Worldwide Happiness

America Doesn't Deserve Obama?

2012-01-27T16:02:00.003+11:00

John Cole from Balloon Juice reacts to Obama's SOTU speech:

"...every time I hear him speak, I am still aware of all the things I disagree with him on, but think "That is a good man doing what he thinks is best." ...We really don't deserve him. We really don't."

That is some serious intellectual and/or moral corruption.

Ken Wilber and the Center for World Spirituality welcome Marc Gafni back in 2012

2012-01-12T19:10:00.000+11:00

Ken Wilber's statement

Ken Wilber took time off to deliberate on the recent Marc Gafni sex scandal. Now he has given us his conclusions:

"I am not working with Marc despite this last blogosphere explosion but rather because of his reaction to it. What impressed me most about Marc’s response to this situation is that though he might well have felt justified in feeling angry or hurt about what happened, by and large he focused on asking for all feedback from every possible source on why this happened. He wanted to know, at a deeper level, how he might have contributed to it himself, and what he could do to help remedy the situation and any part he might have played in this. Most astonishingly, for a spiritual teacher, he included in this list—in order to make it truly comprehensive—a search for a great therapist that he might see. He made a serious and widespread search for a therapist, and finally found an incredibly competent and highly respected one—and signed up."

It is common knowledge that those accused of sexual abuse blame the devil or run to church or run to a therapist. Wilber doesn't seem to be taking that common knowledge into account. Nevertheless, I think it is good that Gafni sees a therapist. That is one practical thing that needs to happen. However, after three months, he and his supporters do not seem to understand that he was supposed to be guiding these women's spiritual growth yet he contaminated that noble goal with his own sexual desires. What happened to his evolved status? What happened to his compassion and wisdom?

"This was not because he necessarily needed therapy, but simply that he told himself he was going to cover every base and make a truly comprehensive and inclusive search for any approach that might help address the situation. He was, in other words, doing whatever necessary to cover any shadow elements, should they be present. I know of extremely few spiritual teachers that would do this—that would be committed enough to their own integrity to include all possible angles, and then genuinely follow through on it. This, to me, is an indication of a genuine spiritual teacher, one dedicated to working on himself no matter how “embarrassing” it might appear to others. On this issue, even his critics will have few if any grounds for complaint at this point. Even they have acknowledged that he is, in many ways, a very gifted spiritual teacher, and this recent move simply makes him an even more gifted teacher, in my opinion."

So running to a therapist and acting humble has led to a rise in Gafni's status. Now he is "an even more gifted teacher". That's an excellent payoff for Gafni, and it gives further evidence for Wilber to consider the possibility that Gafni could be doing this for less than noble reasons.

"In many spiritual traditions, forgiveness is a path to God, and I know Marc has worked hard to forgive any insults—real or imagined—that he recently received, and perhaps it is appropriate for others also to work to forgive any insults—real or imagined—received from Marc. In this atmosphere of loving-kindness, care, and forgiveness, we can all get back to this incredibly important work of Integral Spirituality."

Marc forgives us - what a relief! And now we can get back to business as usual. However, looking forward is a common method to produce forgetfulness of the real issues. In reality, we only learn and grow by facing the past and learning from it.

The Center for World Spirituality's statement

The Center for World Spirituality has also given Gafni "unequivocal support":

"We, the undersigned, do without any reservation whatsoever, support Marc Gafni, D.Phil as a teacher and leader of the Center for World Spirituality. We find it unfortunate that the blogosphere has become a place where allegations are made, and where rumors, distortions and simple untruths are so easily spread, all without the benefit of finding of fact."

So they seem to be claiming that Marc didn't have sex with students who were seeking the noblest spiritual goals, yet I don't even think Marc himself has denied that he had sex with those students. It seems that Gafni will continue to do these things because he knows he will get extraordinary levels of support.

"Further, each of us personally recommends Dr. Gafni to any organization, church, synagogue, spiritual or cultural center, or to any context which seeks to benefit from his teachings."

So if you are a woman seeking spiritual liberation, the Center for World Spirituality recommends Marc Gafni as your teacher! Isn't that a startling result?

Dr. Warren Farrell also added his own personal statement to the Center's endorsement:

"Marc Gafni is one of the world’s change agents. Virtually all change agents, whether Martin Luther King or Gandhi, will be subjected to attempts at assassination–character assassination and sometimes literal assassination. Unfortunately, the internet has allowed such attempts to be magnified when aimed at a leader’s character. This propensity of people without vision to try to ruin the person rather than challenge the ideas has long been with us… Marc continues to make a commitment to lead; I for one, am making a commitment both to continue co-creating with him and to never allowing myself to be sidetracked by those whose feel it is easier to kill the messenger than create a more visionary and informed message."

Marc Gafni is a martyr now! It reminds me of that poster for The People vs Larry Flynt!Furthermore, Farrell says "people without vision… try to ruin the person rather than challenge the ideas…" Isn't this an obvious case of projection? Farrell is trying to ruin the people who are criticising Gafni's behaviour (not his ideas) by calling them assassins, and Farrell is not challenging the ideas of the critics.

Joe Perez's statement

Another Integralist, Joe Perez writes:

"I’m glad that the Tami Simon/Bill Harryman-manufactured controversy is now coming to a close. The statements by Ken Wilber, Marc Gafni, Warren Farrell, and the Special Committee of the Board of the Center for World Spirituality sound true to me, and I am proud to be part of a spiritual movement in which many leaders are capable of looking at even the most complex ethical quagmires with a multi-perspectival, all quadrant, all levels lens. The world desperately needs more integral, evolutionary visions … and we cannot afford to be distracted with faux scandals perpetuated largely by First-Tier ideologies in action and Integralists who haven’t exercised very careful discernment and owned their own shadows."

To summarise: the controversy is "manufactured" and the pro-Gafni Integralist responses all "sound true" and those who disagree "haven’t exercised very careful discernment and owned their own shadows". What a quagmire! While I agree with Perez that some of the statements about Gafni have been over the top, the fundamental issues still remain ignored.

Marc Gafni's own statement

Gafni himself has written for "closure" on the issue:

"That said, these events demonstrated to me that it is usually not a good idea for a public figure to hold his or her personal dating relationships privately. First, because, by definition, it necessitates a certain amount of dissembling. Second, because, as I have come to realize more deeply, sometimes even when the privacy is mutually and lovingly agreed upon, some people may still come to find it psychologically painful to hold. Third, holding privacy about a romantic relationship may create alienation in other relationships in both people’s circle of intimates."

That's excellent!

"I want to be fully transparent at this point however that I am making no grand or sweeping declarations for transparency over privacy. They are both important values in many spheres of life and it would be bad heart and bad mind to dogmatically and simplistically value one above the other in any absolute sense. The one thing that I will promise is that, to the best of my ability, my public teaching and private action will be consistent with each other"

This looks bad to me. It leaves too much wriggle room for Gafni. Also, given that he has charisma, he can sell anything in his public teaching. He could make sex with students part of his teaching and that would necessitate further sexual involvements. Instead of changing himself, he can just adjust his teaching to make it fit his sexual desires. His standard is conveniently his own teaching! By the way, note the implicit narcissism.

"Let me state formally that if in the future I enter into a monogamous commitment, then I will honor it and live in it to the fullest. If that is the right path for me then I will enter into it with full delight and even ecstasy. If I do not enter into that path, and choose to love from a different place, then I will enter into that path with full delight and even ecstasy. If that is the case then it is not impossible that at some point I will date women who are in my circle. If that feels uncomfortable to someone in principle that it might not be wise to join my circle of teaching… I had full right to date the people I dated and to hold the relationships privately, and I stand by this right and the essential ethics behind my actions."

Uh-oh. He hasn't learnt the core lesson. It is not right to date your students. Period. They are seeking liberation from illusion - the noblest goal. That should be your priority if you truly have compassion. You should not risk that ever in any way. So if you want to have sex with students and cannot control your desire, then send them to another guru and begin the sexual relationship a few months later. "I had full right to date the people I dated" sounds like a jarring and twisted sense of sexual entitlement.

"At the same time, I have felt an obligation to ask how my own internal “stuff” might have contributed to the outcome… To this end, a major part of my internal response to this blogosphere explosion has been to seek feedback from colleagues and spiritual friends who I invite to challenge me and engage me in the process of inner work."

He should seek the feedback of people who are NOT colleagues and NOT spiritual friends. Colleagues and spiritual friends will collude with him as they have done all along.

Two elephants in the room

There are two elephants in the room that these Integralists are not addressing:

1. What does Gafni's actions mean for Integralism? Note that all the pro-Gafni responses come with advice like we need to "get back to this incredibly important work of Integral Spirituality". So it looks to me like these Integralists are afraid that the truth will derail their idealistic goals. Thus, they don't trust the conversation and they don't trust life. They also seem to think they need Gafni, which demonstrates a lack of faith in the potential of other people. Furthermore, they are making a false dichotomy: either continue debating the Gafni issue or get on with Integral Spirituality. Isn't continuing the debate the same as getting on with Integral Spirituality? Also, I think the organisation is not dealing with this issue seriously because they know that it will open a can of worms regarding their own status and activities. Taking the issue seriously would expose the organisation as not being serious about spiritual liberation. They would have to stop being a bunch of hot-air philosophers playing at being compassionate enlightened beings. They would have to start getting real.

2. Is it right for a teacher to have sex with his students? The answer seems quite clear. The students are seeking liberation from illusion, which is the noblest goal. The teacher is supposedly compassionate and wants to see the students liberated. Therefore, neither party should risk contaminating the goal with sexual activity. Could it be any clearer? On a more mundane level, it is widely accepted outside of spirituality that therapists shouldn't have sex with clients, teachers shouldn't have sex with students, etc. This is mainly because there is obvious inequality in the relationship.

Conclusion

These Integralists are supposed be leading the world into a new spiritually evolved age, yet they cannot or will not straighten themselves out on these fundamental issues. What is needed is the objective views of outsiders. However, instead of integrating those views, they are attacking the outsiders (and insider critics) and are now calling for "closure". This is obviously a case of group self-defense rather than conscientious spiritual evolution. The group's elites are protecting themselves and their status and are guiding their followers into a group-think illusion of futuristic idealism while maintaining the pretense that it's about spiritual liberation. Therefore, these Integralist leaders are wrong.

Krishnamurti and the Rajagopals

2011-12-24T11:42:00.000+11:00

Here's a review of Krishnamurti and the Rajagopals that I will place on Amazon.com:

As others have pointed out, "Krishnamurti and theRajagopals" is Mary Lutyens' reply to Radha Sloss' book and adds more tothe picture of Krishnamurti. Indeed, it adds so much more that one must considerwhy Lutyens' original biography of Krishnamurti was so incomplete. The originalbiography did not mention Krishnamurti's sex life and his adulterous affair. Thatbook was very detailed, so space wasn't an issue. The current book reveals thatthis was a huge part of his life, yet Lutyens ignored it in the originalbiography. Why?

Lutyens' excuses for not including Krishnamurti's adultery withRosalind Rajagopal in the original biography are disingenuous. She writes, "I…did not realize that Rosalind wanted her adultery broadcast to the world."This is a lame excuse. The more likely reason is that she didn't want Krishnamurti'sadultery broadcast to the world. She wanted his image to remain untarnished.Indeed, later in this book we see another Krishnamurti follower - Mary Zimbalist- protecting him in a similar way (see a few paragraphs below).

In her original biography of Krishnamurti, Lutyens feigneddismay at Rajagopal's bad behaviour towards Krishnamurti. But imagine Rajagopal'spoint of view. Krishnamurti presented himself on stage as being spiritually andmorally superior and he let others treat him as special, yet all alongRajagopal knew Krishnamurti was having an affair with his wife. Ding, ding,ding! Of course, he is going to behave "badly" towards Krishnamurti. Howcan Lutyens say she doesn't understand Rajagopal's behaviour? Why didKrishnamurti approve a biography that presents such a patently false dismay?

