and a challenge to inquire into our methods as change agents and conscious beings.

Personally, I do not think that humanity will consciously evolve very far by finding, following and promoting the Right or True path or guru, as that just means switching from one position to another. 

In fact, in the West, I think that in general a much more efficient and effective approach to conscious evolution will be one that is

1a) free from more of the same guilt, shame and fear with which we've been brought up to be good;
1b) is more focused on developing our natural capacities for consciousness, honesty, vision, etc., rather than suppressing or punishing “wrong” thoughts or actions;
2a) does not lump all or most of human thinking together in the ego box, and call it bad, wrong, unenlightened, inauthentic or whatever;
2b) emphasizes, encourages and develops the powerful aspects of human nature and individual consciousness;
3a) does not in practice value the authority's version of Right action over the individual's capacity to consciously guide one's self to freely choose right action;
3b) values the individual's natural capacity (the goose) to consciously guide one's self over what that “authority” deems to be “right action,
4) trains us less for “goodness,” and instead encourages our natural greatness—our willingness to risk even the esteem of moral authorities and compatriots to stand for what matters most  (distinction part 1, distinction part 2)

Our great social, economic and technological advancements have highlighted the lack of sufficient advancements within.  In other words these technological advancements, while highlighting our intellectual strength, have shined a brighter light on our emotional/psychological/ethical weaknesses.

It's obvious to all of us that the world needs to change (and now!).  We must deal with the new problems posed by having so much technology to destroy ourselves and each other–yet insufficient solutions for guiding ourselves not to do so—and to instead harness our incredible intellectual strength to create a world that works for all of us.

Some of us see the basic problem being human nature itself, and we can divide these into 2 distinctly different camps.  Rather than using any popular terms to classify the 2 types, which can shortcut new thinking, I'll describe them.

1) Some of us have become so distrusting of traditional institutions of morality and our tendency to follow them that we've opted for eastern, New Age, or any of numerous other alternative paths for self-guidance.  We've come to define the problem as ego in general (which often is assumed to be all of our default ways of thinking and being).  But while we've chosen some promising new directions that are giving us some great results, we're largely still relating to them with Positionary thinking.  Thus many of us have simply replaced our old Truths or Paths with new ones.  (This is often the case even if we as individuals have become the new authority!  We may have replaced a prepackaged belief system or position with a self-created one that we then relate to as the answer or Truth for us.)

2) Others of us consider these new non-traditional paths (or any traditional path other than our own) to be the source of society's ills and have taken the path to more fundamentalism of one sort or another.  We've become more hardcore Christian or Muslim (insert your flavor of belief) and more willing to force our views on the non-believers.

Both of the above camps take different positions, yet what’s interesting is how they both largely see the problem as an inherent limitation of human nature–that we are by nature somehow bad, wrong, incapable.  And while the first camp is less apt to advocate military force to affect their notion of positive change, they're still often quite apt to use political force as a primary means to defeat the opposition.   Both primarily employ positionary, rather than what I'd call visionary, thinking.

While the first camp is more likely than the other to become (and stay) a zaadzster, in general I see most zaadzsters having (and coming to have) much more of a visionary, rather than positionary, approach to life and to change.

What separates a positionary from a visionary is not the content of one's values or beliefs, but one's relationship to one's values and beliefs.  The visionary is much more open to honest introspection and personal evolution, and thus has more power to BE the change and thus inspire even his/her adversaries to rise above their position and to align on shared values.

It's worth noting that many if not most people who see the fundamental problems in our world today as a fault of human nature are also Positionaries.

     permalink

Cohen: A Visionary 3

(having problems pasting here… contiued from part 2 of post)

Why?  In large part I'd say that such people agree that the individual is not to be trusted, and we need, rather, to follow some variety of authority or guru who has powers we don't (whether that is a politician, a religious authority, an eastern guru, a scientific genius, a visionary philosopher, or some other elite person).

