feminine resistance to enlightenment?

[M101]

It's fairly well known that more men than women have become spiritually awakened throughout history...but the reasons behind this are rarely addressed openly by high profile spiritual teachers...

Have noted some of the articles on this site exploring the issue of feminine forms of resistance to spiritual enlightenment.

The following, concerning American spiritual guru Andrew Cohen's dealings with his female disciples, is interesting....excerpted from the book "Enlightenment Blues", written by Andre van der Braak, an ex-disciple of Cohen's...

___________________

Andrew has always seemed skeptical of women's ability to live his teachings on spiritual enlightenment. In 1989, he started to talk about a deeply rooted resistance in women that was not present in men. In 1992, Andrew began to espouse a theory about "women's conditioning". According to Andrew, due to millennia of deeply rooted conditioning, women have an engrained survival instinct that prevents them from truly letting go of the personal and embracing the impersonal perspective [of enlightenment]. Andrew's women students are considered inferior to the men, not able to meet together in an impersonal view like the men...in 1997, Andrew starts to put increasing pressure on his women students. He feels they're not objective enough, too emotional, too personal...Andrew addresses the women about their craving for affirmation from men. He says that they're not interested in truth as much as they are in being affirmed, and that they're using what they're good at, sex and service, to buy off the men so that they don't have to face themselves.

Andrew's focus on the women's conditioning becomes an increasingly central issue in the community. In the 1998 Rishikesh retreat, Andrew's pressure on the women reaches its peak. In a community meeting on the first day of the retreat, Andrew gives the women a taste of what is to come. He says that when he began to teach, it seemed to him that women had an easier time of it than men on the spiritual path. They are more in touch with their feelings, they're not too proud to show they're in ecstasy, they seem to surrender more easily, and they seem to love more deeply. But then he laughs his cackling laugh, as he usually does before he goes on to say something strong.

"But I've found over the years, that when they're challenged to allow real intimacy beyond feelings, beyond emotional devotion, women respond with a big NO!"

He shouts the last words and continues with a grim expression on his face, about how he felt a big NO rising up in his meetings with his women students. Suddenly he would feel a wall of fear and aggression without knowing where it came from. He says he didn't understand. Women seemed to have less ego; they were much more willing to serve others, much more generous.

"But I've found out that that's where their ego hides, that's where it takes refuge."

Andrew pauses....the silence in the room deepens. Everyone feels uncomfortable, even the men. Andrew bends forward and says in an almost confidential tone, "For women, it's a lot harder to come together, a lot harder to trust. Their ego is more insidious. They can be friends on a personal level and be very open with each other, but coming together in an impersonal way -- they don't want to touch that with a ten-foot pole! They become competitive and mean to each other, and rip each other to pieces!"

...Andrew has dropped a bomb in the room with his last sentence, and at this point one of the men feels compelled to try to slow Andrew down. He says, "but aren't men much more competitive than women?"

Andrew nods. He says that yes, in the world, in their work, on a superficial level, men seem more competitive. But once they break through that, they can really show up. They can be really honest. Most women are never really honest with themselves and with each other. "It's too threatening," he says. "They feel it would literally be the end of them."

Andrew sighs, as if he feels confronted with an impossible mission. "I've let it go for too long, but now I'm determined to take on the women's conditioning. I want all of you (he bends over toward the women) to crush this deep-seated biological programming and culturally determined ideas about what a woman is. I don't care what it takes. I mean it. It might mean that all of you run away I end up with only men students."

Silence. Some of the men look at each other with worry in their eyes. The women sit with downcast eyes, crushed, not knowing what to say or do. Then Andrew breaks the silence. He says to the women, "I feel no response from you whatsoever. I don't know what to do anymore to reach you. Why don't you all leave now and have a meeting together. I want you to come up with a response."

One by one the women leave the room. When they're gone, Andrew turns to us, his men students. In a confidential tone, he tells us just how frustrated he is with the women. They're just not getting it. He asks for our solidarity. We have to stand together as men in this historic fight against a deeply rooted archetypal conditioning. "No one has taken this on before," Andrew says. He tells us the women are mainly looking for affirmation; they want to keep the feeling that they're fundamentally okay. He warns us not to be taken in by their wiles, and asks us to deny them the affirmation they crave so badly. He advises us to approach them in a strictly formal way, not so much as smile at them, not to give them the feeling that things are okay. We assure Andrew that we're at his side in this war against the women's conditioning.

