Talk:Andrew Cohen (spiritual teacher)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

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)

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's Removal of link

"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)

I thought the (possibly obsolete) name of the group is FACE Friends of Andrew Cohen Everywhere. Andries 04:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay I'm on it.--T. Anthony 06:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

What particularly struck me as funny is that Andrew's followers were called Androids by outsiders. Andries 18:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

::It's just too good! Some people cannot bear the brilliance of their "enemies".

Austerlitz 88.72.3.34 19:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

---

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Here one can find an interview with Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche, the guy Cohen is talking about in his declaration. It has been done by Kelly Roberts and the title is What Changes and What Doesn't http://www.purifymind.com/IV6.htm You have to search for it, because it is not the first interview collected here. 88.72.11.82 09:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

• Here an interview with Poonjaji (one of Cohen's teachers) about enlightenment: http://www.papaji.com/ Austerlitz 88.72.5.141 11:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

whatenlightenment blog link

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Read WP:EL to clarify appropriateness of external links. Hope that helps. Mattisse(talk) 19:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It is unfortunate to not include a link to the whatenlightenment blog. The blog has voluminous, articulate, substantiated accounts written by scores of people who knew him best, i.e. his students. Why cite AC's blog entry of his Declaration of Integrity (which in itself is a response to the whatenlightenment blog) without referencing the whatenlightenment blog here? This failure amounts to a public disservice, in denying readers important information from another perspective. 12 December 2006

The criticism section itself is defective, and that needs attention. Criticism should be criticism and not end with an apologetic response from Andrew Cohen trying to rebut critics that is fully linked when those critics have responded but that fact is ignored. The contention is made that because Andrew Cohen's self published response on a blog to his critics is made by the subject of the article, it is allowable in this section but referencing the response is not.

However, WP:V#Self states that: "Material from self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, so long as it is: relevant to their notability; it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it." But, Cohen's response is contentious, arguably self-serving his guru role, and makes unverified claims about third parties (ex-followers and critics). Additionally, WP:RS states: "The websites and publications of political parties and religious groups (or websites of their critics or opponents) should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief is in itself a reason not to use a source." Therefore, both the advocacy and critical publications and websites related to Cohen must be treated with appropriate caution, with a NPOV result in mind. Research has not yet demonstrated that the claims of ex-followers are necessarily less credible than those of followers of religious organizations, particularly NRMs, so a priori assessments of relative reliability are not NPOV. Additionally, because WP:V, WP: NPOV and WP:NOR complement each other, "they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another".

The article as it stands does not reflect the above, and just because Cohen is the subject of the article does not justify jettisoning NPOV.

Therefore, in an attempt to establish a more NPOV here, I propose something like this for the Criticism Section:

Criticism

Some ex-members, including his mother, view Cohen as a charismatic and manipulative cult leader.

Dr. André van der Braak's Enlightenment Blues: My Years with an American Guru alleges that Cohen demanded large cash sums and extreme, unquestioning devotion from his students.[6]

His mother, Luna Tarlo, wrote a book called Mother of God about her experience as one of his disciples. Tarlo argues that Cohen engaged in cruelty, self-aggrandizement and abuse of her and other disciples, and describes what she maintains was her struggle to free herself from his control.[7]

American journalist John Horgan questions "the myth of the totally enlightened guru," specifically in reference to Cohen and others.[8]

Some ex-members, including a former editor of Cohen's magazine, "What is Enlightenment?", have established an active "whatenlightenment" blog highly critical of Cohen, including a response to Cohen's "A Declaration of Integrity: An Open Letter from Andrew Cohen to His Friends and Foes," a lengthy response to his critics released in October 2006. --Dseer 04:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

How about:

Some ex-members, including a former editor (MAK note: aren't there two former editors on WE?) of Cohen's magazine, "What is Enlightenment?", have established an active "whatenlightenment" blog [urls here of What Enlightnement and EnlightenNxt] highly critical of Cohen.

In October 2006, Cohen released via his official website "A Declaration of Integrity: An Open Letter from Andrew Cohen to His Friends and Foes," a lengthy response to his critics, in order to "speak out more directly and set the record straight.[9] Response [url here of response by WE??! folks]"

end quote

This way both sides are mentioned, but as the section is on criticism the critics get a decent chance to present their views. M Alan Kazlev 05:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Better, in my view, to maintain NPOV by simply deleting the reference to Cohen's response or whatever it is. It has no business being there under policy anyway. This is certainly tricky since it would be very sensible to put a reference to such an important debate about this character, but Whatenlightenment not only has no verifiability due to the understandable desire of the authors to maintain anonymity, but makes claims which without backup (although it is hard to doubt that they are true) could be libelous. --Backface 10:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Not all authors there are anonymous - e.g. Hal Blacker and Simeon Alev are both ex-WIE editors. Anyway I'm going to insert my revision to Dseer's suggested edit. If the rest of you guys don't like it feel free to revert/edit/modify/whatever M Alan Kazlev 00:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I support that edit. Cohen responded to critics on his own blog, and ex-WIE editors, not anonymous, but whose names are public knowledge, responded back on their blogs. Wikipedia isn't taking a position favoring either, both sides having chosen this method of communicating, self-published blogs, these are the best available sources on the issues and thus appropriate. The article is primarily about Cohen but gives critics a chance to respond to claims. That is the way it should be, both sides are treated cautiously, there is an NPOV here, and there is no basis for a libel suit against Wikipedia. While the proposed deletions of both blogs can be seen as fair too, it diminishes the readers understanding of the issues.--Dseer 07:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Link to chapter XX.

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)

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)

O.K. Then I put it there.

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

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)

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)

Self published books as footnote citation valid?

• Moksha Foundation aka Andrew Cohen - Moksha Press, publisher of Autobiography of An Awakening. Does this meet WP:V and WP:RS? Has he published anything that is not self-published?

Yes, it is valid. WP:V specifically allows the use of self-published autobiographical material in an article about the subject/author of that material. —Hanuman Das 13:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

By the way, Amma has been there, too. Eventually Cohen has met her? [1] Austerlitz 88.72.3.34 21:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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: "The Integral Institute is a think-tank founded in 1998 by American philosopher, psychologist, and mystic Ken Wilber." Cohen is not even mentioned between the "notable" members.