We can also subdivide the above two camps in the following interesting way.  Being as they share the assumption that human beings in large part are not to be trusted, they tend to define the problem in part as the individual having too much freedom and power (i.e., we’re bad by nature, so don’t give us too many weapons, tools, education, freedom, rights, whatever). 

So, a big part of the solution, then, is to limit an individual's freedom and power.  Conservatives tend to do it by using political force to limit an individual's freedom and power over his/her own personal life and choices, and liberals tend to do it by using political force to limit an individual's freedom and power over his/her own financial life and choices.  Generally, group 1 are liberal and group 2 are conservative.

Individuals in either camp courageously take stands to affect positive change in our world.  The major problem we face, as I see it, comes with how the individual relates to his/her values, beliefs and position.  To the extent that we operate as positionaries (the less courageous path), we invoke greater resistance and opPosition from the other sides–and less support from those anti-positionary visionaries who might otherwise join our cause.

The great challenge I see we face going forward is not which Position to force on humanity, but how to free and empower each of us to be Visionaries and engage our unique human capacity to utilize honesty, courage, love, compassion and vision to guide ourselves as visionaries, and to inspire the same self-guidance in others.

Our challenge is, as I see it, evolving from a Positionary Consciousness to a Visionary Consciousness–from a Goodness Consiousness to a Greatness Consciousness.  This is how I personally have defined the problem, and this is the direction I personally am looking in for new tools with VisionForce.  (A free course on some of the relevant distinctions is here.)

How does all this relate to the topic at hand–to Andrew Cohen and his organization? 

First, I trust that fundamentally, he is a human being who has committed himself so greatly to being the change he seeks in the world, that he is open to evolving his methods as he simply discovers more and more of what works to end human suffering and create a world that works for everyone.  As much as he has been courageously walking his own path, challenging the comfortable notion that enlightenment is something far less than a courageous alignment with being the change, he's a visionary… and he's aided far more people in being the change than he's hurt (and such hurt was likely a conscious risk of those who got involved, and something he’ll find a way to avoid in the future.).

Second, I believe the responsibility lies with the individual to defend his/her spirit and power/freedom to guide himself/herself.  Thus, one can extract great value from any of Cohen's concepts or practices without becoming a true believer or surrendering one's power.

Third, I support Zaadz's relationship with him, as he is as we all at zaadz are, sticking his neck out and risking the criticism of the world to BE the change he seeks and to inspire others to do so. 

Fourth, I am glad Zaadz is an open forum for critical thinking and a conversation such as this, and I'm excited to be around so many courageous change agents.

(finally finished with the daitribe… deep inhale… long exhale… aaaaaaah  ;) thanks for reading this far!)

     permalink

Re: Cohen: A Visionary 3

LOL

I can't tell you how relieved I am to find out that I'm not the longest poster anymore!!  LOL

Love to all.

~Ww

     permalink

Re: Cohen: A Visionary 2

Righto, dissent, yeah.

Yeah, the One Truth and the goon squad or …  space-monkeys …  oh, that's below the belt.  Sorry.  LOL 
[I love my inner Agressor.  I love my inner Agressor.  She doesn't have to take over out of fear.  She is welcomed in my world.  I love my inner Agressor…]  LOL  I'm such a freak.

“I think the issue of how we each relate to our personal development–or conscious evolution–or enlightenment, and what methods we are willing to employ or tolerate in regards to a belief system, path or guru beg examination.”

Yes.  Our relationship to our One Truth.  I am likely to “nullify the Good” if I enforce it:

“Is this not incredibly dangerous if what we want are conscious beings who are willing to face everything and avoid nothing and act courageously on what we see/think?”

…but also to our relationship to our relationship to it - or to our development which holds that Truth or if I believe that enforcing it is the Only Way.  I might nullify the Good, but then it's also possible that this might be what works for this or that person.  Is it really up to me to judge what works for them?  If I feel offended or sad about it, am I not judging in some way? 