In the course of the retreat Andrew's measures against the women escalate. He humiliates them publically in community meetings, he rants and yells at them. He wants the women to come up with a response, make a gesture. He forbids the women to apologize, since this is their built-in response to make things okay again. When some women make the mistake of apologizing, they are banished from the retreat...

_____________

Perhaps ironically, the author of this book (van der Braak) in the end turned against his guru Andrew Cohen, and left his community...

http://www.monkfishpublishing.com/books/enlighten.htm

http://www.andrewcohen.org/andrew/bio.asp

Anyone here familiar with Cohen?

[David Quinn]

I've read a couple of his "What is Enlightenment?" magazines in the past. He struck me then as somewhat interesting, but a bit diluted and bland.

He is spot on with his above observations on women, however. It's a rare feat to see through their relentless cunning with such clarity and depth, so my hat goes off to him. On the down side, he appears to be afflicted with standard guru meglomania and it is unbalancing him.

I also notice there is nothing about women on his website, so it looks he's decided to back away from being truly honest in the presentation of himself.

What are your thoughts on him?

-

[David Quinn]

I'm disliking him more and more, the further I explore his site. I don't think he's enlightened at all - he seems to confuse enlightenment with Hindu type altered states. The New Age paraphernalia, which features everywhere on his site, is a real turn off. His students also seem very mediocre.

It's all very American - lots of colour, energy and purpose, but the actual spiritual substance is missing.

-

[Jason]

Judging by the post of M101 alone, this Andrew guy sounds like a nut job cult leader to me. All the shouting, followed by the quiet "confiding" talk, and then ordering people in and out of the room and telling them what to do and think. The disciples lowering their heads and not knowing what to say when he tells them how wrong they are. Christ! Seems like a domineering power crazy cult leader and a bunch of submissive cowering sheep.

[David Quinn]

I definitely agree with you on that, Jason. He does sound like a real nobhead. But I can relate to his attempts to grapple with the nature of women. It seems honest to me. Just the fact that he is deeply disturbed by what women are is rare to see, especially in a guru.

But you're right, his responses to the dilemma have been immature, to say the least.

-

[Jamesh]

But you're right, his responses to the dilemma have been immature, to say the least.

Communication often works best if the person trying to communicate brings themselves down close to the level of the receiver. I think his actions need to be compared to those of college professors, not so much gurus or actual enlightened folk.

[Kevin Solway]

This bit made me laugh:

"I mean it. It might mean that all of you run away and I end up with only men students."

Silence. Some of the men look at each other with worry in their eyes.

The vast majority of the men are probably only there for the chicks.

[DHodges]

In the course of the retreat Andrew's measures against the women escalate. He humiliates them publically in community meetings, he rants and yells at them. He wants the women to come up with a response, make a gesture. He forbids the women to apologize, since this is their built-in response to make things okay again. When some women make the mistake of apologizing, they are banished from the retreat...

I'm curious as to what happened after that. Did the women ever come up with some kind of response?

[DHodges]

I've read a couple of his "What is Enlightenment?" magazines in the past.

I bought one of those and read it. I don't remember anything in it worth mentioning.

[I-Beam]

It's fairly well known that more men than women have become spiritually awakened throughout history...but the reasons behind this are rarely addressed openly by high profile spiritual teachers...

This is one of those most retarded staments a person can read in a book. No honest scholar or truthseeker could possibly make this statement in my presence without me asking "Yeah, so how did you come to this conclusion? Did you travel through the ages with Bill and Ted determining the ratio of men to women that had achieved enlightenment?"

That's retarded. Can't wait to read the rest of this thread, but it's already off to a bad start with a remark like this.

[I-Beam]

He is spot on with his above observations on women, however. It's a rare feat to see through their relentless cunning with such clarity and depth, so my hat goes off to him. On the down side, he appears to be afflicted with standard guru meglomania and it is unbalancing him.

