Last Sunday, I was joined by Tom Steininger for a conversation entitled “My Guru Experiment: Twenty Years with Andrew Cohen.” It was an edgy and timely dialogue, coming a year after the collapse of the global EnlightenNext network, and while Andrew Cohen is still on sabbatical to understand the lessons of that collapse and reckon with his shortcomings as a teacher and leader.
I confess that I felt a bit nervous about this dialogue. There is such fierce polarization and passion surrounding any discussion of Andrew Cohen, with both appreciators and critics arrayed in a wide spectrum of sometimes fierce positions. Some former students say their lives have been wonderfully transformed by their work with Andrew. Thousands of people, including many who were never Andrew’s students, feel like their understanding of spirituality has deepened and grown, aided by the distinctions he’s made, particularly his innovations regarding evolutionary spirituality and collective enlightenment. And there are many who are outraged by his harsh methods and lack of care for his students’ humanity, some who say that they’ve been traumatized and victimized by their experiences with him. But for many reasons, I felt it was important to wade into these waters and open up the beginnings of what I think is an important, larger conversation.
I knew that it would be hard to adequately presence the many paradoxes and nuances at play, and that the limitations of that attempt would, on one end, provoke accusations of being an apologist and enabling abuse; or on the other end, be a cop out, and carelessly devalue everything associated with Andrew Cohen and his teaching, essentially throwing out the baby with the bathwater. So I didn’t feel ready until now. But I finally felt ready to plunge ahead.
And so did Tom Steininger. He is uniquely capable of walking the knife’s edge of this important discussion. He was a longtime close and senior student of Andrew’s, the leader of EnlightenNext Germany, and the senior editor of the German-language version of Cohen’s magazine, What Is Enlightenment and then EnlightenNext. He is also a thoughtful, philosophically sophisticated original thinker who is currently in his own process of a deep, self-critical inquiry, holding the tension of having experienced and witnessed profound and authentic spiritual growth and innovation with Andrew, while examining ways in which he may have colluded in the damaging mistakes that Andrew, and the culture around him, made. Not only that, he’s been a key leader in forging several trans-lineage evolutionary spiritual collaboratives that beautifully transcend cultism.
What does Tom mean by his “Guru Experiment”? During our dialogue, he explained that in part he wanted to experiment by finding someone who could challenge him to realize something absolute, something truly far beyond himself, beyond his “arrogance.” He felt that there was something authentic and real about Andrew, who was radical in a very unusual way.
Tom’s experiment involved making a choice to trust someone else more than he trusted himself and to surrender his own perspectives to something he sensed was higher. And it worked. His surrender created enough leverage to pull him beyond insidiously subtle ego dynamics. When the guru relationship works well, it can be a powerful function, completely based on trust.
And yet such trust can also be dangerous.
When I wrote my blog post “Are You in a Cult?” I suggested that everyone in the whole world is in a cult, subject to a whole matrix of limiting attitudes and assumptions that researcher Charles Tart described as “the Consensus Trance.” To break from this trance, I think there needs to be room for bold, challenging experiments, such as surrender to a guru. And yet there’s a serious potential for people to be damaged by pathological dynamics when they’ve surrendered their own will to that of a guru.
I recounted that I’d heard that Andrew had told his students to “strangle your inner child in its crib”, which exemplifies the kind of harshness that I believe contributed to the breakdown of Enlightenment Next. Tom acknowledged this, and yet pointed out that there are enlightened masters who have used harsh methods in their teaching, but have come from the right place.
He believes the issue is the motivation for that harshness. According to Tom, there were things that Andrew did that did not come from the right place; and this at least partially accounts for the controversies and harm that have resulted.
Tom suggested that in order to understand Andrew’s strengths and failings, you have to consider both his theoretical orientation and his personal motivations. Like Ken Wilber and Don Beck, Andrew launched a powerful critique of postmodern relativism. But Tom says this was done in flawed way in that it was just an antithesis to postmodern relativism, without integrating important postmodern values. In addition, on many occasions Andrew demonstrated a profound lack of caring for the personal souls of his students, and that was damaging. This, according to Tom, is part of what precipitated the crisis at EnlightenNext.
But the critiques of Andrew are only half the story. The headline is that Tom continues to feel that much of what he had dedicated his life to as a student of Andrew Cohen was valid, and thus he has learned from the lessons of the crisis, but he and many colleagues in the German-speaking world have continued to work on behalf of the evolution of consciousness and culture, in just the ways their “Guru Experiment” set in motion. These higher values remain primary in his life and I deeply respect this higher commitment.