But then, how do we honor or “do justice to” the pain of those who really were damaged at the same time?  Can we have a relationship to our relationship to the Good that can allow that much flexibility? 

Or maybe a better question - will others allow us to have that relationship?  Shared “we-space” is often cluttered with contractions that make this impossible.  How do we deal with that?

     permalink

Re: Cohen: A Visionary pt 1

Michael,

Cool post(s).  Good point about the paradigm thing.  When you're in that box, nothing exists outside the box and that's final.  Your plausibility structure is only big and complex enough to handle what's inside the box.  Anything else is necessarily a threat.  And if your particular paradigm requires you to re-frame and reinterpret outside things from a “threat” to a “hindrance” or “resistance” and forbids the sensation of being threatened, then that plausibility structure is necessarily going to prevent any integration of new truth, but with a smile and a hug.  Preventing integration is what plausibility structures do.  That's their job.

And it seems probable that he would interpret and frame that prevention as “courage and love”.

Did you listen to the commentary track on the Matrix dvd's with KW and Cornel West?  KW points out that Smith is not actually “evil”, but that he is the disowned portions of Spirit forcing their way back into the plausibility structure of Neo and the humans.  (Yeah, I'm using my terms to summarize his point so there's consistency)  If we take that as one of the Truths so artfully tucked into that film, then we have to admit that framing and interpreting AC's opposition as “criticism and rejection” is not likely to bring about the defeat of such opposition - but rather inflame and strengthen it.

“THIS IS MY WORLD, MY WORLD!!”
~Agent Smith

It really doesn't matter which interpretation is plugged into the space.  Positive or negative.  Pro or con.  Yay or nay.  They are all dualistic and doomed to be dissolved in the end.  So, assuming this is true, how do we then proceed?

…???…

     permalink

Re: LETS GET REAL

Hey. just came into this discussion and read Tim's experience of the Chicago evol. enlightenment (ala Cohen) seminar. Now just saw Brian's positive spin on the same event, except I checked on Brian's bio page and he's actually one of the promoters of Cohen's Chicago courses. Brian, I can appreciate your enthusiasm for defending this seminar and all, but it'd be cool to let us in this discussion know you're involvent with it - otherwise everything you say looks a bit suspect, wouldn't ya say?

     permalink

Re: LETS GET REAL

Hi, Scott. 

Truth is a bitch.  And Truth be told, it can be said that the guys who are close to AC and EE and all that (Brian, Paul or aka Kosmonaut an Alain) are actually uniqely qualified to attest to Cohen's value BECAUSE they are close to him - as long as they are being as honest as they can be at this present time. 

On the other hand, a self described “innocent skeptic”'s  testimony can be called “a bit suspect” because the agenda of a skeptic is to intentionally doubt what the experts say.  Intentional doubt may sound like a good way to begin high quality inqiry, but it doesn't solve all problems of non-truth. 

For instance, the non-truth of forcing doubt simply because it has been handed to us by an organization or tradition - doubting the believer.  What if they're right?  Can that intentional doubt get close to the truth, in that case?  No.  It actually drags us further away. 

Epistemology is a beautiful thing - living and growing and changing over time.  One of the greatest gifts to the growth of epistemology has been the doubt of the doubter.  For those who cannot make the jump, it seems to threaten the very existance of truth itself.  But there are deeper truths which it reveals and which we must learn from.  Patterns form there.  The process of objectifying and enlightenment can really help to excavate some great stuff out of that.  And we have to incorporate it. 

~Ww

     permalink

Re: LETS GET REAL

Whitewave thanks for the reply. except I have to say, you completely lost me! or maybe you just blew my mind?????? anyway, thanks.

     permalink

Re: LETS GET REAL

And another thing…

Would it be possible to try an experiment here:

Instead of everyone merely getting really triggered and worked up over this topic, how about if we just observe ourselves getting really worked up over it instead, and pass on all the miles and miles of text.  Really, there are tons of better things to do with our energy, yes?