Regarding Krishnamurti's celibate image, I have heard peoplesay, "Of course, he had a normal sex life." On the other hand, I haveheard others say, "Of course, he was celibate." So it seems thatpeople were projecting both views and that Krishnamurti let the issue remain ambiguousso that he could have it both ways. He would have been happy to be seen assexually cool in the swinging 60s, and he would have been happy to beremembered as a celibate saint. After all, he was supposed to be the LordMaitreya incarnate, and the Lord Maitreya doesn't have sex with lowly mortals,does he?

Back in the day, I searched every book Krishnamurti wrotefor clear statements about his sex life and his spiritual experiences. Notably,both topics were treated in a vague way. The closest I could find to a clearstatement on his sex life was when he once answered a sex question with, "Iwouldn't know." From that, I concluded that he was claiming to becelibate. Nevertheless, Lutyens writes in the present book, "I have alwaysstressed that Krishnamurti was physically a perfectly normal man." That isuntrue. Firstly, she claimed repeatedly that he was uniquely special. Indeed,in the original biography she wrote:

"Mary had made Marpessa's choice, yet it was with asense of betrayal that she married her mortal; not betrayal of K, who, sheknew, had no personal need of her or of any other individual, but betrayal ofthe view from the mountain top he had shown her."

Clearly, she was portraying him as being beyond mere mortalinterests such as marriage and sex. Secondly, if she "always stressed thatKrishnamurti was physically a perfectly normal man", then why is hisnon-celibacy a revelation to so many people who have read the originalbiography?

One commenter here said that s/he doubts that Krishnamurtitried to cover up the affair. Yet we have clear evidence to the contrary - mostobviously, Krishnamurti approved the biography that covered up the affair! AndI suspect that Krishnamurti didn't push Rajagopal in their legal battles becausehe knew that Rajagopal was ready to expose him as an adulterer. Similarly, Lutyensdidn't directly attack Rajagopal in the biography because she didn't wantRajagopal to return fire with information about the adultery. But once theinformation about the adultery was out, Lutyens let loose in the current bookbecause there was no false image of Krishnamurti left to defend.

I believe that the reason Lutyens wrote this book was todefend Krishnamurti by attacking Rajagopal, and to justify herself for notincluding these issues in the original biography, but it backfires because welearn so much new disturbing information. One example is that we seeKrishnamurti freaking out in a most unenlightened way. He calls the Rajagopals "evil,dirty" - and don't forget he just had an adulterous affair with one ofthese "evil, dirty" people. Another example is that we see the blinddevotion of his followers. Immediately following his freak out, Mary Zimbalistwrote in her diary:

"I said I had one motive from the very beginning: toprotect him and the teachings, to see that what he wants done happens. He saidthat wasn't enough, 'You are part of me, you must see and feel this in the sameway.' He was making it clear that he wants to end the dispute and that initself counts totally for me. ...At one point he said, 'I would grovel to endthis'."

Isn't that shocking? Obviously he was panic-stricken. He wasafraid to let his spiritual image and spiritual career collapse. And while he wasfreaking out and demanding that Zimbalist's view be replaced by his view, insteadof re-evaluating him, she said her one motive is to protect him and theteachings. That is an astounding response. Presumably, many other insiders hadthe same overriding desire to blindly protect him. Clearly, that desire toprotect Krishnamurti resulted in the hiding of many unpleasant facts about him.

I agree that Sloss' book was dreadful, but at least itforced Lutyens to fill out her hagiography of Krishnamurti with some earthytruth. It forced her to spill the beans on The World Teacher's adultery, thefreak-out described above, and the blind obedience of his followers. Onewonders how many other famous spiritual leaders throughout history havebenefited from having hagiographers like Lutyens to polish their images? It isironic that Krishnamurti's main message was to not follow others but hesurrounded himself with blind devotees who idolised him and "the teachings"and he demanded that their views be replaced by his views.

Although I don't expect spiritual teachers to be perfect, Ido expect their biographers to be honest since biographies often create theenduring image of their subjects. "Krishnamurti and the Rajagopals"fills out Krishnamurti's image and also reveals the deluded mindset of his mainbiographer and his close followers.

Ken Wilber endorses violent gurus and protects gurus in trouble

2011-12-02T09:49:00.001+11:00

Ken Wilber is theintellectual of the spiritual scene. Yet, strangely, he endorses violentgurus and protects gurus in trouble. AndrewCohen is a cult leader who slaps his male disciples and dunks his femaledisciples in cold lakes, and here's Ken Wilber's enthusiastic endorsement ofhim:

…if you want Enlightenment… findyourself a Rude Boy or a Nasty Girl, the ones who make you uncomfortable intheir presence, who scare you witless, who will turn on you in a second andhold you up for ridicule, who will make you wish you were never born, who willoffer you not sweet comfort but abject terror…

Rude Boys know better. Theyare not here to console but to shatter, not to comfort but to demolish. Theyare uncompromising, brutal…

It will, in fact, be hell, andonly Rude Boys are rude enough to tell you that, and to show you that—if youcan stand the rudeness, stay in the fire, burn clean as Infinity and radiate asthe stars.

Notice that Wilbersells Cohen as being a person who helps you to "radiate as thestars". Very glamorous.

Now Marc Gafni hasbeen busted having sex with two of his own disciples while his wife is pregnant.This is after promising he wouldn't do such things (he's a repeat offender). Andhere's Ken Wilber's response to the public criticism of Gafni:

The problem with situationslike this one is that several different issues get mixed in together and alltreated as one, making decisions very difficult.

…we must reach for our ownvery highest capacity for spiritual discernment, judgment, compassion, mercy,insight, and awareness.

All information on thissituation will never be available to the public. There is simply no way to know fully. At this point, we need to honor all theparties and let them get on with their lives. And we need to get on with our Integral work.

So these women wentto Gafni, who is supposed to care for their highest growth, and he dragged themdown into sexual relationships with him, and Wilber says we should honour himand let him get on with his life.

Note the strangedifference between his attitude regarding gurus and disciples. Gurus should beaggressive towards disciples, yet disciples should honour gurus. How screwed upis that? It's as though gurus are precious darlings and disciples are cannonfodder. We see this move in American politics where the elites are treated withremarkable deference just because of their positions, while the poor are usedas political pawns.(See Glenn Greenwald's blog and new book for more on this.)

While Wilber isclever and creative in many ways, he is surprisingly undeveloped in many other crucialways. He endorsed and glorified Andrew Cohen (and Adi Da, by the way), and nowhe protects and defends Marc Gafni. I wonder if Wilber's objectivity is cloudedby his business interests with both men? I mean, how in your right mind can youendorse and protect the likes of Andrew Cohen, Adi Da, and Marc Gafni? Thesecorrupt people are abusing people who are seeking the noblest goals.

Of course, I don'tbelieve in the guru/disciple game, but for those who do, here's a suggestion.If a guru wants to have sex with a disciple, then that guru should send the discipleto another guru. After a month or so, they can meet again and begin theirsexual relationship as equals outside ofthe guru/disciple relationship. Logical right? Ken Wilber is supposedlysuper wise, yet he can't even figure that out. Perhaps, people who believe inthe guru/disciple relationship have boundary issues and by nature are unable tokeep their relationships clear and above board.

Primary happiness and secondary happiness

2011-06-21T08:45:00.000+10:00

Primary happiness is the innate happiness of being.

Secondary happiness is whatever you harmoniously do in the world.

Do not seek happiness in the world or in passing states of consciousness, otherwise you will be like a drug addict always seeking the next fix.

The world is for expressing the primary happiness of being after security has been obtained.

I am the best philosopher in the world

2011-06-18T12:23:00.000+10:00

I am the best philosopher in the world. But my writing is always rejected. I wonder if it's because no one wants the truth or because I'm a lousy writer? I think it's because I'm a lousy writer. Also, I'm not famous and I'm not a recognised expert in anything. But surely my philosophy is better than Treasure Yourself.

Unless... OMG, maybe Miranda Kerr is a better philosopher than me!

Hopefully, one of my stock picks will pay off - then I can afford to pay a ghostwriter. Alternatively, I could become a cult leader and have a bunch of brainwashed cult victims tripping over themselves to write down my every word. Hm, I kinda like that idea. But I can't spin enough illusions to ensnare any disciples. Damn!

Someone suggested getting involved with ted.com. But I don't have the charisma for big public presentations like that.

Can anybody think of something else I can do to get my philosophy published? I suppose I could blog it. Unfortunately, Martin Gifford is about the only person who reads my blog. Maybe I should ask him.

My ASX stock picks

2011-06-17T20:48:00.000+10:00

Although I am the best philosopher in the world, I am only a beginner stock clairvoyant. That said, I think these 5 are winners:

***OBJ: developing billion dollar products with GSK and others, yet market capitalisation is only $25m!

BOD: developing heart valve replacement tissue and artery repair materials and seem very professional, yet market cap is only $9m!

IRC: looking for joint venture partner for huge well-located vanadium mine, yet market cap is only $17m.

PBT: has an huntingtons/alzhiemers/parkinsons drug in phase IIb FDA trials, yet market cap is only $50m.

URA: developing a potential $50m per year manganese resource in Zambia, and it's easily mineable, and market cap is only $6m.

If you only back one, make it OBJ, imo.

My Close Encounter with the Andrew Cohen Cult

2011-06-07T10:37:00.000+10:00

Here’s my Andrew Cohen story, for what it's worth (slightly edited re-post from Rick Ross cult forum):

In 1995, I met a guy at Bondi Beach who said he knew me in India, but I didn’t recognise him. Anyway we started to hang out a bit, then he invited me to see Andrew Cohen. He said, “I think you’ll like him.” So I went along even though I said I’m sick of guru types and needed to get on with the practical side of my life. (I actually had no money and needed to establish a career.)

At the lecture, I had mixed feelings about Cohen. On one hand, I literally thought he was mentally ill. He had a weird cackling laugh that burst out at inappropriate moments, his sentences trailed off unfinished, he gazed into space, and he stammered with excitement as a new point came to mind. “Cracked” is the word that came to mind. On the other hand, I was excited that he was talking about changing the world and shaking up the dull spiritual scene. That matched my interests perfectly. Indeed, I was so excited that someone was boldly pushing for this, and that it was gaining support, that I ended up sending audios of Andrew to friends. (They became involved too, unfortunately.) Then I started going to meetings. I liked the people and I was inspired by the fact that we seemed to all be on the same page regarding improving the world and the spiritual scene.

Six months later, Andrew came back to Australia to hold a retreat. When I asked him questions, I was dissatisfied with his answers. But instead of admitting he didn’t know the answers, he just got annoyed with me. I also told him a dream:

Muslims are all agreeing to kill me, and I blurt out “I’ll die when God wants me to die.”

Andrew said, “Don’t worry. It was just a dream.” It seems to me now that it was a clear warning dream that Andrew was pushing for something unnatural and untimely - I don’t remember if he was talking about ego death at the time, but I suspect the dream was picking up on that vibe.

Then I started noticing a pattern where people from Andrew's entourage would transmit messages from Andrew to us and then they would transmit info about us back to Andrew. Also, one of his main people, Debbie, said to me, “In Tibet, they have a tradition - if a new guru defeats your guru in debate, the new guru wins all the old guru’s disciples.” That seemed odd to me, but I didn’t think too much about it. I was too focused on maintaining connection with the community. Actually, Debbie seemed to be playing the role of seducer and emissary. She would say things like, “Andrew really liked your question.” Or she would explain why Andrew was irritated with a question. Andrew seduced by praising people, but then he criticised them when they got out of line.

Soon it was time for what would turn out to be the last Bodhgaya retreat. I didn’t want to go because I had been to India only two years earlier and I had a $5,000 debt, but I kept feeling Andrew’s indirect pressure , “It’s your ability to respond that counts.” Somehow, my ideals got mixed up with Andrew’s demands - that’s a key point.

Anyway, I really wanted to stay connected to the community and stay involved in spreading the idea of a better world, so I borrowed money to go. Just before we left, one of the community members returned from America and told us that there are 3 or 4 levels of students - something like, casual student, formal student, committed student, and senior student. This seemed ludicrous to me. By this point, I wasn’t so impressed with Andrew, so the idea of a hierarchy below him amazed me. What could these “students” be learning? I actually laughed with derision at this idea of a hierarchy, and started openly making jokes about it until the person who told us about it groaned, “I’m sorry I mentioned it.”