Given the fact that all this -the policy of putting things on the mainpage and others not- seems to be guru-disciples rivalry, no justice at all, I don't care anymore. Austerlitz 88.72.6.186 16:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You made a good point. I removed the information. Any editor can remove information if it is not sourced. (It would be best if you were registered though, and had a user name. Do you need help with that?) Mattisse(talk) 17:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Misleading sentence removed from article

• Sentence in article: In 1998, Cohen, along with Ken Wilber, was one of the founding members of the Integral Institute.

• According to the Integral Institute website [2], Ken Wilber founded it and invited 400 other people to be founding members. Andrew Cohen was one of the 400 founding members. Mattisse(talk) 17:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

To be inserted into page when 999 stops reverting page

In 1998, Ken Wilber founded the Integral Institute. He invited four hundred others to be founding members and Cohen was one of them. Cohen was a featured speaker at the 2004 Parliament of the World's Religions, and was awarded the 2006 Kashi Humanitarian Award. ((fact}} Thanks! Mattisse(talk) 19:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary. The current wording is supported by a page published by the Integral Institute. -999 (Talk) 19:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. Lets ask some neutral third party person? O.K. Mattisse(talk) 19:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Why bother? You haven't even given your reasons for disagreeing, so they can't even be discussed. IMO, you are frequently wrong as well as stubborn. And you have come to this article for bad faith reasons, to harass either Hanuman Das or Ekajati who you have been stalking for some time. You've never edited this article until Hanuman Das made a change to it, and then you went directly to his edits and attempted to remove and then corrupt them. Your motivation is clearly harassment and not to improve the article. IMO, you should be blocked for it. -999 (Talk) 20:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Before levying more ad hominem attacks, 999, I suggest you go back over the history of this page. HD and Ekajati have been editing this article for quite some time, and the first several of Mattisse's edits, which began only recently, were formatting edits that had little or nothing to do with either of them. If Mattisse followed HD to this article, why were there 5 weeks after HD's last edit to this article before Mattisse's first? I see nothing inappropriate about Mattisse's edits to this article, even if you disagree with their content, and whatever originally attracted him to it. Your accusations, however, are seriously lacking in good faith and civility, and therefore they are inappropriate, as well as your tone. I also find your userpage / talkpage borderline uncivil, but that is another matter entirely. - Che Nuevara 22:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Because she stalked Ekajati here, then continued to harass HD when he supported Ekajati...

Ekajati's edit

Mattisse's response

HD supports Ekajati and explanation on talk page to which Mattisse does not respond

HD rewrites sentence

Mattisse immediately removes the whole paragraph

Do you really think she is trying to help the article, or get her digs at HD. This not the only time that she has followed people around, including myself.

I put a clear explanation of why we do not remove red links on her user page, yet she removed them again. What's up with her? I don't think you can have a clear idea without knowing the history. You find a portion of that long history in her RfC. -999 (Talk) 23:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

999, there is no need to defend me quite so harshly. I am quite able to defend myself. That said, I agree that Mattisse appears to have stalked either myself or Ekajati to this article. —Hanuman Das 01:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of wikistalking require an awful lot more than the fact that two (or three) editors involved in a dispute start editing the same article. This case is a long way from wikistalking or even harassment. As far as Mattisse's edits, they seem, for the most part, appropriate. It is not true that redlinks should never be removed; if they are unlikely to be turned into articles, they can be. It is also permissible to remove unsourced information about a living person outright. While you may disagree with what she's doing, the accusations you are levying, at least in this particular case, seem to be disproportionate. - Che Nuevara 03:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice to see some footnotes for backing the informations

Pleased to read. the only thing lacking is a link or a footnote to the whatenlightemnet blog. om namah shivaya (why not?), Austerlitz 88.72.3.34 19:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Linking to blogs is not permitted by the wikipedia linking policy. This has already been discussed intensively and the discussion can be found in the archives. -999 (Talk) 19:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

om namah shivaya, Austerlitz 88.72.3.34 21:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Linking also forbidden?

[3] If yes, why? Austerlitz 88.72.30.4 15:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of. It appears that the link was simply moved into the list of external links, which is where all external links should go. -999 (Talk) 17:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me quote and answer myself: I wrote above, some day ago: 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?

[4] As it seems to be, judging from his words about Amma, he has spoken out for the religion of Maternal love. Austerlitz 88.72.21.120 10:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

2004 Parliament of the World's Religions: Programs

Besides loving and praising Amma and her love Cohen has given a speech or a working group (I don't know)on the topic Evolutionary Enlightenment: Discovering a Greater Commitment to Our Common Future[5] Can his speech or concept be found anywhere? or is it copyrighted and has to be bought? Austerlitz 88.72.21.120 10:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The first topic appeared in section Intra-religious. There is another one with Cohen in the section Inter-religious, too. The information about it is: A Commitment to the Future: Religion and Spirituality for an Evolving World, different people taking part in "leadership"?

Andrew Cohen, Yasuhiko Kimura, Robert Wright, Craig Hamilton

Austerlitz 88.72.11.196 10:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding brackets to Kimura, Wright and Hamilton. Austerlitz -- 88.72.2.161 10:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This page is nothing but a free link and publicity for a magazine, and should be deleted —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.188.80.135 (talk • contribs).

That is not true 172.188.80.135. The page refers to a notable 'spiritual teacher', who is referenced by a variety of reliable sources and has written a number of books. There are many reasons to beware this man, but none to delete him from wikipedia. --Backface 12:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There are more Andrew Cohens: lets make this title into a disambiguation article

Let us make this title into a disambiguation article and rename this article Andrew Cohen (spiritual teacher)

• Andrew Cohen, the statesman
  • Andrew_Cohen_(statesman)
• Andrew Cohen the non-fiction writer
  • 2003_Governor_General's_Awards
    • ”Andrew Cohen, While Canada Slept: How We Lost Our Place in the World “
• Andrew Cohen, the film editor
  • The_Skeleton_Key
  • The_Old_Dark_House

See also Cohen_(disambiguation)

Andries 11:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

How does this fit?