~Ww

     permalink

Re: LETS GET REAL

Hm… 

I feel the need to clarify this even further.  Because this has traction in me.  Obviously.  I am still not fully cooked. 

The second link that you listed, Tim, brings up a good point.  (I only skimmed them, because I've seen and read so much of this already.)  The issue of being Incomplete or Intermediate is important. 

“…the way that the Intermediate zone works is through a sort of psychological contagion.”

This is important.  While I've tried and tried to look at this from as “skillful means” a perspective as I can (not very, actually, cuz I'm still pretty attatched) I still cannot come up with any scenario where this method would be beneficial - except in one way.  Because he is known to be this way, those who have issues around abuse will naturally self-select themselves to be with him.  Logically, this means that those who get really charged up on this issue while still blind to their charge (because they have not removed their awareness out of it yet, but are still trapped inside the persona as identifying with it subjectively) will come to him.  These, so he says, are the people he wants to deal with.  He's intent on breaking the strangle-hold of the mean green meme.  The I'm-so-spiritual-because-I'm-loving-and-peaceful-and-reject-power-structures type of identification because that identity is so subtlely close to True Authenticity in appearance, but really isn't.  It's still an ego-identity.  It's still a cage and limits our choices.  Believe me, I'm still very identified with this identity quite often, so for me to be aware of it enough to talk about it in the 3rd person is a HUGE step.  1-2-3

In issue #33, June-August, he is talking with Wilber and they come to agreement about Shadow.  The enlarged insert from Wilber nutshells it thus:

“Gestalt therapy will tell you to identify with your anger, Zen will tell you to disidentify with it.  So what should you do?”

Great!  Andrew is on the same page here:

“Yes, I wholeheartedly agree.  And to be honest, I've found that in the end, truly owning one's shadow, or being willing to face oneself unconditionally, radically and ongoingly, seems to be not only more challenging but ultimately more significant in transformative process than assuming a meditative posture.  I work with this shadow dimension in the context of evolutionary enlightenment, which is in some ways different from working with the shadow in a therapeutic context.  In this context, the shadow is seen as one manifestaion of ego, and the reason that it is so essential to heroically endeavor to take responsibility for all of it is so that our actions will be able to manifest a clear expression of a truly enlightened intention in this world.  I'm talking about a repeated demonstration of spontaneous integration and wholeness of intention and action, week to week, month to month, year to year, in such a way that we can unequivocally say: 'This individual is awake.'  The whole point is that unless the individual is willing to own their own shadow, they are going to continue acting out all of those repressed impulses and continue creating karma, which means acting out of ignorance and unconsciousness in ways that cause suffering to others.  And the whole definition of enlightenment is that, at least ideally, we are supposed to become so conscious, so awake, that we don't create karma anymore.  Until an individual can at least own a significant portion of their own shadow, they can't possibly take responsibility for themselves and become a truly autonomous, enlightened, integrated self who can really take on the evolutionary process.”

Wilber:  “That's for sure!”

GREAT!  So far, so good!

However!  What Kazlev describes as “psychological contagion” is what Andrew is describing as karma, here.  Andrew continues:

“Honestly, when you look at the kind of spiritual energy and passion that an individual would need to own all these different parts of the self, to truly endeavor to take responsibility for them and then to transcend them - this is a rare soul.  In terms of the real love for God necessary to truly become whole, it has to be said that it's a rare individual who cares that much, would be willing to do that.  In the end I really believe that in fact it is only those who awaken to a larger purpose, a purpose bigger than their own wholeness, salvation, or even enlightenment, who will actually find the energy and the resources to begin to own these darker and more unconscious parts of themselves and really change in ways that make all the difference in the world.”

Wilber:  “Rare indeed. Thank you, my friend.”

Wow, can I get on board with that!  Man!  In fact, I get quite a charge out of that kind of intention.  In fact, I've dedicated my presence here at zaadz to do EXACTLY THAT KIND OF WORK!! 