During the retreat in India, my joints ached from sitting on the ground and I had a bad cold or flu. Nevertheless, I did the surrender technique he recommended as best I could and I showed up for every session. I told him that I was doing everything he asked but nothing special was happening (others were gasping about experiencing spiritual fireworks). He was irritated and said, “Is that it?” Then he just moved on to the next question. One of Cohen's disciples was an international model, and she gave me some tissues. I thought she was being considerate, but now I wonder if it was an indirect insult from Andrew - I’ve heard that’s how he operates when confronted with "weakness".

By this time, I had started to notice that after every session, the senior students sitting at the table would invariably say, “Wasn’t Andrew great!” or “Wasn’t that a fantastic session!” or “Andrew’s amazing!” This was even after the most boring session or after Andrew had said or done something really dubious. And the others seekers were saying the same thing. So now I started feeling like an outsider. I wondered if I was missing something, since I was the only unhappy one there. I wanted to think and argue and get to the truth on various topics, not just praise Andrew. But I was already a bit too far committed to the process to pull out.

Anyway, our group had decided that we wanted to start a FACE (Friends of Andrew Cohen Everywhere) Centre in Sydney. So we met with the senior students who sat us all in a circle and asked about why we wanted to start a centre. I saw people strangely lying and exaggerating, as if they were really keen to impress these senior students. For example, one guy said he was committed to the teachings when I heard him mocking the teachings back in Australia and I reckoned he really wanted to go for a holiday. Like me, he wasn’t committed to “the teachings”; he just wanted to be part of the community. Anyway, I flatly said to the senior students something like “I’ve been interested in spirituality and changing the world all my life. That’s it.” They seemed to think they were doing us a big favour by letting us serve Andrew or something. Bizarre.

Afterwards, Andrew kept us waiting for over an hour standing in the field. When he finally arrived with his entourage, he said he would let us start a Sydney FACE Centre. Then he said he was surprised to see me there. Naturally, I was offended. I had gone to every meeting in Sydney, went to the retreat in Sydney, shared his audio tapes and books with other people, gone into more debt, sat through his dubious meetings while sick, and basically did the best I could, but he wasn’t satisfied. I guess he could see that I would be the one to rock the boat.

Then he said some really weird things. He said, “I don’t love any of you.” How bizarre is that? Then he said, “I’ve proven myself to you all, so now you’ve got to prove yourselves to me.” Well, words failed me. When had he proven himself to me? And what did proving ourselves to him mean? More significantly, why did he think he was so important? In fact, the whole scenario seemed to be based on the premise that Andrew Cohen was a VIP, and that it was some kind of honour to be in his glorious presence. As far as I could tell, we were interested in pursuing spiritual community and improving the world, but he seemed to think we were interested in him. Then he criticised someone else who wasn’t at the meeting. When I told that person, he went to confront Andrew and Andrew denied it. Liar!

I contemplated the situation over the next week and kept a diary. It seemed to me like things weren’t leading to freedom, truth, improving the world, or experimenting with spiritual communities. Rather it was leading into a spider-web of illusion and control. It felt like it was becoming more and more about Andrew. Also, it seemed that it would only get worse over time. But I wasn’t sufficiently sure of myself at the time. After all, I was the only one not conforming. And I had just been insulted, so was I just reacting to that? And this is about improving the world, so how could I have any doubts? But then I saw him strutting around with his rapt entourage like he owned the world. It really felt like he was in his own bubble of narcissism. And it seemed like his senior students were propping up his illusions because they wanted to believe those illusions too. So I wrote a smoke-and-mirrors letter to excuse myself from the group, and I faxed it to the main Sydney guy.

Strangely, I felt I had entered a ghostlike limbo, like I had just denied the only thing that really mattered. It took me years to realise that somehow Andrew gets people to link their highest ideals to him, so that going against him means going against yourself. I don’t know how he does it, but it’s very sneaky. (Indeed, after the big exposes, Andrew and his supporters literally said that those who left him went against their own souls.)

Then, about five years ago, I did some web searches and saw all this stuff about Andrew advocating the guru-disciple relationship, slapping students, and saying no one should ever leave him, and it all clicked. Back in 1996, it was all indeed heading towards illusion and control - an outright cult! And Andrew had become even more of a Special Person according to the “disciples”. They seemed to be making him out to be a Buddha or a Jesus. Luckily, I knew about the enneagram, which makes it easy to see that Andrew is a type 1 with a 2 wing, which means he controls people with idealism, seduction, and punishment. That helped me get psychic distance.

So that’s my story. I take responsibility to the degree that I was susceptible (although only for one year). Yes, I noticed that rich people in the community were given special treatment by everyone. We all knew that money would help the cause. That’s obvious. Money oils everything in this world. However, I wasn’t rich. I was just trapped by my own idealism and by my attachment to the group. Others were trapped the same way or by having big spiritual experiences and interpreting them as signs of Andrew’s wonderfulness.

Now I’ve written a profound book titled “Worldwide Happiness”, so I’m glad I got out when I did. If I hadn’t, I’d probably be some mindless Andrew Cohen acolyte somewhere, spouting Cohenism like the other brainwashed zombies. And, boy oh boy, I would have gotten hundreds of face-slaps! (Actually, I wouldn’t have accepted one.)

It’s really embarrassing to think I almost fell into a cult. I’m a pretty smart guy and I never follow crowds. Maybe it was like my last temptation. In fact, idealism is often the last temptation before naked reality.

Best political blog comment ever

2010-12-08T19:19:00.004+11:00

Over at Balloon Juice, I read the best political blog comment ever (no. 96). It's by Comrade Luke, and it's about Obama's tax cuts for the rich:

2000: Bush tax cuts go into effect, with a sunset provision set for 2010.

The Left: Nice trick. They’re just going to make them permanent in 2010.

Seven(ish) years pass…

2007(ish): Barack Obama campaigns on ending the Bush tax cuts, among other things like ending DADT, health care reform, etc.

The Left: Awesome!

2008: Barack Obama elected President.

A year and a half passes.

2010: Approaching the midterms, some Democrats lobby to move the tax cut vote out past the midterms because they’re afraid of running on raising tax cuts on the rich.

The Left: What?! That makes no sense! The public is behind ending the tax cuts. Plus, it’s looking pretty bleak that you’ll retain a majority in both houses, which will make it even harder to get that this issue resolved in a lame duck session.

Barack Obama: crickets…

December 2010: Barack Obama attempts to raise tax cuts on the rich.

Republicans: No. We want tax cuts for everyone.

Barack Obama: OK

The Left: WHAT?!

Republicans: And we’re not extending unemployment benefits either.

Barack Obama: OK. How about if we…

The Left: Woa, woa, woa. Extending unemployment benefits have nothing to do with…

Barack Obama: ...how about if we extend unemployment benefits thirteen months, add a payroll tax holiday, raise the estate tax cap and talk about this all again in two years.

Republicans: Pfftthahaha. OK!

The Left: WHAT. THE. FUCK. We elected you in part because you were going to eliminate the tax cuts on the rich, and you’ve postponed that until next election? You’ll be running on the same thing you ran on four years ago and reneged on, against a Republican party that will be countering that if you get elected you’ll raise taxes on everyone.

Obama: Stop complaining you sanctimonious purists

The Left: YEA Wait, WHAT?! You’re talking to us?

Balloon Juice: The Professional Left thinks it’s infallible, and it’s cost them Climate Change, DADT, DOMA immigration reform and everything else because they wanted the public option.

Balloon Juice Commentariat: Yeahaw!

Yea, I can see how this is the fault of the Professional Left.

And btw, it doesn’t matter if Obama is the one that proposed the payroll tax and estate tax, or the Republicans did and he accepted the proposal. He’s wrong just the same.

He’s the perfect president for the Republican party. They get to demonize him 24/7, at the end of the day they get what they want anyway, and then Obama blames…the left.

Pure gold!

American Political System Broken

2010-11-25T12:19:00.003+11:00

There is a debate going on over at The Economist about whether the American political system is broken.

I think America has gone off the cliff. The evidence:

Torture.

People dying from lack of health insurance.

Insane military expenditure.

Disgraceful public discourse.

Shocking level of unemployment.

Systemic political corruption.

Wanton ignorance (i.e. poor education).

Two wars.

Bombing raids with high "collateral damage".

Cruel prisons.

The death penalty.

Abuse of secrecy.

Spying on Americans in America.

Cover-up of previous administration high crimes.

High murder rates.

Huge social injustice.

World’s biggest polluter.

Privatised military.

Therefore, the American political system is broken, probably beyond repair for the foreseeable future. But political junkies and journalists must continue to believe in the system to some extent. Or they have cobwebs in their eyes.

Two ways to enlightenment?

2010-10-01T10:54:00.007+10:00

Does the ego need to be pressured or destroyed for you to become enlightened? Following is my take on the matter:

Marc Beneteau wrote the following comment to Terry Patten regarding Terry's post about Andrew Cohen:

"Given human beings infinite capacity for self-deception, when you say things like "it takes a nearly superhuman force to break free of the gravity of the ego and common worldly human society and to achieve 'escape velocity' to go into the orbit of sustainable higher spiritual realization of transpersonal states and stages of consciousness" (in your response to the Integrales forum)... well, maybe yes and maybe no."

To which I replied:

I think there are two ways to enlightenment:

1. Gradually let the mind/ego (a natural defense and creativity mechanism) relax by taking the pressure off. Then you slip back to baseline being.

2. Apply pressure (e.g. Andrew Cohen's face slapping and humiliation rituals) to a person and thereby create a crisis that helps them focus on what the mind/ego is doing.

The first approach is obviously ideal. It starts with the premise that mind/ego is good and that baseline being is just another way of existing. The second approach - as used by Andrew Cohen - starts with the premise that the ego is evil and needs to be destroyed. This makes the person feel like they are being crushed to death. Indeed, Andrew Cohen said you need to get your inner child and wring its neck.

The first approach is evolved because it starts with understanding of the facts. The second approach is society's old unevolved black and white, good vs evil ignorance that keeps the whole human situation stuck. While ever we think human beings are fundamentally evil, we will continue to create suffering and divisions and will fear looking honestly at the situation in order to understand what's happening so as to evolve. We should not be afraid of the truth. Ultimately, everybody is perfectly innocent. When they behave badly, they are really just defending themselves and therefore are protecting life, which is good. It's just that the ego's approach is only for emergencies, and shouldn't become our everyday lifestyle.

Note that Andrew Cohen's enlightenment consisted of Papaji saying a few words and being supportive over a few weeks. That's the first approach of understanding that you return to reality. Papaji didn't use the second approach, which maintains the illusion that you rise up to reality.

Anyway, here's a warning to prospective Cohenites: Andrew Cohen gradually makes you believe that he is the embodiment of your highest ideals and that "responding" to him is the most important thing you can do. This works because you are influenced by his charisma and you might be having a spiritual experience that makes you open and defenseless. Then when you leave him, you feel you have given up your highest ideals because, in your mind, he has become the embodiment of your highest ideals. As an example, here's a quote from Debbie at guru-talk.com attacking Andrew's critics:

"I feel a deep sense of outrage that people I not only knew so well, but with whom I shared intimately in some of the most sacred and delicate times of our own lives, have become such distortions of themselves, expressing such a transparently one-dimensional view. To see their descent from a subtlety of understanding and expression of the highest dharma which they have experienced deeply to tabloid press-like smear tactics is painful. However, it’s not too hard to understand, as this is the easy way out. It is a simple, clear example of how gross ego is, and how its function is to destroy anything that reveals a higher standard or view where ego has no place and can no longer exist. It is as if they have forgotten their own intention to reach for something higher, and are denying their own deepest understanding in order to justify their own failure."

See how she condemns them? Leaving Andrew Cohen and criticizing him means becoming a "distortion" of yourself and destroying your higher standards and forgetting your own intention for higher things. And she is supposedly more enlightened than average spiritual seekers who don't meet the "real deal" Andrew Cohen.