[6] and [7] One person praising Amma's love and behaving like described by his former "disciples"?

Austerlitz 88.72.25.80 21:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The freedom of mind center is already linked from the article and has been for some time. —Hanuman Das 23:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. it's o.k. But what do you think about Cohen talking beautifully about Amma's love and at the same time building sort of tyranny in his groups? Or is this not a matter here?

Austerlitz 88.72.7.229 08:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Many people choose to join questionable organizations. Usually, they have a lesson to learn in being assertive. If a bunch of sheep find a bad shepherd, whose fault is it? If they are submissives and act in submissive manner, who is it that is doing so? It's unbelievable, but many people want to be told what to do and do so willingly, even eagerly. It's not surprising that others wake up, leave, and then blame their own stupidity on Cohen. It's always hard to tell what it really going on in such situations, so Wikipedia can only report what is written in reliable sources. I don't think any encyclopedia would do otherwise, and if you are suggesting that we should, then, yes, it does not matter here. —Hanuman Das 14:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not an answer to your words, it's just my ideas evolving from thinking about your words: perhaps Andrew should go with his followers to live in Amma's ashram for some weeks.

Austerlitz 88.72.24.8 09:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh, heh. Now I could certainly agree with that. Everybody could benefit from spending time with Amma. :-) —Hanuman Das 14:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Some mess

Sorry, it created some mess with the footnotes, I don't know how. Can somebody please correct it? Thanks, Austerlitz 88.72.14.143 18:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticims section

I diagree with Dseer's edits. I think that the criticism section should also contain Cohen's rebuttal. The concluding statement in his rebuttal strikes me as true and I want to use it in the article. The concluding statement is that even Cohen's detractors do not call Cohen a liar. Andries 22:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Andries, it is interesting you go ballistic over SSB but can't see how your statement about Cohen's concluding statement is illogical and misleading. That is because not only does the fact that it "strikes you as true" not prove Cohen's claim none of Cohen's detractors have not called him a liar (even a quick review shows they do call him untrustworthy, etc), but because in response to his claim he is specifically accused of crafting a statement which avoids the facts. Crafting a statement to avoid the facts which he is accused of is simply another form of deception, and whether he is accused of directly lying or just deception of self and/or others, he is not considered fully truthful by all critics.

The fact is that in response to Cohen's statement, the editors made the following statement in rebuttal: "Apparently attempting to finally give a public statement defending himself against the many allegations of his abuse of students documented previously here (and perhaps also in response to the current heated discussions on the Zaadz+WIE online forum), Andrew Cohen recently meticulously crafted and posted a "Declaration of Integrity", which in effect avoids the whole thing. Instead of addressing the actual facts, he predictably overwhelms us with his assessment of how great things are in the spiritual boot camp he has created, and why his ego-challenging teachings have proven his ex-student critics to be mere “failures”, or losers whose “life mission is to create and spread a negative picture of who I am...” What Andrew does say about the facts is that the stories have been “misrepresented” and given “out of context”. He never denies the charges, but only provides us with eleven pages of his self-justifying “context”, which is just the standard fare we’ve gotten from him for years now."

My edit does not prevent you from using Cohen's statement that even his detractors do not call him a liar which "strikes you as true" (NOR?), but the place for that is not in Criticism, because it is not criticism. May I suggest adding it to this paragraph as follows:

In October 2006, Cohen initiated a blog of his own. His first post, "A Declaration of Integrity: An Open Letter from Andrew Cohen to His Friends and Foes," was a lengthy response to his critics which he said was written to "speak out more directly and set the record straight." In this response, Cohen also asserts that not even his detractors "have called him a liar".

Or, if you want to create another section for "Cohen's Response to Criticism", fine. --Dseer 02:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

In Wikipedia the generally accepted practice is hat criticisms and their rebuttals are one subject. We could rename the section into Criticisms and replies. Even Van der Braak does not seem to question Cohen's sincerity. Untrustworthy, abusive, misguided, megalomaniac, whimsy? May be. But his dectractors do not not consider him deceptive. Andries 17:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edit retains chronology and is satisfactory. --Dseer 04:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Use of blogs not permitted

I have again removed reference to and links to the anti-Cohen blog. As everyone has been repeatedly informed, blogs do not meet WP:V and are not even permited as external links. You efforts to link to information which could be considered defamatory has been reported on the BLP noticeboard. Further insertion will most likely result in warnings and even being blocked from editing if you persist.

Also, please note that the use of the subject's blog is permitted, but only in an article about the subject. Do not attempt to retaliate by removing reference to and links to Cohen's blog. That could also result in administrative action.

Sorry to do this, guys, but WP:LIVING is non-negotiable. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 16:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ekajati says, and I quote: "Do not attempt to retaliate by removing reference to and links to Cohen's blog. That could also result in administrative action." However, this removal would have nothing to do with WP:LIVING, and while your opinions about what is permitted are well known, what wikipedia actually states, as I wrote above, is somewhat different:

WP:V#Self states that: "Material from self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, so long as it is: relevant to their notability; it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it." But, Cohen's response is contentious, arguably self-serving his guru role, and makes unverified claims about third parties (ex-followers and critics). Additionally, WP:RS states: "The websites and publications of political parties and religious groups (or websites of their critics or opponents) should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief is in itself a reason not to use a source." Therefore, both the advocacy and critical publications and websites related to Cohen must be treated with appropriate caution, with a NPOV result in mind. Research has not yet demonstrated that the claims of ex-followers are necessarily less credible than those of followers of religious organizations, particularly NRMs, so a priori assessments of relative reliability are not NPOV. Additionally, because WP:V, WP: NPOV and WP:NOR complement each other, "they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another".

The article as it stands does not reflect the above, and just because Cohen is the subject of the article does not justify jettisoning NPOV.