But look what is happening here.  This is the actual place we need to “get real”.  While his mouth is paying tribute to Universal Care, he is in fact displaying an intent and attempt to expand his Circle of Care to embrace more than himself by doing Shadow work, but it is still, very probably, still only at the self level.  This is evidenced by the wording ”will actually find the energy and the resources”.  This is what I call, “charge”.  And that charge often comes from Shadow.  Ironically, it is totally possible to want to do Shadow Work FROM A SHADOWED PLACE!  I should know.  I do it!

I have very selfish reasons to do Shadow Work and the fact that the end result is of benefit to the rest of the world is icing on the cake!  But if I do not look objectively at my self-serving reasons for doing it, I will continue to generate karma, and make other people sick with my “psychological contagion” because they will not be challenged to look at that part of themselves either.  Those who hide from themselves will attract others who hide in the same way, and they will all remain unseen - together.  As the Incomplete Teacher he doesn't yet have the means to show students their own Shadowed reasons for their seeming selflessness, and so he battles on with this Monster which seems to chase him everywhere he goes.  Even for him, this last identity is the last to go.

Every time I read the Guru/Pandit articles, I get the distinct feeling that Ken is looking right at him, but won't speak about what he sees.  And if Ken's not talking, there must be a reason. 

Either its all just for show and this contagion is the best way possible for American Individualists to get drawn upward, or it's truly, still unconscious and he's acting out. 

I can't imagine any other explanations.

     permalink

Re: LETS GET REAL

I read those links and was disturbed and saddened. I enjoy the inquiry and open exchange found in WIE, while never having been drawn to Andrew Cohen, much of what I read of his teachings resonate (but not all). I admire Ken Wilbur's perspective and recognize that he knows from experience of what he speaks. But the teachers and teachings that reach me most deeply are those that teach love and compassion. Like the words of Christ. Like the Bodhisattva vow.

In the presence of one who teaches this, that presence alone is terrifying, the light itself lays us bare. There is no need of the “bad boy or bad girl” teacher. Demeaning peoples' egos is misguided, it doesn't create wholeness, rather illness, sadness, not freedom, but pain. The lighted one's lay us bare with love. No more is needed.

My idealist nature wants to see a spiritual teacher as enlightened, completely. I am beginning to see that all who are “enlightened” may be in some intermediate zone (and is someone who professes enlightenment, enlightened? isn't there a hubris in this that would negate that as true?)

In the spirit of compassion I am learning to accept my ego and my humanness, and extend that generosity to others.  The sword of enlightenment, that separates our “true self” from ego, that is figurative, and is a means by which the dualistic mind perceives, before realizing emptiness.  In realization/enlightenment one sees no distinction, there is no ego, and nothing needs to be done, there is no path, there is no enlightenment!

But this is my kindest assessment. If indeed, there are manipulations of other's loyalty, affection, and punishments and extraction of money using the aspiration for spirit as leverage, there is not even ignorance in that, just selfish, self serving cruelty. Just pain done to others for self serving reasons. It is really hard to see that behavior coming from the same person who speaks with wisdom at other times. If this is true, then my mind is blown away from more misconceptions about the possible in human nature. Can the Shadow be so huge as to create night and day in the same person?

     permalink

Re: LETS GET REAL

I'm wondering if there are at least two kinds of students represented here (prolly more).

One kind responds to compassionate embrace by melting themself in order to allow removal of dross and shaping by the hand of a Love that is bigger than their own and until then, unknown to them.

The other kind responds by infating an ego driven need to be thought of as spiritual and selfless and is literally unable to see the difference. 