Well if that's true David, you just sunk a few rungs on the intellectual ladder. What a dishonest statement.

I also notice there is nothing about women on his website, so it looks he's decided to back away from being truly honest in the presentation of himself.

You ought to listen to yourself more often. Maybe it's not women, maybe it's the way you approach them. Who are the women you've met? In what culture? This is so petty and short-sighted on your part, I don't even feel I know how I could approach the subject of women with you in an objective sense.

Strangely I like that irony when applied with "Andrew." Guy sounds like a real idiot who needs to get laid more often. How can he objectively even approach the subject of women if all of his experiences with them have been negative. Odd this "intellectiual genius" didn't think of that basic principle of philosophy and logic before he plodded forth into avenues of ridiculousness.

But I can relate to his attempts to grapple with the nature of women. It seems honest to me.

Get real.

Here's the most concise honest appraisal of Andrew Cohen:

I bought one of those and read it. I don't remember anything in it worth mentioning.

[I-Beam]

In the course of the retreat Andrew's measures against the women escalate. He humiliates them publically in community meetings, he rants and yells at them. He wants the women to come up with a response, make a gesture. He forbids the women to apologize, since this is their built-in response to make things okay again. When some women make the mistake of apologizing, they are banished from the retreat...

Remember in my Respect thread what I said about a nurturing enviroment if you hope to change people's oppinion? This quote makes it sound as if he has given up. What a weak and lazy individual.

[I-Beam]

When some women make the mistake of apologizing, they are banished from the retreat...

I guess he is unaware of the original meaning of apology. Maybe someone should suggest he read Plato's Apology

I hope that the majority of the threads on this board don't ressemble this one, or I'm going to lose interest fast.

[kjones]

I hope that the majority of the threads on this board don't ressemble this one, or I'm going to lose interest fast.

Ahhhhh, I understand why you think women are really capable of philosophy: you're defining philosophy as getting laid in a nurturing environment.

[Baaaaawk! baaaawk! bawkbawkbawk!]

[David Quinn]

I-Beam wrote:

DQ: He is spot on with his above observations on women, however. It's a rare feat to see through their relentless cunning with such clarity and depth, so my hat goes off to him. On the down side, he appears to be afflicted with standard guru meglomania and it is unbalancing him.

IB: Well if that's true David, you just sunk a few rungs on the intellectual ladder.

You mean, you're losing respect for me?

What a dishonest statement.

I disagree. Most women are incredibly cunning creatures, although their cunning is more of an instinctive quality, rather than the result of conscious scheming. And I also stand by the claim that very few women, if any, have travelled along the spiritual path, let alone become enlightened.

Spiritually speaking, the female landscape is a desert.

Maybe it's not women, maybe it's the way you approach them. Who are the women you've met? In what culture?

I've met all kinds of women - intellectuals, mystics, bimbos, social-climbers, artists, mums, etc. It's certainly not from a shortage of experience with women that I have reached my views. Quite the opposite, in fact.

This is so petty and short-sighted on your part, I don't even feel I know how I could approach the subject of women with you in an objective sense.

I sense that already. Yes, I perceive a very strong attachment to your own kind.

Strangely I like that irony when applied with "Andrew." Guy sounds like a real idiot who needs to get laid more often.

Well, that's certainly a very respectful view of him.

Here's the most concise honest appraisal of Andrew Cohen:

I bought one of those and read it. I don't remember anything in it worth mentioning.

The level of respect you show to all people is really a marvel to behold.


-

[I-Beam]

Ahhhhh, I understand why you think women are really capable of philosophy: you're defining philosophy as getting laid in a nurturing environment.

[Baaaaawk! baaaawk! bawkbawkbawk!]

Glad someone is into humor here....thanks for getting the joke.

[I-Beam]

I sense that already. Yes, I perceive a very strong attachment to your own kind.

Hey this is funny. You must be pretty proud you thought of this, but hey I'll laugh with you. But Dave, I'm not one of those people who's going to feel anything over a false ascertation.

I disagree. Most women are incredibly cunning creatures, although their cunning is more of an instinctive quality, rather than the result of conscious scheming. And I also stand by the claim that very few women, if any, have travelled along the spiritual path, let alone become enlightened.

