Talk:Andrew Cohen (spiritual teacher)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 88.72.6.186 (talk) at 16:52, 29 November 2006 (→‎Parliament of World's Religions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject iconBiography Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This guy has followers all over the world so I think he is notable enough to be in Wikipedia. There was already a link to this page (from the New Age article) that I had not created, before I wrote this article. Andries 00:52, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

copyvio

This article is in violation of wikipedia's copyright policy. It was copied word-for-word from: http://www.andrewcohen.org/pressroom/bio.asp.

New copy posted

  • There was no copyright violation involved, as I had permission to modify and post to Wikipedia the copy in question, but per Wikipedia's interest in having original content only, a new bio has been written from scratch. --Soulplex 64.69.101.122 20:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Your verbiage is not encyclopedic and as such, qualifies for deletion. It is an advertisement, and ads are inappropriate to wikipedia. I support reverting this article to Andries' stub. And this, by the way, is coming from a WIE subscriber. --Goethean 21:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Moreover, what Goethean hasn't mentioned is that we cannot take just your say-so that you've now aquired permission to use the text. We don't take the say-sos of pseudonymous users for that, let alone of anonymous ones. They are simply not verifiable. It is the owner of that text's copyright that must explicitly say that xe grants permission, not you. And the best way to do that is to simply licence the contents of xyr web site under the GFDL, removing the current copyright notice from the bottom and placing a GFDL notice there instead. An inferior way to do that is for you to send a Boilerplate request for permission to the copyright owner, and for the copyright owner to inform Wikipedia that it grants permission for the content to be licenced under the GFDL. Uncle G 21:10, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
      • Thanks, Uncle G. That's good to know. Nevertheless, the copy in question was removed, and I wrote the version put in its place--which, per the concerns of Goethean, I am currently revising to NPOV-ize the language even further to make the information presented more clearly in accordance with the Wikipedian standard. --Soulplex 64.69.101.122 21:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • What is a "social philosopher"? I am unaware of any academic work that Cohen has done in the philosophy of sociology. --Goethean 21:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • ok...nevermind. --Goethean 21:59, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Soulplex" (64.69.101.122) has once again removed the link to WhatEnlightenment? weblog, the subject of which is Andrew Cohen. He needs to stop engaging in an Edit war. He needs to give an explanation of his behavior. Is the link not relevant? Why the partiality?

I hate to say something really mean, but this is sort of like dealing with Hare Krishnas. They have a terrible reputation on Wikipedia for vandalism, censorship, and general ill-will. --Goethean 23:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

cleanup tag removal

Can I take down the cleanup tag now? --Goethean 19:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Person vs Group

For a variety of reasons, it might make sense to spin off an article about Cohen's "EnlightenNext" and "Evolutionary Enlightenment". One reason is that now we have Cohen categorized as a "New Religious Movements" and as an "Intentional Community". Cohen is obviously not a community, intentional or otherwise, nor is he a movement. Any thoughts? -Willmcw 23:07, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. I'm adding "EnlightenNext" to the NRM list to encourage it being an article. (I can switch it to "Evolutionary Enlightenment" later if that's preferred.)--T. Anthony 04:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the (possibly obsolete) name of the group is FACE Friends of Andrew Cohen Everywhere. Andries 04:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I'm on it.--T. Anthony 06:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Falk

I have written more about this on the Ken Wilber talk page and on my talk page in response to the return of the link.

Nofalk

Please explain why you deleted this relevant link from this article. Thanks, -Willmcw 23:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am all for criticism of Cohen, but the Falk work has no merit. NPOV does not mean no quality control.

What's wrong with this website? Why are you removng it repeatedly? -Willmcw 05:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with it? Have you read it? Falk's criticism consists of cheap abuse, crap point scoring and weak sarcasm. He adds no value to the debate at all, since all his points are second-hand, with the exception of the Yogananda chapter. It is just trolling. Why would Wikipedia send someone to such a reference? It is not going to be useful to anyone. If someone farted would you link to it? This is just adolescent sounding off. van der Braak's book is an excellent and balanced obsevation of the day-to-day workings of a cult and without resorting to abuse or even harsh criticism he paints a picture which shows Cohen to be a very problematic leader. The Whatenlightenment site has ex-Cohenites discussing their experiences at some depth. These are devastating criticisms of Cohen and Wikipedia just doesn't need an unhinged rant to sit alongside them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by nofalk1 (talk • contribs) .