I 'spect this is so.  Tamara, I think you and I are both of the first sort.  The burning love you speak of is effective enough for me to get me to that place of submission.  I don't need to get into a fight about it.  Shrinks or Spiritual teachers who try to start something with me get precisely nowhere.  And those who refuse to witness their fight so we can get to a more productive place - for me anyway - get cut off quickly.  Anyone who is reading things in this pod as they come up have seen me do it very recently.  Fighting only inflames my ego driven need to be a victim.  Honestly, I have no need to keep feeding that.  I'm ready to let it go.  And if I'm not, then I'm not yet aware of that - and so need more light, not heat.  I'm ready for light.  I seek it out.  I shine as much of my own as I can into my Shadow, and try to stay alert when I'm getting negative mirroring.  Which parts are really true, which parts are my own retroflection or their projection?  Sorting that out is hard.  But I try.  Only the rare person is ready to help me do that while the shit is actually hitting the fan, so most of the time I have to withdraw from the conflict to get my ego to chill enough to lay down.  But it does.

However!

How can the second type of student be helped?  If they pay someone like Andrew to essentially be a hit-man for their own ego, how do you create and hold a space for that without violating normal, American or Western, mod or postmod ideas of what is just and respectful conduct?  And as anonymous mentioned, over at that first link, when the teacher is not done cookin' yet either (who is, really?) how do you have a fruitful interchange without it triggering this kind of warfare?  Is that even possible?  Surely these guys must be open to the possibility that their victim ego identification cannot help but be inflamed by this!  How can you get free of that when you have to fight a war?  And even if the Teacher is free of that in the begining, as anonymous mentiond also, how easy it is to get drunk on the smell of ego blood and end up feeding the abuser part of the ego!  What if he is actually conscious of this and still working on it?  Who of us is willing to give him the benefit of that doubt?  Power is scary shit!  Most of all to the inner I of the powerful!

This inquiry needs to move beyond the simplistic polarity of abuser vs. victim.  If there is a line between openly negotiated and contracted ego-killing and unlawful abuse, where is it?  And what is the realistic response when the line is crossed?  If the problem cannot be solved at this level, where is the higher level where the solution resides?  What does that really look like?

~Ww

     permalink

Re: LETS GET REAL

If you have no need, to feed the victim part of you. Then don't do it here either. Even by talking about it, you automatically are asking for compassion from others, enforcing that very victim part. Even if you do it without being aware of it, that is exaclty what troubles you. If you are not aware of the things you are doing, you are not yet ready to let it go. Find out, how your victim side sounds to others, find out why you have it. Find out what its innitial use even ever was. Even the first student you describe, needs to melt themselves, and none can do it for them. And cherrish the little shadow you still have. Even so, make it half dark, half light. You will need both, to fully understand the difference, and therefore the use.
The Ego, as you so aptly call it in ”how easy it is to get drunk on the smell of ego blood and end up feeding the abuser part of the ego!” Look closer, the only reason why people begin these 'wars'is because they are afraid. Afraid of failure, afraid loneliness, afraid of loss, afraid of disrespect, and afraid of what they do not understand. Give the regular ego a break, most of them are alwas afraid. It takes a master not to be afraid. It takes time, effort, and respect to discover, the why's of failure, loneliness, loss and disrespect. They all have good reasons.

Power is great, but as an old Parkour saying says: Power is nothing without control!

The higher level is, not needing to ask those questions. It is looking better, at what there is already, and how 'bad' your world really is looking. When selfishness, nor fear are part, of your nescesities for survival.

I wish you lots of luck!

     permalink

Re: LETS GET REAL

“If you have no need, to feed the victim part of you. Then don't do it here either.”

Instead of coming at me in a prohibitive or punitive way, perhaps just letting me know that I'm doing it right now would be more helpful.  Decency is appreciated.

“Even if you do it without being aware of it, that is exaclty what troubles you. If you are not aware of the things you are doing, you are not yet ready to let it go. Find out, how your victim side sounds to others, find out why you have it. Find out what its innitial use even ever was.”

