Andrew Cohen?

I've read a lot about this guy but cant fiend others to discuss. So, Do you know Andrew Cohen and what do you think of him?

www.wie.org
www.andrewcohen.com

 

I like him.

 

Where do you live? If it is a big city he may visit it at one time or another.

When I met him I became a coward, his energy scared me (as many Masters are wont to). Instead, I should have approached him. But instead I listened to my mind. I missed a great opportunity...

 

I don't really think he's very nice. He's a wife beater, and he also abuses his followers. I cannot myself appreciate people who are so at odds with their teachings when it comes to actual practice. He's not the way.

 

Where did you get these ideas?

 

It's fact.

 

Actually, I think I have Andrew Cohen mixed up with another famous Buddhist - Ken Something or other. My bad!!! Sorry Andrew.

 

Andrew Cohen
M b1955
Moksha
Anti (by his mother)
John Horgan's take*
Enlightenment Blues*
What Enlightenment?!

Found and left the "then little-known Indian teacher HWL Poonja" in 1986. His book, My Master Is My Self, is the "compelling story of one man’s single-hearted dedication to the discovery of the truth," etc. Org puts out an impressive eclectic magazine, What is Enlightenment?, with interviews with many different important teachers. Lack of respect for his guru, self-aggrandizement, charges of narcissism and abuse offset otherwise solid rep. Oh well . . . "What Enlightenment?!" site created by collective including ex-WIE editor Hal Blacker

 

That was some interesting reading. It definitely gives me something to think about.

While on the Horgan site I found his "Why I can't embrace Buddhism", along with his "Why I gave up on Zen", and there's one on Catholicism, to be somewhat entertaining. But I always try to see if there is an existential element involved or if it is purely intellectual in nature.

The very charges he makes of Buddhism can also be made against Science, for if one sees the world as illusion, if death and the suffering of others becomes trivial, then the Scientific dogma that says that we are all a product of happenstance could tempt one to be cold hearted and ruthless; after all, if this is the only life we have and there is nothing to man but chemical reactions, then just take what you want. Isn't that the materialist viewpoint. But he did have on caveat, where he says that one must be weary of Science when it tells you why you are and the way you should be (on the God Gene).

If it's a matter of being wary of Enlightened Masters, then surely U. G. Krusnamurti appeals to be trusted. He will tell you that you cannot and will not become enlightened and then he will throw you out of his house.

But, yeah, one has to be wary of some masters. But labelling Bodhidharma as a nut... that may be presumptious of him, a conclusion based on his limited experience, a negative experience, at that.

 

What the bleep do we know?

http://www.whatthebleep.com

 

I've seen the movie, but most scientists would probably dismiss "What the <bleep> do we know?" as pseudo or junk Science. My concerns has to do with the policialisation of Science itself, the propensity of those who believe in Science to only accept the findings of Scientific authorities instead of being open to the possibilities when spoken by a non-scientific-believing person. So while the scientific skeptics may scoff at the supernatural, if Science tomorrow worded the phenonmena according to their lexicon, these same people would readily accept it.

 

Hmmm...

Right ...

Pretty scientific, huh ???

 

http://www.answers.com/politicalization&r=67

http://www.google.com/search?q=politicalization+of+science&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial

http://www.aaas.org/spp/yearbook/2003/ch7.pdf

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10372243/

 

Quote reminds me of "The Third Culture."
http://edge.org/3rd_culture/3rd_culture.html

"The third culture consists of those scientists and other thinkers in the empirical world who, through their work and expository writing, are taking the place of the traditional intellectual in rendering visible the deeper meanings of our lives, redefining who and what we are. "

"In 1959 C.P. Snow published a book titled The Two Cultures. On the one hand, there were the literary intellectuals; on the other, the scientists."

"In a second edition of The Two Cultures, published in 1963, Snow added a new essay, "The Two Cultures: A Second Look," in which he optimistically suggested that a new culture, a "third culture," would emerge and close the communications gap between the literary intellectuals and the scientists. In Snow's third culture, the literary intellectuals would be on speaking terms with the scientists. ......... Today, third-culture thinkers tend to avoid the middleman and endeavor to express their deepest thoughts in a manner accessible to the intelligent reading public. "

 

Thanks, K.

http://edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/d-Contents.html is something which I will definitely have to set some time aside to digest.

 

Be careful, as always. Sometimes intellectuals trip over their egos...

 

Which is why I say that existential experience is the only way to know truth.

 

Sorry, White Feather. I was unaware that you meant "politicalization" when you spelled it as "policialisation".

As for the "truth" you speak of ...

There is no "truth", only individualistic views and opinions. While it may appear as truth that some others may share the same ideas, the views and opinions they have are their own and unique, though they may be influenced by others views and opinions. This, however, does not make what they, or you, believe as "truth" no matter what path one takes, be it Existentialism, Buddhism, Christianity, Science (which includes Physics), etc...

What one person considers as "truth" may, or may not be considered as "truth" to some others. Yet, others who share the same ideas may consider, or even adopt the "truth" of others from a different perspective which makes it their "truth" and not ours no matter how much they may appear identical.

Existential Experience may allow one to share their views of their perception of "truth", but views is all they are ... not truths. Buddhism may allow me to share my views, but again views is all they are.

Sorry if I'm appearing to pick on your term of absolutes, but it's these absolutes that give rise to disagreements. Classic example ... Me !!!

What "term of absolutes" am I speaking about? ... "Which is why I say that existential experience is the only way to know truth."

Which is why I say, that is not true. And that is not even the truth! Just another view and opinion, which might seem true to me, but not so to others.

Attachments to views and opinions is not truth. Attachments to ones own consciousness is not truth. Attachment to sensations of sight, hearing, tasting, smelling, [touch] feeling, mentation is not truth. When one deals in absolutes of saying "I say" one deals in attachments of your ones own existence as being real and tangible. What one deals with are addictions to self, self-aggrandizement, being the center of attention in order to validate this self as being real ... as existing. What people are addicted to, and this includes you, White Feather, as well as anyone else who feels inclined to read this, are their own feelings of like or dislike, pleasure or pain, love or hate, good or bad -- yadda yadda yadda -- and G_d help anyone who differs or disagrees.

Sigh ...

 

Darrell, there are truths to be had.

 

What truths?