To repeat, the guidance for Self-published sources in articles about themselves is as follows:

Self-published material, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about the author, so long as there is no reasonable doubt who wrote the material, and so long as it is:

relevant to the self-publisher's notability;

not contentious;

not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing;

about the subject only and not about third parties or events not directly related to the subject;

The reputation of the self-publisher is a guide to whether the material rises to the level of notability at all

Clearly, Cohen's blog is contentious and self serving/self-aggrandizing and his "Declaration of Integrity" statement is contentious and self serving/self-aggrandizing, and involves controversial claims about third parties. Its use as a contentious and self-aggrandizing vehicle making suspect claims about others disqualifies it as an acceptable source for this encyclopedia even though Cohen wrote it. Your interpretation which allows Cohen's blogged statement to be directly referenced and linked, clearly violates the NPOV standard. As discussed above, because of this, if one blog is removed, so must be the other, and associated statements sourced from those blogs. I am therefore removing Cohen's statement as well, until you can find a suitable source. Retaliation? Nonsense, since WP:LIVING is not being violated by removing Cohen's statement. --Dseer 04:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Some statements in the blog are contentiousself serving/self-aggrandizing, and about third parties, I guess, but this does not mean that nothing from the blog can be cited. Andries 18:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ekajati is so far the non-collaborative, rigid deletionist here, who has made unfounded assertions about both blogs, that Cohen's is protected due to "retaliation", and that "no blogs are permitted", neither of which is what Wikipedia actually says. A key point is, it violates NPOV to rigidly apply a standard of abosolute prohibition on the blog of recognized authorites on Cohen by falsely claiming blogs are a priori prohibited, while ignoring direct language of what is not acceptable in blogs that applies to the subject's blog as well, that is, Cohen's blog. Because Wikipedia states the materials of both NRMs (Cohen) and named critics are both to be treated with caution, what is done to one has impact on the other. Editors have some flexibility if it improves the article and understanding of this issue. Mediators have established that limited use of blogs by known individuals with expertise on the subject is acceptable where this is the case. This line of reasoning is well documented in the discussion above. Ekajati has essentially invalidated his own rigid statements. I have no prejudgement to exclude citing anything Cohen's blog provided a response is permitted also, to preserve NPOV. NPOV is my primary concern here. --Dseer 05:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Linking to blogs

I quote WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, point 11: "Links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority." Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"Except those written by a recognized authority." In this case, former editors of Cohen's magazine What is Enlightenment? would be recognised authorities. M Alan Kazlev 22:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

And surely Cohen is an authority on himself, if nothing else :D — goethean ॐ 23:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in fact, Ekajati, that passage is exactly what I am talking about, read it more carefully please, "normally to be avoided" is not the same as an absolutionist "not permitted", it implies there are exceptions, and you have arbitrarily ignored the possibility that the named critics, including those who edited his magazine professionally, are not a "recognized authority" on Cohen. Cohen's blog response to the critics and his explanations for his motives rather than outright denial of basic events cited by named critics makes it a dispute over interpretations of events, and serves as further evidence of the named, former editors of his own magazine being a "recognized authority" on Cohen, even if they no longer agree with him. As I said, mediators have not arbitrarily excluded all blogs under these types of circumstances, where NPOV is at issue, all factors have to be weighed. If you want to be literally strict, the language citing subject's blog "except where" several statements do apply to Cohens blog is as if not more absolute. What is required is collaboration including consideration of previous discussions, not oversimplification of what Wikipedia says. You may have made your own judgement about the integrity of critics but that is not what Wikipedia establishes as the standard. --Dseer 05:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Below is the current dialogue on the blpwatch page. I have advised Ekajati that he is not accurately presenting the situation or other editor's rationales, and that he is not quoting Wikipedia guidelines accurately in explaining his non-collaborative edits, and thus, that his edits will be evaluated accordingly based on the rationale he provides. I find no proof yet from anything he has provided that his absolutionist statements about blogs not being permitted or that removing links to a subject's blogs due to applicable exceptions is considered "retaliation" are in fact non-negotiable based on Wikipedia. Rather, I think that collaboration is in order. I hope Ekajati will first take this opportunity attempt to collaborate here instead of attacking the motives of other editors on that page. --Dseer 05:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Cohen (spiritual teacher) Andrew Cohen (spiritual teacher) (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

In Andrew Cohen (spiritual teacher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), several editors seem intent on adding information from and a link to an anti-Cohen blog. It has been repeated pointed out on the talk page by several other editors that blogs are not reliable sources and may not even be linked to in external links, but these editors persist in resinserting these unreliable sources. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 16:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Read the entire discussion related to the blogs, Ekajati, not just what you want to read. You claim Cohen's blog is inherently permissable because he is the subject, but what is being said is that to the extent Cohen's blog and associated blogged statement of "Integrity" in response to critic's charges, which does really not meet the criteria for use because it contentious; unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing; and makes claims about third parties and their motives for criticism; and whose claims are to be treated with caution per wikipedia; is being cited, then a critical blog containing responses to those charges by named subjects of Cohen's criticism should be referred also to retain NPOV. If as an alternative material from neither blog is mentioned, or the mere fact that Cohen and named critics have both established blogs advocating their respective positions without further information is mentioned, then you do not have, as you try and suggest, an issue with WP:LIVING that justifies your claims here. Your actual statment that:

"Also, please note that the use of the subject's blog is permitted, but only in an article about the subject. Do not attempt to retaliate by removing reference to and links to Cohen's blog. That could also result in administrative action."

not only mistates the actual policies for when a subject's blogs are not suitable, but does not adequately justify keeping reference to Cohen's blog entries based on wikipedia criteria just because you desire to retain the blog, and does not justify your a priori assumption of bad faith and "retaliation", and threats of adminstrative action based on claimed "retaliation". It is not "retaliation" to respond to your assumptions and POV editing. --Dseer 06:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Your assumption that I am working from a POV is incorrect. I have nothing to do with Cohen whatsover. I am attempting to apply WP:LIVING as written and intended. It is you who have a POV issue, and don't seem to be able to allow WP:LIVING to take precedent over your apparent need to smear the subject. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 19:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You openly consider editors who disagree with you to be apparently motivated by "smearing" the subject, an admission of a biased and unsubstatiated judgement which proves the POV you deny. Ekajati, Wikipedia has three content policies: WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Since the policies complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. Your POV edits do not take this into account. It is you making personal attacks, issuing threats of blocking and talking about "reprisals" when your one sided, POV edits are challenged. Your repeated explanation for your edits, that "blogs are not permitted per WP:EL", is not what WP:EL actually says, and therefore your edits will be evaluated accordingly. --Dseer 02:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ekajati/A Ramachandran/Hanuman Das Sockpuppetry

Ekajati was very active here, and collectively with his now confirmed sockpuppets A Ramachandran and Hanuman Das, et al, active on a number of sites with a non-collaborative, deletionist position on critical links. While his position seemed well documented, as various editors pointed out, his inflexible positions on excluding critical links were based on POV editing and not as firmly based in Wikipedia policies as he claimed, and so ignored his threats to propose banning editors who did not agree with him. Just to follow up on the discussion above, this is the latest on the expanding Ekajati sockpuppetry issue under which he is already under a two month ban.