Obama Disaster

2010-08-31T11:26:00.004+10:00

I saw a Dailykos article by Badabing in which TheAtomicA commented that Obama was super-ambitious and wanted to be remembered as a great president, and bruh1 commented that America is already off the cliff and that Obama’s policies aren’t reflecting that fact, so defending him doesn’t make sense given the emergency. These are two thoughts I’ve been having. Here are the quotes:

TheAtomicA: “His ambition was clearly to be remembered in history as one of the great Presidents. I don't know if we've ever had a more ambitious President in regards to that -certainly not in my lifetime.”

bruh1: “I am trying to get beyond the he said, she said or partisan/ideological divides to bring into play a real historic understanding of the politicians we are seeing in the Democratic Party, and their inadequate response to the task in front of them. i recently realized if this were 1990 Obama would be fine. But, its 2010, and we are over the cliff, so he's not.”

Obama wants to be popular like Reagan and Clinton, so he has a mix of their policies, but America is in a mess because of Reagan and Clinton (plus Bush II) and while America could cope with Reagan and Clinton’s policies to some extent in the 80s and 90s, America is broken now, and those policies are now very dangerous.

Neoliberalism, war, and high defence budgets are crazy, but especially so in this environment. Add Bush II’s “security” policies of torture, domestic spying, detention without trial, execution of American citizens abroad, etc., and Obama is a complete disaster. He had the greatest opportunity imaginable when he entered office, but he was stuck in his old dream of being a popular president like Reagan and Clinton, and so he missed the boat. His enneagram type is 3, so he figured if he does what all the popular people do, then he can’t go wrong. Oops.

Guru enneagram types

2010-08-09T12:03:00.003+10:00

I recommend the enneagram for anyone interested in personal growth, spirituality, egos, psychology, criminology, defence mechanisms, or just understanding the motivation behind a particular negative behaviour. The system describes 9 ego fixations. It must be emphasised that this is just about the ego, not the real essential person. The ego is just a valid defence mechanism for when we feel threatened.

It’s a very deep and complex system, but here are the basic descriptions:

Type 1: Perfectionist. Fixated on improving things in a moral sense. Under pressure, ones are judgemental and always pushing for improvement in themselves and others. Example: Margaret Thatcher - vibe of righteousness.

Type 2: Pleaser. Fixated on sustaining relationship by pleasing others in the hope that their own needs will be met by those others. Under pressure, twos are intrusive and manipulative and can suddenly fly into rages when their needs aren’t met. Example: the Jewish mother stereotype - vibe of fussing and interfering.

Type 3: Status-seeker. Fixated on how others perceive them, so they do things that others seem to approve of and try to appear to be the kind of person others like. Under pressure, threes are liars and shallow. Example: Tom Cruise - vibe of smooth professionalism.

Type 4: Romantic. Fixated on high romance either in love or the arts. Under pressure, fours are elitist and self-absorbed. Example: Gwenyth Paltrow - vibe of longing for the far away.

Type 5: Observer. Fixated on avoiding emotions and entanglements. Under pressure, fives are distant and emotionally stingy. Example: Mr Burns from the Simpsons - vibe of loving money over people.

Type 6: Defender. Fixated on dangers. Under pressure, sixes either group together in an us vs them stance or find an individual to pick on. Example: Mel Gibson - vibe of defence and attack.

Type 7: Escapist. Fixated on avoiding pain and restriction. Under pressure, sevens are superficial and flighty. Example: Richard Branson - vibe of flightiness and busyness.

Type 8: Boss. Fixated on controlling their lives for their own benefit. Under pressure, eights are pushy and domineering. Example: Hernando Cortez - vibe of power and control.

Type 9: Peace-seeker. Fixated on avoiding internal and external conflict. Under pressure, nines are lazy and passive. Example: Ringo Starr - vibe of passivity and “don’t rock the boat”.

Note that you can also have a wing, which is an influence coming from either side of your number. So, for example, a 2 might have a 1 wing, and therefore be a martyr subtype, or a 2 might have 3 wing, and therefore be a host subtype.

It’s good to know your guru’s ego type so that you can separate the good aspects of their teaching out from their neurotic aspects. Remember that this is just about their ego defence, not about who they really are. So following are my guesses at the enneagram types of some gurus:

Adi Da: This case is tricky. I’m guessing 8 because he is a larger than life kind of guy. But he has characteristics of 2 (wanting devotion from others), 7 (loves to be the centre of attention and to be superior), and 3 (likes prestige).

Ammaji: 2. Loves to have others devoted to her.

Andrew Cohen: 1. Judgemental, controlling, obsessive, moralising. He has a 2 wing - clingy, intrusive, and suffocating.

Anthony Robbins: 3. Superficial and success oriented.

Barry Long: 1. “Get your life right.” I think he had a 9 wing because he was a bit distant and didn’t like disturbance.

Buddha: 5. All about renunciation.

Byron Katie: 2. When she’s practicing her technique on people, she’s all schmaltzy and affirming of others like a smothering 2 - “Yes, darling.”

Deepak Chopra: 3 or 7. A phoney recycler/rationaliser/magical thinker.

Gangaji: 4. So says her hubby.

Isaac Shapiro: 9. Slothful. I think he has an 8 wing - activated more by instincts than ideals.

J Krishnamurti: 6. Ranted about not following authority. Some people think he’s an incarnation of, or channelled, the Lord Maitreya - as if the LORD MAITREYA would be so obsessed with not following authority!

Jesus: 2. Emphasised love. Flew into a rage with the moneychangers. Maybe a 1 wing - principled and a martyr. Of course, it’s hard to pick historical figures because we don’t know them well.

John de Ruiter: 9. Long-haired, zoned out, slothful.

Ken Wilber: 5. He’s a mindy theoriser.

Mother Theresa: 2. Caring for others, enjoying having others dependent on her.

Nisagadatta Maharaj: 8. Lion-like bigness. Play by my rules or get out!

Osho Rajneesh: 7. He was an eternal child and master of rationalisation and always wanted to be smarter than others. He called himself the master of masters. He’s also a big synthesizer of various theories.

Papaji: 8. Lion-like bigness.

Ram Dass: 7. Oral fixation, magical thinker, synthesizer.

Ramana Maharshi: 5. Living in a cave is classic 5 behaviour. Rarely strayed off topic.

Ramesh Balsekar: 7. Master of rationalsation. Many Neo-advaita gurus are 7s. That genre of so-called enlightenment is great for 7s because they can be instantly enlightened without any effort and then they can rationalise any signs of unenlightenment away by claiming that they aren’t the doer - Andrew Cohen called this “The Advaita Shuffle”.

Sailor Bob Adamson: Maybe 6. He once said to me that when he was younger he thought everyone was against him.

Stephen R. Covey: 1. All about the so-called traditional “character” ethic.

Wayne Liquorman: 8. He seems to live by the code “My way or the highway.”

Keep an eye out for changes and additions in the comments section. Please feel free to disagree with these or add others. I’m particularly keen to figure out Adi Da’s type, and to be more certain about Jesus’ type. Can you help with that?

Beware: security departments and companies gradually merge into a mindless machine

2010-08-04T19:03:00.003+10:00

Disturbingly, Obama is following Bush in increasing America’s security apparatus. In the process he is gradually wearing down privacy laws and merging the public and private sector.

As government security departments and private security companies grow and merge, that merged entity gradually becomes a machine with its own logic. This is especially problematic when it's all secret and outside of Congressional or Judicial review.

If you accidentally fall into one of that machine's "bad guy" categories, then the machine automatically sees itself as correct and disappears you to Guantanamo or wherever.

Even money won't protect you. Fame is about the only way you can be safe. That's because the world notices when famous people go missing. At least Paris Hilton will be safe.

IMO, the important thing to ask is why have such a vast security machine? It is obviously the case that either the government is overestimating the threat (even a nuke attack is unimportant in the big scheme of things) or it's a deliberate power/money grab. In other words, it is either stupid or corrupt.

And wouldn't it be better for the government to work on making America more ethical and an attractive role model than to bomb nations, torture people, and spy on its own citizens?

Happiness is more important than "security" and money.

Guru Andrew Cohen is at it again

2010-06-26T11:47:00.006+10:00

I see Andrew Cohen is pumping out the marketing again. In his latest blog entry, he’s gushing about the multifaceted manifestations of love then finishes with:

“It is only highly evolved human beings who are capable of knowing what love is in all its multifaceted manifestations. And in the end, it is up to each and every one of us to heroically aspire to become a powerful expression of our own highest recognition of what love truly is.”

So, presumably, he’s highly evolved and heroic. And notice that after pressing people’s idealistic buttons, he throws out the ego bait of heroism - you can be highly evolved and heroic too! Trouble is, if you bite, then the slaps, cold lake dunkings, and humiliations begin.

He does this every time, and it’s getting really old. Why can’t he just say what he thinks and leave it at that? Instead, he always implies that he’s great and heroic, and tempts you to join his cause after he has glorified the key selling points. Once he has trapped you by your own idealism and egoic attachment to heroism, he’s got you in a catch 22.

Leaving him gets interpreted as denying your ideals, and you expose yourself to being labeled as a coward rather than a hero. Indeed, that’s his key self-defense method. Andrew and his supporters say his detractors are denying their own ideals and are cowards.

Beware!

Andrew Cohen & Guru-Talk - Face Everything and Avoid Nothing

2010-02-27T12:16:00.004+11:00

Two Andrew Cohen supporters from the Guru-Talk website replied via email to my previous article “Untangling the Guru-Disciple Relationship with Andrew Cohen”, which was an analysis of the articles on Guru-Talk. One person responded very well, but when I replied, they disappeared - I haven’t heard from them for 16 days. So below is my reply to that email (minus identifying material). This interaction moves the conversation forward very well, I think. Whether it goes any further or not depends on Andrew Cohen and/or his supporters. To help you understand this post, the first 5 points in my previous article are:

1. The writer begins by stating that they have done much spiritual seeking.

2. The writer goes on to explain how they came to attend an Andrew Cohen meeting.

3. Next, the writer has a big spiritual experience during the meeting.

4. Then, the writer suddenly KNOWS that Andrew is basically perfect and is their destined guru.

5. Next, Andrew, says something like, “It’s your ability to respond that counts.”

Now, let's go to the email interaction:

Guru-Talk Person: “I didn't have anything that I would call a spiritual experience with Andrew for at least six years. As a result… [regarding] point 4… and speaking only for myself… I never came to the conclusion that Andrew was perfect during my… journey in his community. Therefore, I don't think point 5 applies…”

If you were not attracted by a spiritual experience, then I presume you were attracted by Andrew’s idealism, right? If your ideals and ideas about good vs bad perfectly matched Andrew’s, then that would explain your satisfaction with Andrew. Indeed, point three could be stated as “3. The writer sees that there is a perfect match between their ideals and Andrew’s ideals.” The implications are still the same because point three leads to the more crucial point four, which is about conclusions regarding Andrew. If someone is articulating ideals that you have long cherished, which no one else seems to be articulating, then you will naturally conclude that person is pretty cool. In other words, point four would be “4. The writer concludes that Andrew is ‘for real’,” which is a common Andrew Cohen expression. Point five applies because when Andrew says things like “It’s your ability to respond that counts,” he means responding to your conclusions. Since he seems to be the embodiment of your ideals, responding to your ideals means responding to him. For example, here’s his first tenet (Clarity of Intention):

“The first tenet is the foundation of the spiritual life. In order to succeed in liberating yourself from ignorance and self-deception, you have to have no doubt whatsoever that you want to be free more than anything.” Then he goes on to say: “But when you attempt to bridge the gap between that higher perspective and the reality of your life in the relative world, the ultimate challenge of spiritual freedom reveals itself. You recognize that to become a living expression of that higher perspective demands nothing less than everything.”

Here he is saying that the goal is to bridge the gap between your current life and your higher conclusions, and the implication is that he is “a living expression of that higher perspective”, and so you must give him absolute rule over you i.e. you must give “nothing less than everything”. Isn’t this logic the cause of your response to him?