Ultimately, Tom feels that his “experiment” was really about coming together with other human beings to go beyond ego, to collectively realize a Higher We. This intention is still central to Tom’s life and work. I pointed out that this is almost the opposite of the dharma that matured him into what he is doing now, He is bringing people together in ways that are profoundly respectful of everyone concerned. Instead of brutally confronting the ego, Tom is creating compassionate, collaborative containers.
Tom agrees. He observes something important — that the evolutionary unfolding of Oneness, what Andrew would call “Eros”, is an inherently dialogical process. Thus the true evolutionary integral process is not a philosophy or a theory, but a conversation. He says, “the unfolding of consciousness is always bigger than my voice, and what we create only has value as a contribution to something bigger than ourselves. The classic mistake of any cult is thinking ‘we are it.’”
I pointed out that Andrew Cohen is on his own journey, and I wish him well. To what degree he will metabolize a deep transformation of his heart remains to be seen. On one hand, he’s shown tremendous clarity, courage, intelligence and self-transcending capacity in the past. On the other, this crisis asks something tremendously difficult and entirely different.
We had only begun our conversation when we ran out of time. So our conversation was alive, edgy, and yet incomplete. When we talked afterwards, Tom asked me, and I agreed, to hold a follow-up conversation “about the conversation” which we’ve scheduled for October 15th. For details, click here.
But this first public conversation has opened up a larger, very thoughtful dialogue. And there’s more; our conversation ranged more widely than I can recount in this space. I invite you to listen to the full recording here
Thank you both for showing up exactly as you are. I met Andrew Cohen in 1992 in Amsterdam. I have been studying and practicing the teachings for over 20 years. And found many friends and teachers in the EN community.
While I was listening, the thought came up in me: “How difficult can it be to say ‘I am sorry'”. What I hear is two men in conversation continuously explaining the deeper meaning for their actions as to legalize these actions and the convictions based on these. I honor your intention and humanness.
Many years ago I was involved in the great experiment that was initiated by Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. When I left the community (1984) – the first thing that I did was admitting that I had been wrong on pushing people to do things they were not ready for at that moment. I did confront myself with the individuals that could have been hurt – and apologize to them personally. This action in- and of itself was greatly appreciated by the people involved. And they did forgive me (without me asking for it) because they admired and appreciated my commitment and humanness. Because I was willing to take full responsibility for my actions, they took their responsibility for their actions and reactions (for being hurt and disappointed). So this is what forgiveness is all about. Letting go of all expectations we put on each other that is blocking the flow of love and good will between us. Indeed evolution and human growth is happening in our coming together. But let us not make ‘the Higher We’ – a new religion – let it be our blessing.
Much appreciated,
Edda van der Hoeven, Angerlo, The Netherlands
Dear Edda, I so appreciate this definition of forgiveness. And your open and honest sharing of your experience. And yes, let’s have the Higher We be our blessing, rather than a new religion. Warm Blessings, Terry
Thank you both Terry and Tom for sharing all this in your talk, in particular your personal experiences. For me, it revealed once more some insights which are not only applicable to the so called spiritual scene, but much more general – e.g. in the integral scene, in economics, in science, etc. It has to do with the observation that virtually everyone, including myself, tends to see „my path“ as the valid one, once I’ve decided to participate in. So I continuoslely want approval to be on the right path. Therefore, I may be willing to close even both eyes if something comes up which might question my path. „It always needs two to tango“ – the guru and the student – and they mutually enforce the choosen path – the cult – since no one wants to be „wrong“, and they have decided for tango, not salsa or walz.
For the integral scene, Susanne Cook-Greuter has pointed to this in her paper ASSUMPTIONS VERSUS ASSERTIONS – Separating Hypotheses from Truth in the Integral Community (http://www.cook-greuter.com/Cook-Greuter,%20Assumptions%20versus%20Assertions.pdf), where she says things like: „I will postulate that much of the “certainty” expressed and the “pride” that some people feel by identifying as integral practitioners may be an expression of ego’s central function to tell a coherent story and to make us the heroes in it.“ [..] „I invite all of us in the integral movement to remain open and to inquire into our own motivations, needs, and preferences. Let’s be alert when we are attracted to an interpretation of reality because it makes us feel more secure, special, and important.“
And one of her concluisons (in the context of her talk) is: „Can we passionately support the integral dream and participate in it while we remain in inquiry?“ This is for me the crucial point: If we’re not continuosly question our current path, we may run into a dead end street. Therefore, I do my best to stay in an attitude of „not knowing“, which opens me for new insights, which then may lead to changes in my practice and activities
Thanks for bringing up Cook- Greuter’s article. I highly recommend it. It is ironic that ongoing inquiry and “not already knowing” were expressed values at Enlightennext, at least on the fringes and in the various classes and retreats. I’m much more skeptical about everything. We can so easily fool ourselves.