User:Ekajati Suspected sockpuppeteer Ekajati (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Suspected sockpuppets Chai Walla (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) Baba Louis (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Report submission by --Pigmantalk • contribs 01:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence Ekajati (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is under a two month ban for sockpuppetry. Currently confirmed sockpuppets of Ekajati are Hanuman Das (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), A Ramachandran (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), and Tunnels of Set (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). Hanuman Das changed his account name and was previously under the user name Adityanath (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). While still under the Adityanath account, two accounts were found to be sockpuppets of the Adityanath account: Baba Louis (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Chai Walla (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). See here for findings.

Since Hanuman Das is a sockpuppet of Ekajati, then accounts found to be sockpuppets of Hanuman Das are therefore socks of Ekajati.

As of 1/29/2007, Chai Walla is working on Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath [1]. This means Ekajati is using this sock to evade the ban.

Above provided for advisory and informational purposes by --Dseer 04:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

U. G. Krishnamurti

sorry, I don't know where to insert this onto the mainpage: U. G. Krishnamurti.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.24.202 20:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Why would you insert it? What's the connection? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know neither. Maybe because of that quotation: A real guru, if there is one, frees you from himself. As far as I remember, Cohen doesn't like people to leave him.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.11.179 19:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

A real guru makes you realize that you are his Self. So who's to "leave" whom? Also, Cohen isn't a teacher of traditional enlightenment, nor a traditional guru, so the argument doesn't apply. Cohen's trying to create a new "culture" based in a shared field of enlightened consciousness, so enlightened individuals sticking around to help pioneer that culture, together with others, is kind of the whole point... The go-it-alone, "enlightened individual" paradigm is old news. 66.155.208.3 (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Real gurus are in contact without sticking together all the time. they go it alone if they want to. Austerlitz -- 88.75.81.226 (talk) 12:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Section Ideas

I like it, this is a good idea.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.77.242 (talk) 07:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the quotes sections worked at all. If we want quotes from Cohen, that's possibly permissible, but quotes about him don't seem appropriate for a bio entry. If you can find some good precedents on other Wikipedia bios, then let's consider it. Also, what's up with the "Kohen" Hebrew definition?? Cohen is one of the most common names in all of Judaism, and it hardly seems worth going into the etymological origins of the name here. --Kosmocentric (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Section External Links

There is a section Positive and a Section Critical. Are those sections thought to be opposites? Is writing something critical a negative thing?

Austerlitz -- 88.72.30.107 (talk) 06:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Um...have you read them? :) That's about as negative as it gets. -- Kosmocentric (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Section Cohen himself

• A Declaration of Integrity October 18, 2006

I wonder what kind of people are interested in deleting this text, and what might be their motivation.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.81.226 (talk) 12:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it is better to put the text somewhere else, to section Bibliography. I put it there.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.81.226 (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Some information on primordial consciousness

• [8]
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]
• [12]

Austerlitz -- 88.75.200.104 (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Austerlitz. I don't understand the inclusion of the "Different points of view" section, or what you're trying to convey by the quote. Is this a section for positive and critical perspectives on Cohen's work? I don't know if that's a good idea. Seems to me that if we want quotes, we should include one or two representative quotes from Cohen himself...

Kosmocentric (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Education

I am interested in adding Andrew Cohen's academic qualifications to the article, which I believe is quite important because Cohen is playing the role of authority in certain matters that could be beyond what he truly and legitimately knows, can anyone point me to a reputable source? – Shannon Rose 18:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shannon Rose (talk • contribs)

Different points of view section

The Different points of view section seems unnecessary. I'm thinking of deleting it. How does it contribute to material about Andrew Cohen for example to say "Tarlo didn't want to continue this conversation then"? Tarlo is already mentioned under the criticism section, so this paragraph seems to imply that she was befuddled by Andrew's superior wisdom. If other editors disagree and think some of this material should be retained, perhaps the material could be reworded and/or moved to other sections of the page.

Also, Cohen's "Declaration of Integrity" currently under Bibliography, should perhaps be made a footnote in the section on Criticism, or elsewhere, and its context established M Alan Kazlev (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the "Different Points of View" section. It's bizarre. I'll delete it now. If anyone objects, let's discuss it. --Kosmocentric (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Adidam

Kosmocentric seems to have deleted Andrew Cohen's involvement in Adidam simply stating that this was "false". However, this information was given by Conrad Goehausen in his blog. C.G. is a former ex-member of Adidam himself once belonging to the inner circle of this group. See this blog entry: http://brokenyogi.blogspot.com/2009/11/hypnotic-trance-of-cults-and-cultists.html. Now, I am well aware that a blog does not fulfill the standard for Wikipedia because blogs naturally represent the subjective writers' point of view. But this is different: It's ONLY about the fact whether Andrew Cohen really has or has not been involved in Adidam. It's about facts, not about whatever other stuff Goehausen is writing in his blog. Thus, this piece of information can be - theoretically - proofed or disproofed. To state that Cohen never was involved in Adidam means actually to say that Mr. Goehausen is telling plain lies. Kosmocentric did not give any reasons why this information should be false. I thus recommend adding it again. Any voices? --84.74.161.9 (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC) e_l_

Please see WP:RS. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. — goethean ॐ 00:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the problem we have here is not new. Is Goehausen as a former member of the inner circle of Adidam a respected authority to judge whether Cohen was or was not a member of Adidam? This is not easy to answer. As I said, keep in mind that this is about a simple fact, not about an oppinion.