Exactly.  Yeah, I am doing it.  So, I get to see that because of your mirroring help, thank you.  And you can feel me asking for compassion.  That's great.  And it sounds like you see that as an expression of a Victim identification, but it's actually a Hungry Child identification.  I am more and more aware of this recently.  While I don't need to feed the Hurt Child, I still have to figure out how to protect her.  And while I do have to figure out how to feed the Hungry Child, one of those ways is not to use the Hurt Child as bait to catch prey.  So, you've been very helpful. 

And powerful.

My turn.

So, how did you feel when you gave me this command, “Then don't do it here either.”  Who is speaking to me here?  And to whom are they really speaking?

These deep inner beings are part of the healthy psyche, and like Tamara is saying, as loving and compassionate embrace and love draws them into the light of awareness, they lose their oppressive desperation, the charge decreases and they become easyer to let go. 

“My vision of a healthy approach, a good teacher, is one who you can practice with, who's presence itself creates a field you can enter, and enter into direct experience of expanded states. There is fire in that presence, and that light exposes your shadows. The pain of seeing those shadows, and the love required from both teacher and student, for themselves that is required to grow through this exposure, and the trust in the process and patience, this is what I would wish for.”

The forceful and pushing energy that comes from Shadowed and unconscious negative mirroring feeds the dualism.  Inflates it.  Making it easyer for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than to get that ego to lay down it's life. 

“Even the first student you describe, needs to melt themselves, and none can do it for them.”

Did you mean the “second student”, because I already said that.  And that would be a good point.  Does all that pushing and shoving really convince people to melt themselves?  I'm not being sarcastic, I'm really, actually confused.  If that is the only way for some people, then I guess it has to be done.  But I just have a hard time believing it.  I can't relate.

“And cherrish the little shadow you still have. Even so, make it half dark, half light. You will need both, to fully understand the difference, and therefore the use.”

I fully agree.  I do cherish it.  And I try not to abuse it.  And even my Shadowed inner Abuser needs to be cherished because like you said,

“the only reason why people begin these 'wars'is because they are afraid. Afraid of failure, afraid loneliness, afraid of loss, afraid of disrespect, and afraid of what they do not understand.”

So, the only way I'm gonna decrease the amount of karma or psychological contagion is to love that Terrified Child and become worthy of her trust.  I have not neglected to “look closer”.  I've clearly demonstrated my closer inspection here:

” What if he is actually conscious of this and still working on it?  Who of us is willing to give him the benefit of that doubt?”

What makes you think I have?  Who is speaking to me there?  And who does that person really think they're talking to?

“Give the regular ego a break, most of them are alwas afraid. It takes a master not to be afraid.”

Fear has a powerful charge.  The more Shadowed it is, the more destructive it can be.  Giving Fear a break is at the top of my list of things to do right now, believe it or not.  But I don't think it is realistic to have no fear at all.  Fear helps us live morally in the world.  Not just fear of punishment, but fear of our own destructive power - both coming and going.  That's healthy fear. 

“The higher level is, not needing to ask those questions. It is looking better, at what there is already, and how 'bad' your world really is looking. When selfishness, nor fear are part, of your nescesities for survival.”

There's something about that that is right.  Doing “The Work” at this can seem like a solution because the charge on everything effectively drops down to zero.  But if you'll notice on page 24 of the latest WIE? issue, even attempting to completely eradicate all traction like that is a violent act on those who have been hurt and require some recompense.  It can actually  be repeating the violence.  Like putting a rape victim on trial for her crime of “asking for it”. 

When incorporating the Non-dual Ground within our daily acts in the world, there must be some respect for the fragility of the manifest realm.  I love what Ken Wilber has said about this,

“We must forgive each other our arising, for our existance always torments others.  The Golden Rule in the midst of this mutual misery has always been, not to do no harm, but as little a possible; and not to love one another, but as much as you can.”

