religion and spirituality

Fri Jan 9 21:43:07 CST 2009

Although it's fun, that is to say easy - to have reactivity to the content of the Cohen and Wilbur exchange with this participant, the larger and more pressing concern being addressed (that is to say, to be addressed) is the question inherent to the exchange between Cohen, Wilbur and the participant, which is:  Is there such a thing as "enlightenment"? (which is what they are essentially talking about.  React as we will to the contect, the jibber, the words, the exchange, we are left, still, with that fundamental issue:  is there anything real to enlightenment?  Certainly HH the Dalai Lama would argue, YES, enlightenment is inherent to the nature of the human being, albeit obscured with ego, discursive thought.  That this "enlightenment" is a process - of being-present-with-enlightenment - which from the Zen teachings, is our "Original Nature" and our "Original Face".  Moreno, in this state, while writing "Words of the Father" was, from his own account, touching upon and giving expression to this enlightened nature.  My thesis during my training - is that our method offers homeopathic doses of the transcendental, that is to say enlightened nature within us, within humanity. Zerka writes about the white heat of action, the fullness of being awake in the present to the present, this is from a Zen structure, the corridor, the entry-point to what these folks, in this video, are attempting to POINT TO.  There is an Zen Koan:   Don't look at the fingers pointing, look to where the fingers are pointing. In fact our method is about this state of being, in its essence, what Zerka speaks writes about, as our being cosmic beings.  We need not be ashamed of this, even as we adventure further into the fabric of the world of psychotherapy.  Our method has been just this:  it goes beyond therapy.