Nofalk, can you please sign your comments with four tildes ~~~~? Yes, van der Braak's book has everything to become a cult classic. I have not read Falk, but Wikipedia does generally little quality control with regards to external links. May be it should, but that will problematic to implement. Andries 18:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What particularly struck me as funny is that Andrew's followers were called Androids by outsiders. Andries 18:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I read it, Falk gives serious criticism with sources. That makes it an appropriate external link. See Wikipedia:external links. -Willmcw 19:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Willmcw: I don't see any statement in the style page you link to which would suggest that Falk's doc is a candidate for inclusion in the links. It does not contain neutral and accurate material, other meaningful, relevant content or cover a point of view expressed in the article (since it would be inappropriate to include unjustified abuse as a pov within the article.) 'Serious criticism with sources' is not on the list, but even if it were, Falk is a long way from serious. Nofalk1 15:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you on all counts. Please don't remove it without a consensus. -Willmcw 17:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are perfectly entitled to disagree and to inform us that you do but you have to provide some argument to back that up if you want your view to be acted upon. How can consensus be built if all you are not prepared to discuss? I'll hold off changing it again for a few days to give you time to set your counter-argument out.Nofalk1 11:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I still sdon't see what the problem is with this site. You say "all of his points are second hand", but that is not a reason to remove it. On the contrary, that indicates he is summarizing other ideas which makes is a useful link for further reading. Your username alone indicates you have a one-point agenda in editing here. -Willmcw 19:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any relationship with Gangaji ? I remember something about that. Andries 22:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She was briefly a student of Cohen's, in the early years, before she decided to follow his own guru (Poonja) instead. Kosmocentric 02:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticized for ignoring

  • In 2002, Cohen's magazine "WIE" conducted an interview in India with Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet discussing her role in the Supramental Yoga begun by Sri Aurobindo, her teachings of Evolution, of a Cosmological perspective and of the limitations of the typical view of Enlightenment of the Buddhists. "WIE" did not publish the interview, made no mention of her in their "Guru and Pandit" discussions or an exclusive article on Sri Aurobindo's Supramental Yoga, "Why Sri Aurobindo is Cool". The main criticism of Cohen held by Norelli-Bachelet's students is the unanswered question, "Why doesn't Cohen make any reference to her work, even though he knows about her and even though he knows that for 30 years she has made significant contributions to the issues that he is just starting to delve into and expresses as a new teaching, regarding Evolution and the Cosmic perspective?

This unsourced criticism seems awfully weak. It appears that unnamed students of Norelli-Bachelet believe that Cohen should give more credit to their master, should mention her more often in his magazine, and should have run an interview. This does not appear to be a serious criticism, and is unsourced. Can anyone improve it? Otherwise I think it should be deleted. -Will Beback 23:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm sure there are fifty million other people who have been left out of "WIE" and feel personally wounded by the oversight. But one particular and seemingly insignificant instance of such seems hardly worthy of inclusion in a biography about the magazine's founder. -66.155.208.3 04:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any references for it on Google either (apart from the links to wikipedia!), so I deleted it. I have no problem with including the material at some future date, but only both if it can be referenced (with correspondence or a copy of the unpublished interview or in some other way) and if it is mentioned as one among many criticisms of Cohen. M Alan Kazlev 13:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with Criticism Section

I've removed the line in the criticism section referring to Cohen's "apparent inability to confer similar teaching status on any of his long-time followers." Because the goal of Cohen's teaching concerns collective development, not personal enlightenment and "completion" as in many other spiritual paths, the criticism doesn't seem to apply. Also, it isn't true. He does appear to have students in similar teaching positions: http://www.eecourse.org/instructors.htm

I'm also making tiny tweaks to the language in that section to help prevent it from falling under the "libel against living persons" policy. Kosmocentric 16:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Dutch article

I've removed the reference to the Dutch article...it's already included on the Dutch version of this page and is unlikely to be helpful to English readers.

Excellent

http://www.johnhorgan.org/work21.htm

Passionate

http://www.andrewcohen.org/blog/pdf/declaration-of-integrity.pdf I would like reading a book of Cohen about his experience with his mother being his disciple, sort of answer to her "Mother of God". Of course not a book where he is trying to defend himself against her point of view, no, just presenting his point of view on that/this relationship. Austerlitz 88.72.11.82 08:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quotation from the interview with Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche:
In the film [The Cup], the Abbot writes about his wish that, "Nyima and Palden would continue to uphold the Buddha's teachings according to these modern times." What is it you're trying to say with that?