It’s just that in your case, your conclusions about him were based on matching ideals, rather than on a spiritual experience, but the principle is the same - coming to conclusions without deep questioning. Regardless, did you read the other Guru Talk articles? Most of them do say they had a spiritual experience then suddenly knew Andrew was the one. Here’s a quote from the current Guru-Talk post (by Kate Fleming):

“…as Andrew said these words, I saw, and even more importantly, knew something even more deeply. It was that this Love was my True Self it was also THE True Self, and so in that deepest place, the most (and only) real place, I was the same as Ramana, and that also, in this, Andrew and I were no different…and even more than that, we were One – that his truest heart and mine were the same. This lasted the merest sliver of a second, but seemed forever. In the next moment I saw the vast implications of that truth on every level…the total surrender, care and big-hearted abandonment of my personal history that I also knew in that moment would have to be given.” And later: “In that moment, the moment of showing me my True Self, Andrew became my Teacher, my Guru.”

This is a romantic mess. I mean it’s okay to enjoy all that, but to believe in those concepts means you are bowing to your emotions. It’s addiction to intensity.

Guru-Talk Person: “It seems many people have a problem with the idea of a strong and independent individual voluntarily accepting another human being's "absolute rule."”

By definition, a strong and independent individual would not accept another person’s absolute rule. It’s a straightforward contradiction. Also, a strong and independent person wouldn’t need another person’s absolute rule over them.

Guru-Talk Person: “What about a very common situation for ambitious workers struggling to succeed in a big corporation . . . do they not accept the absolute rules of hierarchy, reward, punishment, success, failure, pride and humiliation, mentors (gurus?) and enemies. What about doctors, nurses, policemen, soldiers etc etc. And then there are those in the spiritual realm. Pretty much every monastic tradition has a rigid hierarchy, a demand to surrender to a temporal, corporeal, human, master, some more accomplished than others but all demanding obedience.”

Except for the soldiers and the monastic tradition examples, your examples are contained situations, i.e. they are resticted to work, or bodily health, etc. It’s not absolute rule over your whole life. It’s 9-5 rule, for example. Regarding solidiers, they aren’t being very smart (but don’t tell them I said that) because they are letting corrupt politicians tell them to kill and be killed. Regarding the monastic tradition, I’d say they aren’t being very smart either because I don’t think many people make progress in monasteries - most just hide out from life and reality. Regarding your statement about accepting “absolute rules of hierarchy, reward, punishment, success, failure, pride and humiliation, mentors (gurus?) and enemies”, I’d say that is a very low, instinctual, unintelligent, rudimentary forms of functioning unworthy of higher spiritual endeavour. And the rules, etc., are not accepted absolutely in the situations you mention. Everyone fudges, takes breaks, etc., otherwise it would be unbearable. Another point is that I don’t understand why Andrew’s enlightenment consisted of Papaji whispering sweet nothings into Andrew’s ear for 5 minutes, but your enlightenment required 10+ years of control, obedience, slappings, etc., which still didn’t work! It just looks obvious that Andrew’s ego reared up and took control of the life process after his ideals were shattered when Papaji said bad things about Andrew behind his back. (By the way, I saw Andrew say bad things about someone in Bodhgaya, then flat out deny it, exactly like Papaji. That’s human nature.)

Guru-Talk Person: “My point is that we in the so-called free West have the illusion that even in spiritual matters, voluntarily devoting one's efforts to another's direction is somehow not right.”

I say, if it works, and everything is stated clearly upfront, then it’s great. But “works” means taking many more steps forward than backward, and there should be no big opportunity cost. I look at the supporters and I see they have many beliefs about ego, spiritual experiences, Andrew, human evolution, etc. that are wrong. While they have made some good progress, there are too many backward steps. For example, the reason people say Cohenites are brainwashed is that Cohenites seem to think only according to Cohen’s paramaters. Then there’s the opportunity cost. For example, I think many of the women, deep down, would be angry that they never had babies.

Regarding the detractors’ submission to Andrew, I’d say they didn’t see the agreement with Andrew the same way you saw it. I got out early because I naturally question everything, but someone who questions less than me will take longer to figure out what’s going on, and, by then, they are deeper into it so it’s a lot messier when they leave. Andrew and his supporters like to claim that the contract was clear at the start. I accept that the contract was clear to them, but it wasn’t to others. It took me six months to figure out what happened, and I’m not stupid. Do you see how that’s possible? Can you imagine what it’s like for someone who doesn’t believe in slapping to spend 10-15 years of their life submitted to a person who claims to be super-evolved, only to see ugly scenes of slapping? If I had have known it would end up in slapping, etc., I would never have gone anywhere near him. I’m annoyed that I wasted one year - imagine wasting 10-15 years! Although I felt him to be controlling, it wasn’t clear to me at the time that it was heading in the direction of slapping, etc. Slapping is so bizarre, but it fits his punitive personality type.

Guru-Talk Person: “You apparently do not accept the possibility that actions that the so-called detractors label as faults and flaws were in fact positively beneficial to at least some of those involved.”

I accept the slappings, cold lake dunkings, and humiliation rituals had some benefit for some people, but it’s a case of one step forward, two steps back. All that creates karma. And there are better options. By the way, were you ever slapped? Did you ever slap others?

Guru-Talk Person: “You only allow the detractors view to be correct and those whose experience and/or conclusions are different are condemned to being characterized as ignorant and deluded believers in Andrew's alleged absolute perfection and crazy world view.”

Yes, I do think they are deluded. But that’s no big deal because 99.999% of people in the world are deluded. And no one is to blame for that because we are suffering from the after-affects of war, poverty, disease, being born vulnerable with no instruction manual, etc. But when people make huge claims like they are evolving God and that those who are criticising slappings, etc. are evil losers, then I’m naturally going to put it right back in their face, especially since they say they are heroes willing to face everything and avoid nothing. They are begging for a strong response and they are saying they are heroic and therefore are able to handle it. Life always punishes hubris. Furthermore, they didn’t investigate. They arrived at Andrew’s feet with idealistic beliefs and gained dreamy beliefs about him from spiritual experiences or from resonating ideals, and Andrew reinforced those beliefs rather than questioning them. The “What is Enlightenment?” enquiry started from the premise that Andrew’s and his disciples’ ideals were true. But to enquire properly, you have to throw everything up for questioning - especially your most cherished ideals and hopes. Leave no stone unturned. My experience with Andrew was that he dismissed attempts at real enquiry. The result is that he has built up a whole system based on unquestioned assumptions. So the moment those assumptions are questioned, he and his supporters attack the questioner, sneer, shake their heads and say “wow”, say they are “shocked”, say the questioner is “disgusting”, panic, run, turn a blind eye, etc. They are incredibly touchy on this issue.

Guru-Talk Person: “I think the issues involved are much more multi-faceted than you allow.”

Well, that article was focussed on only two points because those are the foundations of the problem. The two points are 1) the disciples (and Andrew) jumping to conclusions (whether based on spiritual experiences or based on ideals), and 2) Andrew’s belief that ego is evil despite the fact that Andrew obviously has a whopper of an ego himself. If we focus on those two foundational issues, then the rest would take care of itself. All thought systems sprout from assumptions, so if we sort them out, then everything else will become easy to sort out.

Guru-Talk Person: “More interesting to me is to accept that both detractors and supports have something important to say. I completely accept the detractors point of view when they speak of their own experience and the conclusions they have come to regarding their own lives. I hesitate when they insist it applies to me and I am not at all sure about the absolute nature of many of their conclusions.”

This is very clear. Please say more! If Andrew’s supporters are evolved heroes, then why not prove it by deploying persistant and brilliant responses - especially responses that are your own rather than Andrew’s. People will feel the sincerity. Don’t hide your candle under a bushel. Consider others’ insistance to be a challenge from life, and then respond. It’s your ability to respond that counts.

Guru-Talk Person: “I very much regret the polarized nature of the discussion to date…”

I am also disappointed at the stuckness of the situation. Clearly both sides have different experiences and different interpretations of those experiences. So what’s the way forward? It seems to me, that there needs to be communication. My experience is that Andrew’s supporters always run when questioned. This is just a fact. Even the Guru-Talk website people refuse to talk, so it should be called Guru-Monologue. Nevertheless, maybe we can say that from this moment forward, no one who wants to participate in this discussion is allowed to say:

1. Andrew is completely wrong.

2. The supporters are completely deluded.

3. The detractors are completely evil losers.

By the way, I fully agree with Andrew regarding the problem - lame new age spirituality, etc. And I agree with the goal - communal spirituality and evolution. That’s why I was interested in his community. I only disagree with his methods. I also think his supporters are amazingly strong people because they endured so much for so long. I also think their spiritual experiences are great and that they have developed parts of their intellects very well. I’ve said these things before. I think the methods are the only issue.

Guru-Talk Person: “PS: Do you really think that spiritual experience of itself will result in profound human transformation? Regret to say that thus far I have found little evidence to support that view!”

I think it’s a numbers game. I think the problem is that the world still operates in lower instincts - hierarchy, etc. - because we have nothing outside of that to suggest an alternative. The context is the problem. We are largely born blank slates, and the world largely writes on us. However, if more people have spiritual experiences, then the alternative context will become stronger in our minds. My view is that since Andrew seems to have a strong talent for facilitating spiritual experiences, he should have pushed that to the max. Going back to the old societal paradigm of good vs evil, which is a product of the lowest level of dichotomous thought, just keeps everyone stuck. Such divisions are the problem. They cycle around, creating karma. No one is good or evil. The only problem is that some actions cause suffering. Such actions arise because there is no obvious readily-available alternative. Spiritual experiences suggest the alternative. Do you see my point? Andrew complained because people had spiritual experiences then fell back. But that’s to be expected in the beginning, especially in a distracting ignorant environment where everyone else is lacking in spiritual experience.

Your email was good. You should post it on my website, and I can post this reply there, and the conversation can move forward.

Regards,

Martin Gifford.

Untangling the Guru-Disciple Relationship with Andrew Cohen

2010-02-05T11:15:00.006+11:00

Andrew Cohen is an American guru who has a magazine called EnlightenNext (previously called What is Enlightenment?). He strongly advocates for the guru-disciple relationship, and he is hailed by Ken Wilber as a great example of a “rude guru”.

However, Andrew has many detractors who have written books and articles criticising him for slapping disciples, dunking disciples in cold lakes, putting disciples through humiliation rituals, etc. The detractors’ books are American Guru by William Yenner and Enlightenment Blues by Andre van der Braak, and the detractors’ articles are on this website: http://www.whatenlightenment.net.

In response to these books and articles, Cohen’s supporters have written many articles of their own to defend him, and these are located at Guru Talk, and in the Reviews section of Yenner’s book at Amazon. The writers of these articles admit to the slappings, etc., but they claim that the context justified Cohen’s actions.

What I find most interesting is that a revealing pattern has emerged in the guru-talk.com articles. These articles describe the writers’ own experiences with Cohen in an attempt to convey the profundity of the context so that the reader will accept that the slappings, etc., were justified. Here are the common steps in their stories followed by my comments:

1. The writer begins by stating that they have done much spiritual seeking.

This is fine.

2. The writer goes on to explain how they came to attend an Andrew Cohen meeting.

This is also fine.

3. Next, the writer has a big spiritual experience during the meeting.

This is great!

4. Then, the writer suddenly KNOWS that Andrew is basically perfect and is their destined guru.

This is a classic spiritual beginner’s mistake and it’s very dangerous. Thoughts we have during spiritual experiences do not translate into the world of relativity. For example, in the throes of a spiritual experience many people have thought that they are God, yet they haven’t created any universes since then, which proves the thought “I am God” needs a few provisos attached, at least. Jumping to conclusions is a common and natural mistake due to the overwhelming intensity of such experiences. The onus is on the facilitator of these experiences to point out to the seeker that while the spiritual experience is real, the thoughts they had during and after the experience are not true. Thoughts are small and so they can never describe reality. As Andrew himself says, people shouldn’t become addicted to intensity.