Best,

Ed

-----Original Message-----
>From: thana ag <anathga at hotmail.com>
>Sent: Jan 9, 2009 9:48 PM
>To: adam blatner <adam at blatner.com>, sewell.2 at osu.edu, "list at grouptalkweb.org" <list at grouptalkweb.org>
>Subject: RE: religion and spirituality
>
>
>Watching the video i had the same allergic reaction to Andrew Cohen.less so to Ken Wilbur, as Adam,The whole idea of spirituality - is  that it be  experiential.Had the two  led this very "warmed up "woman through a Socratic  dialoque in which she would've come to   experience the "closed loop that the ego is"  -then BRAVO! . The audience would 've learned too.  We  too would've been  a bit more "enlightened". Otherwise this was not diferrent from  a sermon in a church.,with the two self designated High Priests    (one even got the right name for it...cohen...). talking at the woman . At least Ken Wilber intervened  at some point to say "let her talk to us..".  But did she actually experienced being listened to? The minimum a human being needs to feel the lowest degree of love? I don't think so.
>Warmly,
>anath
>
>
>From: ablatner at verizon.net
>To: sewell.2 at osu.edu; list at grouptalkweb.org
>Subject: Re: religion and spirituality
>Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 17:08:30 -0600
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Responding to your comments of January 
>7    
>Campbell also notes that perhaps the problem with religions today is that 
>they myths have not caught up with the economic and social realities of the 
>world in which we live.  
>       1. I am 
>all for a re-thinking about new myths, and wrote about this on my website : http://www.blatner.com/adam/psyntbk/creatmythmk.htm
> 
>   2. RS  Perhaps what we 
>need are new myths.  Oddly enough, some of the new science and new religion 
>is backing up what the Mary Baker Eddy prosletyzed to her masses -- the power of 
>prayer, of "energy" and intention.
>      AB: You may be right, and I sort of wish you 
>were, but I am not sure that much good science has indeed backed up the power of 
>prayer. There's lots of not-so-good science going around, too. 
>
>    3. youtube video   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTb2kp9Y4Is   Shows Andrew 
>Cohen and Ken Wilber, two new-age "teachers" responding to an emotional woman 
>who is speaking about her inner conflicts.
>    Regina wrote: I forced myself to watch it.  and I 
>had to force myself to watch it. I know that place of what Cynthia dubbed 
>spiritual hunger.  I know that place of resistance.  But we've 
>reframed resistance in our psychodrama world, no?  Haven't we decided 
>perhaps that resistance is just lack of warm up.  and might there be valid 
>reasons for lack of warm up?  Like we, or someone else, is pushing us into 
>a role that we don't want or that we don't have adequate skills or tools to 
>occupy, or we think we don't have adequate skills or tools, but we try to do it 
>anyway because we think we "should" and then - to steal for Ellis - we end up 
>"shoulding all over ourselves."  
>         
>AB: I agree and would add a few other comments: 
>     a. Is it possible to 
>eliminate sub-personalities, parts of self that are regressive? I remember Ram 
>Das saying that after 20 years of meditation and spiritual effort (following his 
>psychedelic experiments), he hadn't "cured" a single neurotic complex. But, he 
>conceded, they were "smaller."
>          I might have 
>answered that a person can have parts of oneself that are little-kid I don't 
>want to feelings and that doesn't disqualify the more grown-up parts. I think it 
>was Desmond Tutu or someone famous noting that courage doesn't mean you're not 
>afraid; rather, it means that you are afraid and you go ahead 
>anyway.
> 
>     b. But what bothered me is 
>the answer-giving behavior. I will confess that these guys---more Andrew Cohen, 
>but a bit of Ken Wilber, too---though I like many aspects of his philosophical 
>work, but not all--- annoy me. Perhaps this helped explain it. (And I admit 
>there may be shadow elements here.) I might have refrain from being so ready 
>with answers, but engaged instead in something that was more psychodramatic, or 
>at least an inquiry. This doesn't fit so neatly into a large class context, but 
>this level of learning perhaps should not be subject to that 
>format.
>       For example, I 
>can't speak for this person in the video, but I have found that symptoms of 
>self-hate often relate to a variety of other issues not brought out into the 
>open, and possibly not even consciously related to the things at 
>hand.
>      This woman was 
>locating the distress in the dissonance between her dedication to doing good in 
>social action and the parts of her that don't want to do good for others, or 
>even be very grown-up. Perhaps, but unless we deal with a general life review, 
>we can't know if this is really what the issue is. It may be unfinished issues 
>with a lover, guilt and shame over gullibility and sexuality (quite common), 
>lack of clarity in identity and vocational commitment (also very common), lack 
>of general map of faith, and so on---many possibilities. 
>       So I felt 
>annoyed at what seemed to me to be grossly unsophisticated psychological 
>pseudo-therapy, with glib answers.
> 
>     c. The other problem with 
>Cohen, and to some degree Wilber, too, in these videos, is the new age babble. 
>It used to be called psychobabble, but now it's spiritual-babble. Those are 
>statements that are essentially platitudes, cleverly disguised. Many recognized 
>teachers and televangelists and others are quite glib, perhaps quite sincere, it 
>all fits in their mind, an answer to every questions.
> 
> (Am I this way and projecting my annoyance on 
>Cohen? Maybe, but I'll be open to exploration of words, point by point. I don't 
>think he makes himself vulnerable in this way.)
> 
>     Cohen and many other new 
>age gurus make sweeping statements that cannot be disproven. They're too vague. 
>As you think, so your life will be. Not really so obvious, because we all think 
>so many internally contradictory things. Make your mind pure?  Who has done 
>this, and where is the evidence that except for building a new-age following, 
>those who are designated by followers and by self as enlightened actually lead 
>more exemplary lives? 
> 
>       
>RS: So the political consequences of spirituality - or lack there of 
>- I think are dependent on the tenets or myths or misunderstandings that 
>one subscribes to.  Not just the leaders - though they certainly have 
>incredible power to shape social rhetoric - but the peeps as well...  I 
>personally lost at least $10,000 in a break-up because a majority of people in 
>Ohio felt moved by their spiritual convictions to deny the rights of 
>marriage to unmarried people and denied marriage to same sex 
>couples.  
>       AB: This brings up the whole problem of 
>spirituality and religion, and the possibility that many people who pursue a 
>variety of current religious agendas (such as anti-homosexual political 
>policies) are bothering much with any personal spiritual endeavors. 
>
> 
> 
>     So, back to trying to 
>clean up email. Warmly, Adam
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Windows Live™ Hotmail®: Chat. Store. Share. Do more with mail. 
>http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_hm_justgotbetter_howitworks_012009