Now, whatever the case, remember that Kosmocentric did not criticize Goehausen to be not qualified for such a statement. He could have done so but he did not. (And neither did anyone else so far.) He simply claimed that the given statement was false. Now, if it is false, where's his proof or source? What's the reason for him to assume the falseness of Goehausen's statement? e_l_ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.74.161.9 (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

To Afterwriting, re: Conflict of Interest

Thank you for your attempt to improve the “Andrew Cohen (Spiritual Teacher)” site. Yes, indeed, I have been putting plenty of time, effort and energy into expanding it, bringing it up-to-date, increasing its accuracy and confirming to the policies of Wikipedia. May I suggest, that my association with the subject or lack thereof is not material to the accuracy of this article. Would it not be better that you suggest specific areas that need to be “cleaned up” as you put it, and we can discuss those? Otherwise, doubt is cast on the whole article and the entire effort is put into question. Therefore, may I please ask you to help and point out specific areas that need to be improved in terms of neutrality, so that we can have a discussion around it. Thanks again!Igal01 (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Igal01 is a member of Cohen's organization and has not revealed this, as required of an editor to avoid COI. He is definitely not neutral! He appears to be on a mission to remove criticisms of Cohen and to bolster his credibility. He should be barred from making further changes on this page. Hamsa001 (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

If I wanted to hide who I was I would not have used a user name that is so clearly identifiable by anyone who has had any association with Andrew's organization in the past 13 years. But the guidelines of Conflict of Interest are clear, and I quote: "If you learn about our policies and practices, you should be treated with kindness and respect; if you are transparent about your affiliation with the article you are contributing to, you should be helped and guided towards proper use of sources and policy, rather than dismissed or targeted." Afterwriting's comments made me aware of the COI policies, but even though I was not aware of them explicitly, I was--and am--careful to attempt utmost objectivity regarding what I write. No human being is capable of perfect objectivity and therefore, if anyone can point out points in which I have erred from neutral tone, let's have a civil discussion about it.

So, for the sake of full transparency: I am a student of Andrew Cohen. And I consider myself an expert on his teaching. I believe that Wikipedia wants its articles to be written by experts. Experts love their subjects (ideally). If I was a lover of bees, you'd want me to write an article about bees, as long as I wrote about them objectively and my enthusiasm for bees would not overshadow my objectivity. That is what I am attempting to do with this article about Andrew Cohen. And again, if there are errors in that regards, please help me discover them.

As for the critical references that I have removed, I have done so in strict accordance with Wikipedia's BLP (Biography of Living Persons) policy, and after consulting the Wikipedia chat support to ensure that my understanding regarding those policies is correct. I have respected Wikipedia's policies regarding other forms of criticism, which is why I have not removed any of the mentions of the critical books, although I don't share their views.Igal01 (talk) 04:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Classification of Cohen's Teaching

A user has classified Cohen's teaching under the category of Advaita Vedanta, and further under the category of Neo Vedanta. On the face of it, it may seem to be right, given that Cohen's teacher was H.W.L. Poonja, a neo-Vedantist and a student of Ramana Maharshi, arguably the most influential exponent of Advaita Vedanta in the 20th Century. However, as this article clearly explains, Cohen's present philosophy bears no resemblance to the tenets of Advaita Vedanta or Neo Vedanta.Igal01 (talk) 19:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Igal01. I am that "a user". I find it quite interesting that you point out that Cohen's teachings bears no resemblance (any more?) to "the tenets of Advaita Vedanta or Neo Vedanta". I haven't followed Cohen for a long time (somewhere around 2001 I attended a lecture), but it's now called "Evolutionary Enlightenment", isn't it? What I like about your notice is that it clearly shows that religion/spirituality is not something fixed, but keeps changing all the time - evolutionary indeed! Best wishes, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 04:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Joshua Jonathan. Yes, Cohen's teaching changed quite a bit over those years. Please read the "Philosophy and Teaching" section (which I have updated after you have made your classification) and in which I tried to give a short summary of both where his teaching came from as well as where it is today. And thanks for your attempt to improve this article.Igal01 (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Social Darwinism?

Someone added this statement: “Although Cohen does not explicitly attribute his ideas to its influence, his emphasis on spiritual and cultural evolution, the benefits of struggle and the need for purification place his thought within the general rubric of Social Darwinism.”

As a longtime student of Cohen's work and therefore very familiar with the subject matter, I don't think his ideas are even implicitly related to the rubric of Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is based on Darwinian principles of competition and “survival of the fittest.” It is often associated with Marxism and the eugenics movement—i.e., evolutionary ideologies that pertain to the socio-economic and genetic/racial domains. Cohen’s teachings have nothing to do with socio-economics, genetics, race, Darwinian competition, biology, or politics. They are more in alignment with the lineage of contributors to the concept of spiritual evolution, which is generally far from Darwinian principles and more in line with mysticism. Also, in terms of the specific assertion above, Cohen’s ideas regarding “struggle” relate to individual pursuits of self-improvement and creative, nonzero-sum collaboration between individuals (not Darwinian “competition” as typically understood), and his ideas regarding “purification” are related only to the individual mystical/metaphysical soul, and not to social or cultural development at all. Therefore, I’ve removed this claim pending evidence to validate its inclusion. Kosmocentric (talk) 03:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Once again we have--here in user Kosmocentric--a closely involved student and associate of Cohen making major edits/contributions to this article, without revealing their close association with its subject, in violation of COI rules of Wikipedia. Kosmocentric lives (or lived for years) in Cohen's Lenox, MA ashram and has extensively lambasted Cohen critics on his blog in the past. So the two major contributors to this article--lgal01 and Kosmocentric--have engaged in the same COI violation by making major contributions/revisions to this article without revealing their association. Shame on them both! Can't they be banned or this article highlighted as inherently unreliable? Otherwise, unless this article is continually "policed" by Wikipedia editors and contributors, it becomes little more than another questionable guru puff piece. Hamsa001 (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, apart from the fact that deleting a sentence probably isn't a "major edit" worthy of being banned for, the WP:COI guidelines state: "Certain editor interests present a high risk of creating a COI. Editors with such interests are strongly encouraged—***but not actually required***—to declare their interests..." But I'm not hiding anything, so I've voluntarily added an acknowledgment of my association to my comment above and to my user page, as the COI page suggests. Common sense dictates that students of a particular subject are generally the best informed and qualified to write about it, and as long as they do so with a clear adherence to WP:NPOV, then it needn't pose a problem. This article provides a valuable service to the many people seeking information on Andrew Cohen, an internationally known thinker, author, and spiritual teacher, through Wikipedia. Strangely, your comments, Hamsa001, contribute nothing to the specific matter under discussion (a suggestion that Social Darwinism is an influence on the thought and work of Andrew Cohen), so the motivation behind your concerns, or how they legitimately help improve the article, isn't exactly clear. Kosmocentric (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Kosmocentric, I don't see an acknowledgment anywhere of your extremely close involvement with Andrew Cohen. Saying you are a student of Cohen does not do it justice, and I think you know that. Indeed, I believe you are or were for a lengthy period a resident of his main U.S. center and an employee of his organization, as well as a fairly prominent spokesperson for his organization. You haven't been transparent about these close relationships with the subjct matter of the article. Indeed, anyone with a real sense of ethics would have dropped out of editing this article at this point, instead of forcing the issue to be brought to the attention of senior Wikipedia editors--which is where this is heading. Hamsa001 (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