5. Next, Andrew, says something like, “It’s your ability to respond that counts.”

So, by implication, Andrew agrees with the writer’s conclusions about him and their spiritual experience. The problem is clear. Since they now believe Andrew is a perfect person, his self-image, worldview, and instructions must also be perfect, and so blind obedience to him becomes necessary. This obedience is reinforced whenever his speeches and instructions relate to their ideals and to the other thoughts they had during their spiritual experience.

6. Next, the writer submits to Andrew’s “absolute rule” (Rick Asherson’s phrase at guru-talk.com), hoping that discipleship will complete her or his enlightenment and/or begin a new leap in human consciousness, which is Andrew’s stated main goal.

Once you submit to someone’s “absolute rule” you are automatically in the position of an unenlightened person. You cannot act in an enlightened way from that position. So everything you do will fall short. Even if the guru tells you to be yourself or be a light unto yourself, you will still be obeying. All human progress comes from understanding, which is lacking in this particular situation. It seems to me that Andrew is taking advantage of their vulnerability (even if his intentions are good), rather than aiding their understanding by pointing out their mistaken assumptions, which is the essence of the guru’s job description.

7. Next, Andrew puts the writer through all kinds of ordeals - including slappings, cold lake dunkings, and humiliation rituals - in order to defeat their “evil” ego. In the article, both Andrew and the writer are presented as heroes and the stakes are presented as “unimaginably high” (Debbie Wilson’s phrase at guru-talk.com).

Firstly, having an ego is necessary unless you live in a cave or are surrounded by bodyguards. Secondly, creating these ordeals appears to be a manifestation of Andrew’s punitive perfectionist ego. It seems to me that Andrew wants to erase all traces of his disciples’ behaviour that don’t fit his personal egoic ideals. Of course, this causes a defensive response in the disciples, whereupon Andrew begins punishing. In other words, Andrew creates the whole drama in the belief that it is necessary for human evolution, but really it’s only to satisfy Andrew’s unexamined psychological needs. (For more information about Andrew Cohen’s perfectionist ego, see: http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/TypeOne.asp. Alternatively, you can listen to this audio clip, which is only 5 minutes long: http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/books/audio/audio.asp?audiofile=file1)

8. Next, the writer describes how he or she learnt a lot of things over the years and may have even experienced “intersubjective enlightenment”. (Intersubjective enlightenment is where groups of people experience oneness and love.)

This is great!

9. After 10-15 years, the writer quits their discipleship with Andrew because they think they aren’t cut out for final enlightenment or they aren’t ready for it yet.

This shows the person is trapped in seeing themselves in terms of Andrew Cohen’s worldview rather than seeing themselves in relationship to whole naked reality. After all, how far away from reality are you? No distance. The choice is between looking at reality or looking at illusion. Why would anyone knowingly choose to focus on illusion?

10. Next, the writer expresses gratitude to Andrew and unquestioningly reaffirms their faith in his perfection or near perfection.

This is good in that it shows humility and goodwill, but it is bad in that it shows a stubborn attachment to their beliefs about Andrew.

11. Next, the writer judges Andrew’s detractors as losers, liars, etc.

This is a redoubled effort of the writer to prop up his or her unnecessary and false beliefs about Andrew and his worldview. While it is true that the detractors left out details, they did so in order to focus on the faults in Andrew that he and his disciples stubbornly refuse to face.

12. Lastly, the writer affirms that he or she is still a seeker.

Here we see the writers are failing to acknowledge that Andrew’s methods didn’t work and that they have accepted much counterproductive baggage about gurus, disciples, spiritual experiences, goals, etc, in the process. In other words, along with taking forward steps, they took backward steps.

So do the numerous negatives I point out above mean that the guru-disciple relationship is always bad? No. Actually, I believe others are normally needed for us to progress, and that even having someone you formally call your guru can accelerate our progress. However, there is a problem when the disciple believes the guru is perfect and then becomes afraid to see the guru’s imperfection, and that problem is exacerbated when the guru stubbornly resists feedback regarding his or her imperfection since he or she has become an authority figure for the disciple.

What’s the solution in this particular case? All that needs to happen is for both Andrew and his supporters to fully acknowledge his ego, and therefore his shadow. It’s a simple, obvious, and necessary step for progress to be made. However, for some strange reason, Andrew and his supporters are attached to the belief that he is perfect or nearly perfect. It’s blind love. If instead Andrew acknowledged his faults, and his supporters acknowledged their errors, then the illusions that caused the negatives mentioned above would all dissolve, and so the negatives themselves would all dissolve because their foundations would be gone. At some point the guru needs to learn something about himself from the disciples. It can’t always be a one-way street.

—

Note: I have emailed the guru-talk.com people and Andrew Cohen inviting them to respond in the comments section. (They do not publish posts like this in the comments sections of their websites.) I hope they do respond here. I think it would help to move this issue, and human evolution, forward.

Heart Being

2010-01-12T11:57:00.004+11:00

In late 2001, I had accidentally found myself in a job titled “Billings Clerk” at Sydney’s Royal Hospital for Women in Randwick. I don’t remember what I did. It was so boring that I had to ask the supervisor every day to remind me what to do. It was something like checking that bills for hospital accommodation were paid and posting letters. If bills were long overdue, I’d phone the debtor to see if they intended paying and then make notes on the computer. That’s it - I remember. I was a goddamned debt-collector! For six months. How did that happen?! It got to the point where I actually had to spank my bum and cajole myself to make my body walk to work. By contrast, a Chinese lady colleague, Marla, told me that she had money and didn’t need to work! “I do it for fun. And to give money to charities. Drives my husband crazy!” I wondered if she was crazy.

Although I didn’t know where else I belonged, I sure as hell didn’t belong at the Royal Hospital for Women. Due to a twenty-year commitment to the spiritual search (and concurrent commitment to being a rock star and saving the world), I had built up loads of dispiriting job experience, and it had taught me that such jobs never go anywhere good. So in January 2002 I decided to quit, and head for Byron Bay. I vowed not to go on the dole either, so it was up to Byron Bay to get it’s transformative act together and sort things out for me.

On my last day of work - forever, this time - Marla gave me an envelope with a card in it and made me promise not to open it till I got on the bus in two day’s time. I intended to type up the notes for one of three books I was writing. I figured I had enough money for two months. I figured I could type and tidy one book in that time and send it to a publisher. After that, I had no idea what I’d do. But stickers on rusted out Byron Bay Kombis assure us that “Magic Happens”, and this time I hoped they were right.

I had nowhere to store my possessions so the day before I left, I put my sparkly metallic-burgundy Stratocaster copy with white scratchplate and maple neck into the music shop to be sold on consignment, then I had a big clean out and put stuff into charity bins. But after a day of sorting and throwing, I realised I still had way too much. My six boxes of diaries, screenplays, and songwriting sat on the floor like Sisyphus’s boulder multiplied by six. “How many share accommodation places and boarding house dumps have I dragged these anchors to?” Since our creative potential is infinite, there’s plenty more where they came from, so I bit the bullet and threw out everything from before 1999. That left me with one box of book notes, one backpack, and one sports bag. Still a load when you’ve got no money, but doable.

Next morning, the bus was due to leave at seven from Central Station, but all the cabs on Bondi Road were occupied. There are normally zillions of empty ones at that time. Eventually one came at six-forty. No way was I going to make it. “How long do you reckon it will take to Central Station?”

“Not long,” grunted the fat old man.

Normally in such situations, you get all the red lights, the car crawls, and time accelerates, but this time the opposite happened. This guy zipped through back streets and ducked between cars and trucks, yet somehow stayed within the speed limit. Some kind of Zen, magic carpet taxi driver! We were gliding up behind the bus in under fifteen minutes. “Wow, man, so much faster than other taxi drivers.”

“Yah,” he grunted as he took my payment and tip, then Shazammed! away. The bus driver chucked my stuff in the luggage compartment, and we were away right on seven.

After stopping at Parramatta and Chatswood, the bus churned its way up the coast on the twelve-hour journey to Byron Bay. I worried about accommodation and money, which are among my worst skill-areas. Alongside career. Oh, and women. And enlightenment. So all I could think to do was to chant OM quietly to myself all the way. Then I remembered the envelope from Marla. I opened it and found a little card wishing me luck, and there were six fifty-dollar notes! Gee, what a wise woman! But does that mean she thought I was a charity case?

In Byron Bay, I scrounged around - a few nights in a garage here, a few nights on a sofa there. It was still summer so accommodation was booked out, but within a week I was in Belongil Beachhouse, a backpacker dorm.

Steadfastly, I typed my notes onto floppy disks in internet cafes, sometimes up to seven hours per day. I also OM’d (Is that the spiritual person’s equivalent of “D’oh!”?) and read the beginning of My Master Is Myself by Andrew Cohen, the end of an early edition of The Knee Of Listening by Adi Da, and all of Be As You Are, by Ramana Maharshi. All three were bereft of useful comments on accommodation, money, careers, and women (not necessarily in that order). They were strictly about enlightenment as if enlightenment somehow doesn’t include accommodation, money, careers, and women. Hippies and spiritual seeker friends had no clue what I should do either. Barry Long followers were strict about “getting your life right”. A friend, Cole, who was into A Course in Miracles, was willing to collaborate in the creation of a personal growth business, but I was disappointing him with my lack of physical dynamism. However, I mainly spoke to Osho sannyassins and satsang groupies, so “Go with the flow” was the most common suggestion. But what if the flow empties into a smelly sewer or torrid waterfall?

After four weeks I was down to two-hundred dollars and the pile of notebook ink in need of conversion to floppy disk magnetism hadn’t diminished much, and I had begun spanking my bum to make myself go typing. At an internet cafe, I skimmed back over the material I had already typed and could see the books would need a lot more work - like a year or two. What to do in the meantime? Magic was not happening. Slumping there, I felt like never typing another word again, but I was still debating the point with myself. Just at that moment, I looked up and saw a fat man walk through the door and I had sort of an x-ray vision into his belly where a hell scene was unfolding - red and fiery with people being flogged to work. “Uh-oh, I’m losing my mind from the OMing, and the reading, and my accumulated failures.”

Nevertheless, I got more serious about meditation and keeping a diary because that was all I could think to do with my money running out and my motivation to type now dead. In my pocket diary, I wrote long tracts of enquiry in response to the books I was reading. For example, on the topic of trust, I wrote:

“By buying the ‘[money and accommodation] problem’, I actually step out of the livingness of life and this is itself the first distrust. So it’s true that trust is needed. And it begins with trusting that you don’t need the story of separation and problems. In fact, the ideal of trust is a goal and a falsehood. The seeing of the falsehood of problems and separation leaves only what could be called trust but is really only the livingness of now. No matter how I look at it, it keeps coming back to that.” Later, I wrote, “I’m sure I understand, so where are the fireworks? Ah, it doesn’t matter. Nothing needs to happen.”

Also, when on a quiet beach at sunrise, I would do things like letting my arms move how they felt like moving (like tree branches swaying in the wind or kung fu moves) as I chanted OM. The red-headed bush turkeys and red-beaked seagulls must have thought the red-nosed human was crazy. Every time money worries popped up, I chanted or read or let my body move how it wanted or I wrote in my diary. I experimented with opposite viewpoints like imagining I was an apple tree producing fruit rather than needing things, or giving my last five dollars away, or receiving a million dollars for nothing. I drew two diagrams. One was a zig-zag line going downwards and narrowing until it became an arrow pointing downward. Another was of a vertical line with imbalanced horizontal lines across it.

But it all must have been having an effect because one night I woke up around midnight and it felt like my body was melting or I was melting into my body. It was very pleasant. It was a relaxation beyond any normal kind of physical relaxation. It felt like something else inside me was melting. Perhaps liberation is an energetic phenomenon.