Strangely, I am not going to say you are wrong in your view. It may very well be that all the women that you have met in your life have been like this. I on the other hand have had quite different experiences.

I once met some travelers who were returning from Munich, and they told me how much they hated the city. It was dirty, the people were rude, it rained all the time...etc. About two months later I went to Munich. It was a sunny 70 degrees, the people were incredibly nice, and the city seemed absolutely beautiful.
It occured to me that if someone asked me what I thought of the city, I would have an entirely different oppinion than the travelers I had met. So who is right? I think we both are. Their experience was their experience, and mine was mine, both are "truths".

I think I would think the same thing about our encounters with women. I don't hope to change your oppinion when I haven't had the kind of experiences you have had, and please don't attempt to change mine. Reason being it's not like we are going to go back in time and change each others experiences. I sure that there are alot of other interesting things we can discuss though.

[kjones]

I-Beam,

What happened with the "philosophical women" you met (females who spend all their time in metaphysical matters), when you told them you had absolutely no interest in having sex with them, forming or maintaining relationships, casual socialising, or getting to know them?

Did it make no difference at all ?



.

[I-Beam]

I-Beam,

What happened with the "philosophical women" you met (females who spend all their time in metaphysical matters), when you told them you had absolutely no interest in having sex with them, forming or maintaining relationships, casual socialising, or getting to know them?

Did it make no difference at all ?

I have never found myself in this situation kjones. I have never said "I have no interest in having sex with you" to a women. I don't talk like that. But if you mean have I met women with whom I have conversed philosophically and after it was over, it was over and that was it, that happens all the time. Some encounters and moments with people are just that...moments and are meant to be nothing more. Life moves on.

[David Quinn]

I-Beam wrote:

DQ: Most women are incredibly cunning creatures, although their cunning is more of an instinctive quality, rather than the result of conscious scheming. And I also stand by the claim that very few women, if any, have travelled along the spiritual path, let alone become enlightened.

IB: Strangely, I am not going to say you are wrong in your view. It may very well be that all the women that you have met in your life have been like this. I on the other hand have had quite different experiences.

We probably have vastly different conceptions of what it means to be enlightened. What is an example of an enlightened woman that you have met? How did she express her understanding of Truth?


-

[I-Beam]

Well, that's certainly a very respectful view of him.
The level of respect you show to all people is really a marvel to behold.

I don't think we can equate one person with all people, and your absolutely right; I don't show respect to people who can't seem to show respect to other people.

[David Quinn]

In other words, you don't respect anyone who doesn't share your beliefs and values. Welcome to the club.

-

[I-Beam]

In other words, you don't respect anyone who doesn't share your beliefs and values. Welcome to the club.

You keep coming back to that same phrase. That I don't respect anyone who does not hold the same views as mine. That's not what I said at all. I said I do not respect people who hold no respect for other people. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Dave I can't say I know many people that have my views, and I certainly do not go around hating those people.

[Lennyrizzo]

Most women are incredibly cunning creatures, although their cunning is more of an instinctive quality, rather than the result of conscious scheming.

To these women, intellectual progress, or becoming wiser, has to do with becoming more conscious in this respect. Women who think much of themselves think less about the women who remain mostly instinctually cunning. They regard one as smart when maximum consciousness commands their cunning natures. Hard to believe, but much of what they consider intelligence is just about this.

Thoughts?

[David Quinn]

I-Beam wrote:

DQ: In other words, you don't respect anyone who doesn't share your beliefs and values. Welcome to the club.

IB: You keep coming back to that same phrase. That I don't respect anyone who does not hold the same views as mine. That's not what I said at all. I said I do not respect people who hold no respect for other people. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Andrew Cohen holds the view that he doesn't have to be respectful towards other people. This clashes wth your own view, for which you have proceeded to snarl at him.

It's chock full of irony, this one.

Dave I can't say I know many people that have my views, and I certainly do not go around hating those people.

If snarling at someone that all their views are unmemorable and that they are an idiot who needs to get laid isn't an expression of hate, then I don't want to be around you when you do start becoming hateful!

-