It doesn't mean they will change the Buddha's fundamental view. That should never be changed. I have met people in the West who are excessively attached to the external trappings of Buddhism. There is all this sentimental attachment to Tibetan customs and culture, and the actual Buddhist view is overlooked. In fact, I have heard that in creating a so-called "American Buddhism," some people are saying, "Okay, maybe the Buddha's view should be changed, now that Buddhism is in America." And that's not good. I would prefer that Americans really stick with the Buddha's view: the emptiness of inherent existence, that everything composite is impermanent, and so on. It doesn't matter if they leave out Tibetan culture. The really important thing is that they should accept the dharma. They should not worry about trying to design something better suited to Americans. The Buddha was an omniscient being. What he said was good for all sentient beings, and that includes us 2,500 years later. Nothing additional is necessary now. I see Westerners wearing chubas and showing off their malas. But I think the more people do that, the more they forget the essence, the actual point of the Buddha's teaching. It's amazing to see how eager some people are to adopt what is not essential, and throw out what is essential!

Austerlitz 88.72.28.167 18:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some information about "The mother of God"

http://www.scp-inc.org/publications/newsletters/N2203/mother_of_god.html 88.72.11.82 09:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My idea is to add a link under the criticism section to http://www.whatenlightenment.blogspot.com, as this site is maintained by many of Andrew's former students and makes claims about a number of abuses that occurred under his watch. The site holds to a journalistic standard of reporting accusations, and while the Cohen organization has responded to them several times they have not denied any of the more serious accusations made on this website. This site contains unique information about this topic and I believe should be included, considering many of the other links are vague and not very useful. The issue is whether to waive the general policy of not linking to blogs. Any thoughts?

What's the motivation behind the general policy of not linking to blogs? Austerlitz 88.72.20.157 15:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is at Wp:el#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. That said, I support the inclusion of the proposed link. It is notable and relevant to the subject of the article. — goethean ॐ 15:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with blogs is that there is no publisher to vet the sources. Basically, these ex-students can say anything they want on this blog, true or untrue. Allowing a link to it is a severe violation of WP:LIVING. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find very little or nothing at WP:LIVING that explicitly discusses external links rather than article content. — goethean ॐ 15:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, these ex-students can say anything they want on this blog, true or untrue.
Yes, and what Cohen's students say is relevent to Cohen. WP is not endorsing their comments by linking to them. — goethean ॐ 15:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that critical links should be included. If Cohen is putting himself forth as a public figure publishing ideas with which a body of people disagree, than an objective encyclopedic article would include both sides. Mattisse(talk) 15:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you Mattisse that an objective encyclopedic article will contain critical information ... if that is appropriate -- leaving "appropriate" to be defined. If the same information that is in the blog were also published by a reliable source, I don't think there would have been a request for opinions on this issue. When the criticism is "original research" then its appropriateness for Wikipedia becomes questionable in my humble opinion. I think we agree on this, I thought it might be useful to express myself in case my presumption is incorrect. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 20:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do agree with you. there might be people going to meet Cohen because of this wikipedia article; they must know what -according to the experience of people having been there- can happen.

Austerlitz 88.72.20.157 17:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand me. That is not an encyclopedic reason for inclusion. A reason would be to present vald criticism from a reliable source of the ideas he is presenting, not some sort of "duty to warn" if that is what you are suggesting. Mattisse(talk) 19:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Austerlitz expresses a commendable sentiment when writing:

there might be people going to meet Cohen because of this wikipedia article; they must know what -according to the experience of people having been there- can happen.