The next afternoon I had a beer and in a flash of insight wrote, “Is it all about ending leaks to stagnant ponds? Yes! Release! Beer = gulps of wisdom! I was trying to gather security, which was only fuelling my weakness. It’s all about discovering and cleaning up leaks - completion of illusion.” Later, I went to a cafe, and a refreshingly impolite waitress said, “You eat out too much.” She was right. During the previous week, I had started doing a slimmed-down version of Byron Katie’s technique called “The Work”, so I tried that again. I focussed on cause and effect issues using the formula, “By doing X action, I get Y result”. For example, I wrote, “By reacting to loneliness and boredom, I go to cafes, which maintains money problems and caffeine addiction.” I did this technique for five minutes, but then gave up and wrote, “It’s all unravelling. I can’t be perfect or repress.”

That night I woke some time after two and laid on my back, meditating. Soon I felt the melting again, but this time it activated some strange process inside. Energy in my body withdrew from my extremities and belly, and became centred in my head as a spark of light. Then I - as that spark of light - travelled down to the right side of my chest where a golden Buddha-like being with a tall pointy golden hat communicated in kind of psychic way:

“I am the/in the/as the heart of all beings. All beings… within. All beings… connected.”

Then he gestured to his right where a space scene opened up and many beings were meditating with cords interconnecting their hearts. Then he turned to me and asked:

“And you…?”

With that, my attention turned back on myself and I started separating from him. Then I tried to return to him, but the harder I tried, the faster I separated until I reached the centre of my head again.

Then I opened my eyes and saw light coming from the right side of my chest. It seemed that the light was somehow projecting the world in some kind of fourth dimensional way. I remained still as I laid there enjoying the deepest sense of belonging, and memorising his words.

Then I heard footsteps getting louder along the verandah until a woman dorm resident, a Brit, opened the door and walked in. She promptly stripped naked and began playing the dancing exhibitionist, unaware that anyone was awake. In confusion, my eyes darted back and forth from her curvacious body to the light radiating from my chest.

It seems the Buddha guy left a few details out. I mean, how’s a bloke supposed to concentrate on refined spiritual matters when a naked woman is frollicking a few metres away? It’s that temptress Eve all over again. Only, she’s the apple!

Next morning, I walked along the beach to the Beach Hotel for a celebratory breakfast. Over the PA system played songs I’d never heard before with poignant lyrics like, “I want to be the sunlight in your eyes” (Head And The Heart by Chris De Burgh), “I’ve got to make a connection” (I Got The Message by ZZ Top), and “You’re standing on the ledge” (On The Ledge by Hughes Turner Project). I sat gazing out to the ocean and writing in my diary about the previous night’s experience. There was also a slight pain like the pain in the eyes when seeing overly bright light except it was located in the right side of the chest.

“Why was he golden? Why was he a he? It was the most satisfying state. It was such a relief. Might it get boring over time? Does the pleasure of it require a body? Why was it a male figure? Because I’m male? Siva/Shakti? Was it just another aspect of reality or it? It was funny that it was followed by the arrival of a naked female backpacker, which stimulated a familiar stirring in my loins. It was like the polarity of inner and outer. Perhaps out of the ocean of love appears a form that is attractive to or creates its opposite from out of that ocean. As soon as part of the One craves or clings or makes an object of the bliss of oneness, its opposite must arise. Perhaps there is an eternal dance or conflict between the masculine and feminine.”

What about his tall pointy hat? He sure didn’t get that at Grace Bros. And isn’t funny that I’d been searching all over the world for a larger perspective, and it turns out it’s only twelve inches away, and inside me and everyone?! And we’re in it already. How hard can it be? It should be for everyone. A measley twelve inches! So, out of all the things I was doing, what was the key? Be willing to let your whole life unravel and be the “livingness” of life without ideals or goals? Or simply stop objectifying? I wrote, “There’s nothing you can do. You can only be it.” But I’m not satisfied with that answer, because you need to work to understand even that idea.

Later at the Beach Hotel, I saw a spiritually inclined friend, Mitch, and seeing my enthusiasm, he asked, “Was that your first spiritual experience?”

“No. But this whole world is a spiritual experience.” And I gestured towards the ocean, and he agreed. I don’t like the word “spiritual”. Why distinguish this magnificent universe from “spiritual”? If it all came from The One, then isn’t it all “spiritual”? Besides, we are supposed to be inside the Heart Being, and I presume he’s “spiritual”.

“Why do you call it “the heart being”, when it’s on the right side instead of the left?”

“I think he meant “heart” as in centre of your being.”

I’d had other great so-called “spiritual” experiences before, but this one went to the core. Isn’t it funny how you have an experience and think, “This is it,” only to find a bigger “it” later? This one gave me the greatest sense of peace imaginable. I belonged in the very fabric of the universe. But the main thing I appreciated was that I finally heard something from the horse’s mouth, so to speak; yet it wasn’t that original - every new-ager will tell you, “We’re all interconnected.” Is being in the heart of all beings a good job? Or was he leading up to say, “Please help me escape”?

John Howard - who was not a new-ager but rather the Australian Prime Minister at the time - wouldn’t let me go on the dole in Byron Bay because the unemployment rate there is too high. No exceptions for those trying to integrate Golden Heart Being experiences, etcetera. After all, look at the wonderful jobs in the army and ASIO after 9/11! So a week later, with fifty bucks in my wallet, I was on a bus to Brisbane to study the enneagram - an ancient personality-typing system, or, more specifically, an ego-typing system. This time, there were no envelopes in my pocket with “Bon Voyage!” cards and three hundred dollars. But it occurred to me that if Marla hadn’t given me three hundred dollars, I would have been in Byron for a week less and I probably wouldn’t have had the heart being experience. Magic happened!

Upon arrival, I booked into a West End hostel where the beds were a metre apart and the floor was slippery and smelly from the shower and chlorinated pool water. With my tail between my legs, I entered the Brisbane Centrelink office to beg for mercy for quitting my Sydney job. They relented, but due to some technicality, my first dole payment wasn’t going to be paid for two weeks.

Next morning - a Friday - using the last two dollars of my mobile phone credit, I phoned the music shop to see if my guitar had been sold. The manager took a moment to find it, then said, “No. Nice guitar for the price. Should sell quick.”

“Do you want to buy it?”

“Ah, maybe. Let me see.” He plucked it for a few seconds, then picked up the phone again. “Yeah, maybe. I couldn’t give you the three-twenty you’d get from a consignment sale because we’d have to hold it in stock till it sold.”

“How much, then?”

“Two-fifty?”

“Okay.”

That would make a big difference. Over the weekend, I visited the ATM machine, and its cold hard screen kept digitally reporting the grand total of $0.44. At least the numbers were coloured gold. I figured maybe the payment wouldn’t be processed till the next business day, which was Monday. But when Monday morning came, the ATM still said $0.44, so I phoned the music shop using the last dollar of an faded Telstra phonecard.

“We do our banking on Thursday, so it should be in your account on Friday.”

Now I had only a few coins in my pocket, and the magic had totally faded. Time for more humble pie. I visited a homeless hostel to see if they had any room, but they wanted fourteen bucks per night up front. So I went to the pawn broker and showed the shop assistant my watch and mobile phone. He sneered, “We’re not accepting watches or phones at the moment.” Rejected by a pawnboker! Does it get any worse? There was nothing else for it: I had to put my bags in the hostel storage garage and hit the streets. Maybe it will be character building, I told myself.

My first homeless day consisted of walking and sitting, walking and sitting, looking for coins on the ground, walking and sitting. It’s amazing how many gold beer bottletops are on the ground. Sure, feeling the afterglow of the “spiritual” experience and the background peace was nice, but why didn’t that Heart Being dude tell me how to get money? If he’s so cosmic and all, why didn’t he tell me where to live? Why didn’t he give me the phone number of my soulmate? Maybe he’s too busy. Maybe he’s too timeless to understand our timebound problems here on mere 3D Earth. Unless the British backpacker was my soulmate? Maybe the Heart Being handed her too me and I only had to reach out and take her. Just reach out. Or perhaps you’ve got to give everything time to settle down.

For dinner, I finished some raisin bread that I had been living off for the last few days, then sat around some more and walked some more. Around midnight I found a park bench in the botanic gardens and tried to make myself comfortable. The joints of my shoulders and hips felt the pressure of the bench’s metal plank edges, and my tummy was was unhappy. As I closed my eyes, I remembered reading about a dero in Centennial Park back in Sydney being murdered as he slept. And there was that movie with Robin Williams where vicious youths tried to set a dero on fire. Isn’t the Heart Being in them? Maybe he can protect me. Maybe from within them? Or he could leap out of my chest and kung fu their butts? Poke them in the eye with his tall pointy hat?! No, I’ll have to stay awake in case someone attacks me. I’ll have to stay awake… stay awake…

Cold wetness on my scalp brought me out of a light sleep. “Uh-oh. That’ll be the gang of youths playing tricks on me. I’ll jump up super quick to surprise them with Kung Fu or Ninjutsu. Quick!”

I lept up and spun around into full kung fu attack pose. What the…? About ten Brush-Tailed Possums were hanging around, all bushy-furred with big dark eyes, impossibly cute in the moonlight. There was even a mother with a baby clinging to her back. I didn’t frighten them at all. They were like, “Hey, whatever, dude. What’s your problem? We’re just sniffing you. And… maybe licking you… a bit. Nothing wrong with that.”

I sat down, gazing at them as they closed in to sniff me again. What were they sniffing me for? They were so gentle and sweet-natured. I wished I had something to feed them. After a while I shooed them so I could get back to not sleeping. But they wouldn’t go. Maybe they’ll protect me. Beware! Vicious attack possums! So I laid down, and tried not to sleep again. Don’t sleep…

Within a minute, there was a lick on my scalp. I sat up. “Why the hell are you sniffing and licking me?” I knew they liked fruit, but, I’m not an apple or a female British backpacker or anything. Maybe they could still smell the raisin bread. But then why lick my scalp? Then it dawned on me - fruit essence shampoo! There must have been residue on my scalp.

I had to leave them because they weren’t going to leave me alone. Besides, it was now after four and starting to get too cool, so I kept walking to warm up. My inner critic kicked in, “God, Martin, what are you doing sleeping on park benches and being eaten by possums? There are millions of beds in the world. Why can’t you even get something as basic as a bed sorted out? Clueless.”

At seven o’clock I laid face-down on the grass in the morning sunlight, soaking in the warmth. With my eyes closed, I wondered what I would do for food that day and fantasised about sitting in the sunshine of a Bondi cafe with a latte and plucking a six-string while watching the play of light on the fresh blue sea.

“Wanna coffee, mate?” I sat up and looked around. An old guy was chugging along about ten metres away. “Come on, come for coffee at the van.” A coffee sounded great. I picked up my backpack and jogged up to him and he told me about the Christian coffee van that came every morning. “If we’re quick, we can be nearly first in line.”

When we joined the queue behind the van, a Japanese tourist stopped and took a photo of us as I gave him the finger. Soon I got my paper cup of instant coffee and powdered milk, two white bread cheese sandwiches, and an apple. Prasadam from Jesus! Actually, he also once said, “I am in you and you are in me.”

We went and sat in the Sun by the river. “Thanks, for telling me about this,” I said to the old guy, whose name is sometimes Leslie.

“No worries mate. There’s one at sunset too, just past Queen Street Mall.”

I bit into a sandwich and gulped coffee from the styrofoam cup. My God, it was the best coffee and the best cheese sandwich I’d ever had. Better than a cappuccino in Double Bay or a croissant in Paris. I thought, “Is this magic happening again? Is this the effect of going with the flow? Well, it’s just survival, rather than flourishing, but this moment is good.”

That night, I broke the apple up and gave it to the possums. They weren’t very enthusiastic. “It’s not a great apple, I admit. One day, I’ll bring you some ideal possum food. I promise.”

The possums nibbled on, just being polite.

- THE END -

Let’s Create Worldwide Happiness

2009-07-19T17:22:00.002+10:00

Introduction

Humankind has performed great feats and made many valuable discoveries. We now have excellent understanding of the world and we have the communication technology to spread that understanding easily. These successes have been worthwhile in themselves, but they are also milestones in our progress towards the creation of worldwide happiness. The subconscious motivation for our endeavours has been to spread happiness. The time is right for this subconscious goal to be made conscious.