To Tao2911

Thanks for your changes. I think the article is now more streamlined as a result of them. Useful to learn that YouTube is not a legit source for Wikipedia; question is, what if that’s the only source you have for a quote or a statement? Also, you removed the mention of the Parliament of the World’s Religions from the article and I assume it’s a mistake, because Cohen did speak there both in 2004 and in 2009. I am putting this ref back, and if you object to it, please give the reason why. Also, you mentioned that there are still POV problems with the article. Please explain where, so that we can improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igal01 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Criticism Section Skirting NPOV Rules

Hamsa001's edit to the criticism section added what he called "added general allegations of abuse, etc." But they seemed maliciously negative and hyperbolic in tone; the previously stated allegations and cited sources seem sufficient if we wish this article to avoid violating WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. I have therefore reverted the edits for now. WP:BLP also precludes posting potentially defamatory material on related Talk pages, so I have not quoted his insertions here. A relevant passage from WP:BLP states:

"Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.... Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content."

And WP:NPOV says: "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject)... Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone." Kosmocentric (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I've added reliable references to the criticisms section, Kosmo. But I still think you are have a COI here and should gracefully cease and desist your editing of this page without forcing a COIN determination and ban. Same for your friend, co-worker and associate lgal. Ciao, guys. Hamsa001 (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hamsa001 violates WP BLP repeatedly. As it states: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about edits related to a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard."

So far, Hamsa's contributions to this article have been as follows:

• Attempting to ban people who contribute anything positive to this article;
• Contrary to WP policies, "exposing" the identity of those writing the article (even though they have never tried to hide it);
• Trying his best to make the criticism section as negative as possible.

Hamsa001 should reveal his/her identity and his/her relationship with the subject of this article, because he/she may be guilty of violating the COI policies which he/she blames others of violating.Igal01 (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

lgal01, I have no relationship to the subject whatsoever. I don't believe you have yet fully revealed yours. Don't you live at the subject's U.S. center? Aren't you an employee of the subject? As to the edits, the criticism entries are well and reliably sourced. lgal01's removal of them is unjustified and speaks to his COI. Hamsa001 (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2012 (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.

This comment is years old and is no longer valid. The article has undergone major revisions and edits since that time.Igal01 (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Books referenced in the Criticism Section

The allegations mentioned in the criticism section are based on three books, the use of which as reference is problematic with regards to WP's BLP policy. Here's why: 1. Two of the books, by Tarlo and by Yenner, are published by Epigraph, a self-publishing company with few, if any, restrictions as to who can publish a book. 2. The third book, by van der Braak, is published by Monkfish Publishing, that owns Epigraph. Both companies are owned by a disgruntled former student of Cohen's and can therefore not be considered as a valid source of criticism against Cohen. The criticism section, in its present form, is therefore in violation of Wikipedia's BLP. I request the administrators to examine this and remove the criticism section until some reliable, objective forms of criticisms are referenced. Full disclosure: I am a student of Cohen's and a major contributor to this article, yet strongly committed to COI, NPOV and BLP policies. I welcome criticism of Cohen's teaching, especially philosophical differences, provided they are are done constructively, honestly, and in the spirit of mutual exploration and are solidly referenced.Igal01 (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

lgal01's Igal01 points above are invalid and his facts are inaccurate. Luna Tarlo's book is published by Autonomedia, a 3rd party publisher. Van der Braak's book is also published by a 3rd party publisher, Monkfish. "Disgruntled former student" is not a COI so van der Braak's book, like Tarlo's is properly citable here. Please read the WP:COI, Igal01! In addition, Cohen and his organization have never in any detail formally challenged or denied, legally or otherwise, any of the critical allegations in any of the cited works. They certainly would have been likely to have filed a libel suit over such serious allegations as are documented in these works by now (these allegations were published years ago) or at least have gone on record with detailed and specific denials if such were untrue or unreliable. They haven't. That silence and inaction is acquiescence and is enough to constitute an admission of the critical allegations' veracity in any court of law.

Finally, while Igal01 once again "admits" he's a student of Cohen, he fails to answer or deal with my other questions regarding COI. I believe if truthful he would have to admit he is a compensated employee of Cohen's organization, as is Kosmocentric. If employed by Cohen’s organization, both of these users are in violation of COI . I hope the administrators will investigate this. Hamsa001 (talk) 17:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I saw a note about this on WP:RSN. Until 20 minutes ago I had no idea who Cohen is/was, so no COI for or against him. Now, per WP:SELFSOURCE, the existence of Tarlo's book and her web site can not be excluded. Detailed statements in the book about others may be questioned, however.