Hi Pierre,
Good to hear from you, and thanks for writing. I so resonate! Resting in this space of “not knowing” is essential to spiritual growth, and to avoiding the rigidity and calcification of any belief system. Susanne’s paper expresses it well, and your insight into how this reifies the shared beliefs of guru and student is spot on. I feel so much younger and more alive in my inquiry than in my (always tentative) answers! Thanks for joining the conversation. -Terry
Thank you Terry and Tom for this conversation. Looking forward to downloading the second segment when available, as I missed the live call. Even though I was never a direct student, I greatly benefited from what Andrew developed with his students and what he and several others shared with me in the past 4 years. Like you Terry, I never met a senior student of Andrew who I didn’t resonate with. When I questioned Andrew in a newsletter in 2011 (www.integralrelationship.com/newsletters.asp#Cohen) he responded positively and we had a great phone conversation and became friends.
I wonder, and some of you may have feedback for me, if we confuse and substitute spiritual practice and awakening in whatever radical or compassionate form, with therapy. The field of licensed therapist is highly regulated while anyone can be a spiritual teacher. And it seems that some spiritual teachers and Gurus confuse the two as well. They may need therapy themselves and for that, and other reasons (status, fame, money), don’t discriminate who can benefit from their teaching (as Tom and many others did) and who will be harmed. To me, this seems to be a problem of missing healthy boundaries, ignorance, naivete and pathology on the students and sometimes the teachers side. And it raises the question why certain areas e.g. being a psychotherapist or massage therapist (CMT) is regulated, and being a spiritual or Yoga teacher (see http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/29/health/yoga-health-concerns/) is not. I am not advocating for more regulation per se. I think it is good that there is much room for freedom and “advancement into novelty” outside regulatory authorities (one thing that I like about the US). But it seems obvious to me that people who engage with teachers and healers in unregulated areas need to take full responsibility for the outcomes and can’t blame the teacher/practitioner afterwards if they get harmed. If the teacher/practitioner does something illegal then there is the law and courts. And I am aware that this leaves open the question of moral and ethical obligations on the teachers side … which, as we heard from Terry and Tom, is a difficult field when we push into uncharted territory, which I think Andrew and his students did. For my part I am grateful to Andrew and his students and my heart does go out to those who got harmed in the process.
If you watched the movie ‘1’ that tells the story of a generation of charismatic Grand Prix Racing drivers who raced on the edge, risking their lives during Formula 1’s deadliest period, and the men who stood up and changed the sport forever, you may see a parallel.
Thank you again Terry and Tom (and Andrew and all others) for engaging in a dialog that can change the practice and process of realizing radical evolutionary enlightenment through ego transcendence (which I think is essential for our future) to become healthy and sustainable.
Your thoughts are welcome.
Thank you, Martin, for this post. I found myself resonating, even sometimes nodding, as I read every paragraph of your nuanced reflections. You highlight some of the most important points that I think need to be made, going even further than I did in the dialogue. Thank you! I haven’t seen the movie “1” but just in concept, the sense of possible parallels conjures a rich metaphor.
With appreciation and respect, Terry
Hi Terry
I appreciate the interview was never going to be an easy one to cover all of the myriad views that we have as ex students, It seems that depending on when you left or were kicked out, you might have a different perspective on Andrew and the teachings.
One vital question that I think needs clarifying between yourself and Tom is this: Does the Ends justify the Means. A fundamental supposition that Andrew took towards his evolutionary teachings was that our personal egos and personal experiences (and critiques) were easily dismissible in light of some post-post modern trajectory that we were (supposedly) on. Tom set out his interview last week saying that he wanted tough love to help break his ego down, but not everyone felt the same.
There are many clear cases of an abuse of power by both Andrew and his students, and dubious instances that some in EN would say were important for a greater breakthrough in consciousness between 2001-2006.