Until now, we pursued happiness generally working in this order: self, partner, family, community, nation, and finally world. Our assumption has been that by increasing security we provide the foundations for happiness to arise naturally. However, focussing on security tends to keep us at the competitive level of 'us vs them'. This leads to the creation of enemies thereby spoiling our security and happiness.

While it is true that strong fences make good neighbours, we also need to work for the happiness of our neighbours. In resolving disputes, we need to emphasise our desire for the happiness of both sides.

Our greater potential

Our greater potential for individual and group happiness can manifest only in the context of worldwide happiness. In a happy world we enjoy the happiness of others, and the activities of others assists the fulfilment of our own potential. Without worldwide happiness we feel the pain of others, we hurt others, and experience retaliation from others.

Happiness for human beings on Earth means enjoying present reality while creating a good future reality. Ultimately, all life shares this purpose. Simply put, the energy of the Universe manifests its potential in spectacular galaxies, stars, and planets, and then it creates myriad wondrous living forms such as a peacock, a rose, and Angelina Jolie. After taking care of survival matters, animals move towards the pleasant and the enjoyable e.g. sunbathing, playing, and singing.

Progressing from survival to happiness

Human life has five natural stages that will inevitably culminate in spreading happiness to all:

1. Fighting for survival.

2. Establishing security.

3. Appreciating life.

4. Enjoying others and the world.

5. Co-creating the future.

In other words, we survive to establish security; we establish security to live; we live to appreciate and enjoy our bodies, our minds, Planet Earth, and The Universe; and by appreciating and enjoying life together, we co-create the future.

These stages of life fit in with all philosophies and religions since philosophy essentially means 'love of life', and the major religions hold that we earn paradise or liberation in the next life according to what we do in this life. If you explore why people pursue anything, you will find that the quest for greater happiness for themselves or others is at the heart of it.

The crucial transition is from the instinctual competitive survival focus of stage 1 to the intelligent cooperative happiness focus of stages 2-5. This is the change we are now ready to make.

The fighting for survival stage is painful but brief. It is a blind instinctual reaction to an emergency, and emergencies are the consequence of a lack of knowledge. Fighting continues until the knowledge of better ways arises. The next stage of establishing security is even briefer than the fighting for survival stage because establishing security comes from knowledge and pro-activity. Establishing security is about cooperatively caring for everyone's security, and this is the foundation for the stages of appreciation, enjoyment, and co-creation.

However, if we do not know about the necessity of all-inclusive cooperation, then we unwittingly repeat aspects of the rudimentary stage of fighting for survival. This leads to destructive behaviours that generate enemies, and so it spoils the very security to which we cling. Progressing to higher stages, on the other hand, increases security because appreciation, enjoyment, and co-creation lead to learning and goodwill, and these inevitably increase security. With the growth in understanding, our actions expand from competing with other groups to spreading happiness to all people.

Given that we have advanced levels of information and technology, we must be ready to let go of fighting and to move on to higher stages. The tree of humankind is ready to strengthen and grow through cooperation. With the advantages of modernity, effective action can be taken quickly and easily.

Objections

Interestingly, the majority of people I have spoken to either seem to have given up on the possibility of worldwide happiness, or believe that it is centuries away "…if we survive that long." Most people agree that they would like to walk down the street fearlessly and joyfully in a carnival of love. In contemplation of this, their eyes brighten, their breathing relaxes, and their body language opens. But then clouds close over as they conclude with statements like, "I just don't think it's possible", or "Not in my lifetime." Some people literally topple off their chairs in their efforts to prove that worldwide happiness is impossible.

Objections generally fall into two categories:

Objection 1: "Worldwide happiness is a bad goal."

Objection 2: "Worldwide happiness is impossible because of Earthly or human limitations."

A good refutation for objection 1 is that if you are sensitive to feelings of happiness, you will also be sensitive to the suffering of others, so your happiness depends on others' happiness. In addition, to fulfil our potential we need the happy cooperation of others.

A good refutation for objection 2 is that information and technology have improved to the point where worldwide happiness is now physically possible (e.g. you are reading about it on the internet right now). Although we might think that people are selfish, greedy, or ignorant, we all share the same ultimate goal of happiness, so people only need to learn what works i.e. all-inclusive cooperation.

The cause of objections

People argue against the possibility of worldwide happiness because the idea triggers a network of negative conclusions based on the following repeated evidence:

- The warnings of evil and entrapment promulgated by some religious people.

- The conflict and meaninglessness emphasised by some scientists (e.g. the idea that life is about survival of the fittest).

- The past horrors highlighted by historians.

- The daily horror updates exhibited in the media.

The thinking of humankind is restricted because it takes place within a philosophical ghetto maintained by the momentum of inherited negativity. This is why most people have not seriously considered the possibility of living in a palace of worldwide happiness. In the past, we subconsciously emphasised and spread the old rumour that life is difficult except for the strong, the clever, the evil, and the lucky, and that we must struggle for survival and happiness. That is the predominant worldview we live in today, and it needs to be challenged.

Our higher instincts

While we made war, we also created great art and technological wonders. We were destructive only because we knew no better way to deal with threats or imagined threats. We have been constructive because this is what we naturally do when we have free time, inspiration, and knowledge.

We commonly hear that violence, selfishness, and greed are 'human nature.' Some people tell us we are animals born to compete, and others tell us we are sinners born to submit to impossible ideals. Such views inadvertently emphasise the worst of our past and reinforce our lower instincts and sense of powerlessness. To deal with this negativity about the world and other people, we can simply emphasise the future and stimulate our higher instincts.

However, emphasising our higher instincts does not mean advocating heroism or ideals. Those who promote inspirational success stories ultimately produce a negative effect. This is because success stories are about heroes overcoming adversity, and since the storytellers do not address the primary adversity, they inadvertently reinforce the presumed inevitability of adversity.

The most useful hero would be the one who ends adversity as such, thereby putting heroes and idealists out of business. Then we can all get on with living out our potential, rather than comparing ourselves with heroes and struggling pointlessly in an unnecessarily difficult world. Why presume that we need to fight as heroes or submit to ideals in order to live happily?

In reality, we only need information that is true to life. True information is universal and reliable - the natural progressive ways of life work well. The most relevant information is that all human beings desire happiness and they all have goodwill somewhere within them that they want to express. Knowing this, we can focus our attention on what will be effective.

What will cause worldwide happiness?

To achieve our greater potential, we only need to widely communicate the idea that establishing worldwide happiness is necessary and easy. Communication quickly leads to foresight, which stimulates the will, which leads to co-creation, learning, and fulfilment of potential. As soon as people get the idea, they spontaneously act more cooperatively, thereby increasing happiness. Many people are already doing it, but the predominant worldview of competition and adversity is diminishing the results.

Cooperation uses less time and energy than conflict does, and it produces better results. With a focus on happiness, we act with increasing harmony and inclusiveness, and we learn more quickly from our experience. This will create an environment of goodwill. In that environment the rich will help the poor to help themselves, the strong will help the weak to become strong, and we will resolve misunderstandings before conflicts arise.

If we exclude anyone, then we only create trouble for ourselves later. Even villains need to be included, at least in principle. They are waiting for their hearts to be unlocked and their goodwill to be released. In the meantime, we can generate greater security, appreciation, enjoyment, and creativity, and then invite criminals, terrorists, despots, presidents, prime ministers, opposition leaders, and media magnates to join in and be happy too. Once a higher standard of happiness has been achieved, stragglers will be attracted to it. Since the essence of human nature is to seek greater happiness, the counterproductive methods of conflict and exclusion will be recognised as redundant.

The goal is ultimately small and easily achieved. Rather than having to change 6 billion human beings, we only need to adjust the prevailing worldview from the competitive survival focus to the cooperative happiness focus. This change occurs naturally once it sinks in that the preliminary survival emergency is over for our species and that happiness is both the next step and the reason for surviving. We only have to spread the word.

Easy practical examples

When sufficient numbers of people understand the necessity and ease of worldwide happiness it would naturally lead to the implementation of measures such as:

SECURITY LEVEL

- Banning war, warlike activities, and violence

- Ending starvation and easily treated diseases

- Committing 5% of national income, resources, and defence personnel for international policing and emergency work

- Preparing for pandemics and catastrophes

- Reassessing national and international security

- Finding common ground for resolving conflict

HAPPINESS LEVEL

- Improving education and helping people find their true passions

- Developing a national and international focus on happiness and fulfilment

- Increasing study and research

- Rewarding cooperation

- Promoting creative intelligent people to increase appreciation, enjoyment, and creativity

- Fostering goodwill activities

- Preferring beauty and quality over cost-cutting

- Developing both a close and a wide sense of community

Happiness first

Worldwide happiness is the most important issue for humankind. Until now, we discussed, and polarised over, secondary issues without stating the primary issue i.e. ultimate goal. Secondary issues, such as territory, national security, and fixing people's behaviour, have remained unresolved for centuries. Each war is marketed as being the last war, which will bring final peace, security, justice, freedom, holiness, and wealth, yet wars continue; each government promises to stop crime, yet crime continues. Instead of wasting energy through diversion into secondary goals, we can focus on the primary, all-encompassing goal of worldwide happiness. A by-product of this would be an earlier end war, crime, starvation, and other large problems anyway.

We can successfully work through any political, moral, and economic issue by finding common ground. The desire for happiness is the most reliable common ground. By making mutual happiness the reference point for our discussions, other goals either instantly make sense or they are revealed to be counterproductive.

In principle, every plan and action should benefit all (or at least not hurt others) in the short-term and long-term. Aiming for the benefit of all is more effective than aiming for one's own benefit, or for the benefit of any individual or group. Expansive, inclusive, harmonious goals are life affirming, whereas smaller goals are often unhappy defences against life.

We could ask every leader how each policy would contribute to the spreading of happiness. Harping on about supposed security issues only begs the question of why we want to be secure i.e. why do we want to continue living? Surely, it is to enjoy life and to fulfil our potential. And what leader would not want to support that? Why aim any lower? Spreading happiness and goodwill works better than more fences, laws, and bombs.

A fresh global dialogue

Due to the fog caused by the prevailing competitive survival worldview, we need a fresh global dialogue on our purpose i.e. the purpose of human life on Planet Earth - here amongst all the plants and animals. The greater the number of people contemplating our purpose and the means of achieving our purpose, the sooner our greater potential will manifest.

Your actions could make the difference. For example, you could discuss the subject of worldwide happiness with friends and acquaintances. They might communicate about it further. The process you start might reach some charismatic person who can say it better than anyone else can.

Regularly asking straightforward questions could lead to the spreading of a more meaningful worldview for humankind. Would you like more enjoyment and opportunities for fulfilment? Do you want to be free from seeing people suffering in poverty and war? Do you want to see how great this world can be when based on cooperation rather than competition? Do you want to see humankind respond to life in a way that more appropriately matches the magic and wonder of this majestic universe?

It is fascinating to see what comes up when talking about worldwide happiness. Some responses are astonishingly negative. Nevertheless, if you ask objectors to imagine walking down the street in a carnival of love, especially on a Friday night or on a Sunday afternoon, you will see their bodies relax and a twinkle lighting up their eyes. It is like returning a gasping fish out of water to its natural habitat. Simply saying, 'Maybe it's possible,' opens doors.

When enough of us are aware of the possibility of worldwide happiness, it will happen. We already have the physical and mental resources, so we only need to stimulate the will that is present in us all. This happens by discussing and acknowledging the direction we are already subconsciously heading in - the fulfilment of our greater potential.

Conclusion

When the will is stimulated in a sufficient number of people, I believe we can create worldwide happiness in 10 years. What else would we do? In the 60s, technology and information reached the level required to send a human being to the moon, and now technology and information has reached the level required to create worldwide happiness. The time is right.

Finally, if you like this article, please pass it on. Send it to friends and ask them to pass it on if they like it. Otherwise, I welcome your responses, suggestions, or objections. And keep an eye out for my book called Worldwide Happiness - The Necessity and Ease of Creating Paradise on Earth, which should be published in 2010.

Martin Gifford.