Given that the article is "not based primarily on such sources" they can go in and Tarlo's statements about herself will be ok. Similar things about the other books.

I did a quick search and there is also an article in Psychology Today that reviews Tarlo's book and the fact that she says she has feels been burned etc. was mentioned there. So her book, web site and statements there about herself can go in, as well as the reference/link to the Psychology Today article. Per WP:NPOV Wikipedia articles can not be one sided public relation pieces written by the followers of any person.

As is, this article reads pretty much like a promotional brochure anyway, and just needs some 800 number to round things up. History2007 (talk) 02:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, History2007, for your attempt to weigh in on this subject. I appreciate your opinion about sources. I still have a question regarding books that are self published as a valid source for contentious, minority opinions about a living person; I find contradictory references to that in WP's, and would like more information about it.

You also made a sweeping statements about the article being a PR piece that reads like a brochure, and you doubted my objectivity based on identifying myself as a follower. The article is based on referenced facts. May I ask you to please be specific and point out examples where WP's NPOV is violated? I would welcome any constructive suggestions in this regards in order to improve the article, as some editors have done.

Dismissing the objectivity of an article on the basis of the fact that it was written by a follower is not that helpful. As mentioned earlier on this page, WP’s COI policy states that "If you learn about our policies and practices, you should be treated with kindness and respect; if you are transparent about your affiliation with the article you are contributing to, you should be helped and guided towards proper use of sources and policy, rather than dismissed or targeted." Furthermore, allegations made here that I am an employee of Cohen or of his organization are simply false.Igal01 (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I did not dismiss the article based on who had written it, and I do not have a stake in this debate. The page just "looked like a PR piece to me", and still does. It is not just about Cohen, it reads like a brochure for his seminars or whatever. That is my reading of it. That was why I said it needs an 800 number. It does. And the angle to keep out criticism does not help. I see Tarlo's book as relevant - as well as the others. You asked for an opinion n WP:RS, you got an opinion - like it or not. History2007 (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Harrasment

I request WP's administrator to address the violation of WP's policies by user hamsa001, who has contributed information about my identity and my living address, as well as untruthful information about my means of livelihood, all in an effort to discredit me and my work on this article (by the way, I have made no attempt to conceal any of it). WP’s COI policy states: “When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to reveal the identity of other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this COI guideline.” hamsa001's contributions to this article (which I have summarized earlier on this page); his repeated attempts to discredit me and another contributor because of our affiliation; his false statements that we are employees of Cohen's organization; and his calls for us to be banned, are violating WP's policies against harassment.Igal01 (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Puffery

Emptiness, but of the wrong sort: puff puff puff. Much ado about nothing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Sources

Some serious sources:

• Ann Gleig,Lola Williamson (2013), Homegrown Gurus: From Hinduism in America to American Hinduism, SUNY PRESS
• Arthur Versluis (2014), American Gurus: From Transcendentalism to New Age Religion, Oxford University Press
• George D. Chryssides (2012), Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements, Rowman & Littlefield

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Opening sentence issues

While I certainly agree that Cohen is a controversial spiritual teacher and that the other comments in the opening sentence are verifiable, I am not sure that the opening sentence as it is currently is acceptable in terms of WP:BLP policies. As I have argued before with other articles, just about everyone who has an article about them on Wikipedia could validly be described as "controversial" for one reason or another and a very high percentage of them also have had notable personal failings in their lives which could be mentioned. But the opening sentence and section of BLP articles need to present a bigger picture of someone than this. I will, therefore, do some edits to the opening sentence with this in mind. Afterwriting (talk) 07:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree. I've removed the "controversial" statement. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I was going to make the following initial change to the opening sentence but it got caught in an edit conflict: "Andrew Cohen (born October 23, 1955) is an American spiritual teacher and author whose ideas are focused on what he calls "Evolutionary Enlightenment". He is also controversial due to accusations of abusive and manipulative behavior towards his students." Do you have any thought on this? Afterwriting (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe instead of "fucused on what he calls" - "calls his teachings". Those teachings should be explained further; it seems to mean "some ecstatic experience is not enough; you also have to become a perfect person" (lest my teachings are a joke, and I appear to be imperfect). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Andrew Cohen (spiritual teacher). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120615150432/http://www.andrewcohen.org:80/teachings/authentic-self-ego.asp to http://www.andrewcohen.org/teachings/authentic-self-ego.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120815134505/http://www.andrewcohen.org:80/teachings/ego.asp to http://www.andrewcohen.org/teachings/ego.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120915073301/http://www.watkinsbooks.com:80/magazine.html to http://www.watkinsbooks.com/magazine.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Andrew Cohen (spiritual teacher). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101221200252/http://www.andrewcohen.org/notes/index.php?/weblog/blog/kashi_humanitarian_award/ to http://www.andrewcohen.org/notes/index.php?/weblog/blog/kashi_humanitarian_award/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Andrew Cohen (spiritual teacher). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130805162324/http://andrewcohen.org/blog/apology to http://andrewcohen.org/blog/apology
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150515234523/http://www.andrewcohen.org/blog/open-letter-all-my-former-students-upon-return-my-sabbatical to http://www.andrewcohen.org/blog/open-letter-all-my-former-students-upon-return-my-sabbatical
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060202095652/http://enlightennext.org:80/ to http://www.enlightennext.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Notability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This guy is definitely notable. So much controversy. If only the book by Andre van der Braak, "Enlightenment Blues." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Abuse Perpetrated by Andrew Cohen

As a former student of Andrew Cohen I feel strongly that the "Criticism" section should be modified to state clearly that he perpetrated mental, financial, and physical abuse against his students. Wikipedia seems to be blocking this information or sanitizing it to meet some wiki guideline. Please know that this abuse is well documented and actually did happen. In the interest of impartiality this section should at a minimum be modified to state the forms of abuse were physical, mental, and financial. Thank you for incorporating the factual information in this regard. Mere links to this documented abuse is unsatisfactory and misleading! Zienvie (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• If there are solid tertiary sources, then add the info and cite it. There is no conspiracy here. There are people with sources who add info based on that. Go for it.Tao2911 (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)