However, a central policy of Wikipedia is that it is WP:NOT a publisher of original research, regardless of how accurate, useful or even important, that research might be. One may be able to present strong criticisms of this policy. Yet, this is the policy. A self published blog is a reliable source regarding the views of its author, but (generally) does not meet Wikipedia standards as a reliable source for other topics. Would this blog be considered notable in itself? Would we write and keep a Wikipedia article about the blog, or about its author(s)? Although the sentiments expressed are commendable, should these sentiments override the existing guidelines? If the guidelines are faulty (and I do not say that they are) a greater service would to provide a strong case for why those guidelines are faulty, thus enabling a consensus around better guidelines. That is my opinion, but please feel free to disregard this opinion if it will facilitate a consensus on this individual link. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 19:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that we were discussing whether to include an external link to whatenlightenment.blogspot.com. The original research policy and the reliable source policy apply to content, not external links. — goethean ॐ 19:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:EL to clarify appropriateness of external links. Hope that helps. Mattisse(talk) 19:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we are discussing whether to include an external link. It appears to me that the rationale for the guideline which suggests avoiding external links to blogs is based upon the same philosophy as WP:RS and WP:NOR -- namely avoiding possible sources of error, even if it means rejecting information that is possibly true. Blogs are generally not peer reviewed, and hence may be highly unreliable. The information in this blog may or may not be reliable. I have no personal reason to doubt it. However, if we begin allowing blogs based upon their perceived utility in providing information that is not available elsewhere, we open ourselves to a great deal of misinformation and bias. That, I think, is the motivation behind the guideline that says to avoid external links to blogs. Please feel free to express you position further if you disagree. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 19:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One could mention the answer in the whatenlightenmentblog to Cohen's declaration of integrity in the section Criticism referring to it with a "footnote", footnote no. 7. Austerlitz
Hi, please forgive me for requesting clarification. Are you proposing to add a new footnote? Could you give an example of what the footnote would say? --BostonMA talk 20:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I forgive you, because I've expressed myself quite badly. I wanted to suggest: let's add some information under Criticism, like: "Some former pupils of Cohen have written an answer to his Declaration of Honesty on the whatenlightenment-blog." (you can express it more beautifully, of course.) and then make a no.7 where the Notes are, putting the above mentioned link there.

Do you understand? Austerlitz 88.72.20.157 21:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose that. Although I support adding whatenlightenment.blogspot.com to the external links section, I do not support using it as a source for article content. — goethean ॐ 22:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another suggestion for Criticism section. Former What Is Enlightement? magazine editor Simeon Alev has published "Some Personal Recollections" on whatenlightenment blog, answering to Cohen's Declaration of Honesty on his personal website.> footnote no. 7 with the link to the blog.

I would do it myself, but unfortuantely I don't know how to produce this socalled footnote.

  • Goethean, I cannot grasp your argument, because, if I got the meaning well, Cohen's declaration -that is the information about it as well as the text- must be removed, too.

To this I oppose strongly, because I am happy that I have got the opportunity to know about this. If not through wikipedia site I never came to know it. Austerlitz 88.72.6.86 09:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.strippingthegurus.com/stgsamplechapters/cohen.asp Is this sort of blog, too? Or do you agree putting this link under section Critical? Austerlitz 88.72.20.157 20:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is O.K. It is clear who wrote it. I evaluate him as being as much of an authority on the articles's ideas as the subject of the article is. Mattisse(talk) 21:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. Then I put it there.

Austerlitz 88.72.20.157 21:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, per WP:V, he needs to get the book published by a reputable publisher before we can link to it. Remember that in the case of a living person, WP:BLP applies, and it tells us to err on the side of caution in such cases. If the book was published by a reputable third-party publisher, of course it could be used. But why isn't it? Perhaps the publisher's legal depts didn't want to take the risk? Well, if that's the case, WP should not link to it, at least while the subject is still living. —Hanuman Das 15:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation from chapter XX.:

This, then, is Cohen’s apparent worldview: His own stepping into the path of an oncoming vehicle has no cause, and therefore no responsibility, truly making him a “victim.” But severe mental illness afflicting others is to be overcome by an acceptance of responsibility from which he himself explicitly shrinks.

Further, since Cohen gives no examples of good things happening equally “without a reason,” one might assume that only bad things are thus spiritually acausal. Indeed, finding one’s “soul mate” or having a book on the New York Times best-seller list—Cohen is in no danger of either—would both presumably still occur “for a reason.” That is, they would happen perhaps for one’s own spiritual evolution, or for the sake of the dreamed-of “revolution” in one’s grandiose life-mission.

And to such gibbering “Buddhas” as this, one should then “surrender completely,” for one’s own highest benefit? Quite excellent. Austerlitz 88.72.6.86 09:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Cohen does not like it?

Self published books as footnote citation valid?

Also, the second footnote is Flash - rich media - if you want to get the information. Is that O.K.? Mattisse(talk) 15:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Austerlitz 88.72.6.186 10:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parliament of World's Religions

On the main page it is said: "Cohen was a featured speaker at the 2004 Parliament of the World's Religions,". Does anybody know what he has said there? what was the religion he has spoken out for? Has he given some comments of his own on that event? Austerlitz 88.72.6.186 10:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that much of the article is very vague and unverified. There are no references to most of the statements in it. Mattisse(talk) 13:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Integral Institute

On the mainpage about Cohen one can read: "In 1998, Cohen, along with Ken Wilber, was one of the founding members of the Integral Institute." On the mainpage about Integral Institute one can read: "

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrew_Cohen_(spiritual_teacher)&oldid=90930666"