So, I think after one has been up there in the clouds and seen the complete absense of traction and felt the peace and all that, we have to descend to a level where there's actually some traction both coming and going, but be able to use that traction in the submissive service of a higher Good.  Not a Totalizing Good, which comes from below, but an Integral and Reconciled Good which comes from above.  This will prevent the meanness which is evident in the MGM down in 1st Tier. 

You wish me lots of luck? 

Thanks, I guess.  But I dont' think I need luck as long as we're still trying to help one another here.  Aren't you trying to help me?  Wishing someone luck has the ring of disconnection - like hanging up the phone before the other person gets a chance to respond.  You've said alot of personal things about me.  You're still gonna hold the space open for me to respond, aren't you?  Cuz, otherwise that looks like a drive-by.  I'm not accusing, I'm asking.  I realize that patterns of speach lose some meaning in translation.  You may not be aware.

Now.  I hope my Hungry Child has repaired some of the damage she did to my Hurt and Terrified Children in this little excursion.  If I've overdone it, I'm truly sorry.  I've got alot of history and established patterns to overcome.  I trust you're not immune.

~Ww

     permalink

Re: LETS GET REAL

How I felt when I said it? hm, not special or anything. I felt more like I had to confront you. (thus the indecency). And I am of course speaking, to someone I do not know, In a world I do not live in. Some scepticisme may be considered. As far from everything that I say holds real truth, that you might want to consider as becomming yours aswell.

No I ment the first. And I hope that you said the same as I said.

Aye, Fear can save your life one day. But not the ones I mentioned earlier.

I do not read WIE magazine, and I will not use other people's experiences as proof or arguments of my own life.

I'm rather immune. I have seen and experience much more bad things than anyone on this Forum ever guessed. First hand that is. I'm even gratefull that you have written such a maticulous piece of work, for my poorly spelled in 5 minutes oinned down little story, before I went to bed. And yes, probably A lot is lost in translation, I certainly do not wish to end this conversation.

Though I do not know what you mean, with either a hungry child or a tier, etc. Remember, I usually speak to people in person. And in somewhat the same language.

But I like what you write, a bit long perhaps. I hope hearing from you again. (and If I forgotten to answer some of yout questions, please re-ask them into a more sucluded context. ;)

Ciao

     permalink

Re: LETS GET REAL

Thanks, man. 

Love and peaceful dreams to you.

~Ww

     permalink

Re: LETS GET REAL

I don't see this in terms of victim and abuser. That may be the end result, and those un-conscious archetypes may play into the drama of the relationship.

I see this as a basic misunderstanding about the “problem of ego”. The problem is confounded by the fact that we have experiences that take us to a state of egolessness, then in order to teach, or talk of that, we relate from our mind, through our languaging, which is invariably dualistic. Then we try to solve “the problem of ego” (this thought itself is born of dualist thought!) through dualistic methods, “killing the ego” etc. You don't solve this “problem” from the same level of consciousness it comes from.

Just experiencing this egoless state, a state withought concrete thought, does not immediately teach us new thought patterns. We may have mis-perceived the “causal” conditions that brought us there.

So the approach that is unhealthy is born of a dualistic mind set, a thought form which is very very persistant, almost a truism in spiritual teachings and traditions, that pits our “true self” against the ego, or tries to transcend ego, kill ego, etc. Shadows invariably result from the disowned parts. You don't solve this problem from the same level of consciousness that it comes from. When you experience non-duality the ego no longer exists as a problem. It is seen through, its just a thought form that we contracted around. The repeated exposure to an expansive state gradually wears away our conditional thinking of our indentification with the contracted state.

But if we have a thought that this experience confers “enlightenment” as a permanent and abrupt change in ourselves, that we have no more ego, then we can be very blind to the expressions of ego, or contracted small self still emanating from us. This is the second problem born of dualitic thought, the either/or problem. That you are either ego or true self.

So when people “sign on” to have their ego killed, they are buying into an unhealthy approach. I truely hope that our culture matures beyond this thought form, of ego death as means to enlighenment.

My vision of a healthy approach, a good teacher, is one wh