Its important to question: does the ends justify the means – as this pertains not only to Andrew and ‘spiritual development’ but is also used to justify great ecological and social devastation of our planet for the aims of ‘progress’.
Andrew often said: Eros doesnt have a conscience – so if you and Tom believe in an evolutionary enlightenment, how do we (if in fact we need to) tether Eros to a moral, ethical and conscious standard of behaviour, particularly if we have surrendered to that eros in the form of a guru?
Dear Blake, you’re touching on a crucial issue here, in some ways THE crucial issue. During our 2nd conversation, Tom discussed his current work and what of his experience with Andrew has been retained, and what discarded. He spoke about how dialogue is really where he’s going, but how he’s still valuing the need to aspire to a “utopian” ideal in order to most fully advance and develop, but necessarily also holding the space for the world as it is, and people as they are.
I had a rather complex and nuanced take on it, which I only partly gave voice to. Suffice to say, for me, care is at the center of the evolutionary impulse, and is the essence of both Eros and Agape. Both kinds of love tend to become unhealthy when either aspect of care is too weak or absent. To the degree that there is sincere deep committed care, there is an ethical moral compass. I don’t see the ethics as extrinsic, but intrinsic.
I do appreciate your bringing your voice to this discussion.
Warm thanks,
Terry
I very much appreciate your diving into this the way that you have Terry. And I am moved and informed by the range of comments and reflections that have been offered, particularly Richard, Fred and Martin. Thank you as well. This is a potent ‘teaching moment’ that is as much about the questions and where they are coming from, as about any particular “answer” that seems to secure our ground once again. I am reminded about the strong & emphatic teaching in the traditional Buddhist path, of the necessity of developing ‘the mind of compassion’ with equal devotion as the mind of clarity, or Big Heart as well as Big Mind. I recall in one Q & A with Lama Surya, his strongly yet lovingly delivered challenge to someone emphasizing the Absolute truth to the exclusion of the Relative, “Don’t be dualistic about non-dualism!” I am also reminded, any time any teacher seems to fall from grace, of the Tibetan Buddhist teaching on The Four Reliances which are: Rely on the message of the teacher, not on his/her personality. Rely on the meaning, not just the words. Rely on the real meaning, not the provisional one. Rely on your wisdom mind, not on your ordinary judgmental thinking. thank you Terry and others for your wholehearted, courageous, and direct engagement with the full range of perspectives that this dialogue calls to the table.
Wayne, thanks for weighing in with this insightful post. And for bringing in the very relevant Four Reliances. And thanks for the acknowledgment. Warm thanks, Terry
Isn’t the fundamental question, why anyone would want to be my teacher ? Doesn’t it assume that what there is to learn is not embedded in our need to see “what is “? Isn’t this simply the ability of another(teacher) to exploit our unwillingness to do the looking? The seeker and the teacher are both caught in the same self deception, as there is nothing for us to see but our unwillingness to look at who/what we are.
If we are prepared to see, we will see, if not, it’s all avoidance for both teacher and student.
This discussion gives us all a chance to question this whole dynamic of “pimping avoidance”. Thanks Terry !
Joe, wow! “pimping avoidance” is quite a colorful new term 🙂 I’ve been served profoundly by my teachers, and I was willing to see, but my clarity was just too confused and compromised, so transmission was essential and guidance was sometimes useful. But I think your questions focus on the precise place where pathologies can arise in the teacher/student relationship, inhibiting rather that promoting spiritual growth. I’ve heard it complained that teachers “pick their student’s pocket and sell them back their wallet” and I think that’s part of what you’re pointing to. I appreciate your post. Warm thanks, Terry
Joe nailed. The worst thing that can happen is to become a “teacher” before you have really questioned your attachments. You keep hope in your illusions alive and you get rewards to stay in the game. You attached like-minded students and the cycle of (evolved?) illusion continues.
I agree about the consensus trance. People don’t realise how deep that goes. Indeed, it includes spiritual people and evolutionaries.
As for the reasons AC fell, the info I have is that he was pushed into it by senior disciples who were frustrated that he wanted to keep too much control of the organisation.
Regarding the conversation with Tom, I emailed this to Terry:
I think it’s really great that you are opening up the conversation. However, have you noticed a problem with people talking to others who are basically on the same page? Both you and Tom agree on many points, so a large number of beliefs will remain unquestioned. During the time of the initial criticisms, Andrew said that he went to his most trusted friends to get their opinions. If he was serious he would have gone directly to the critics instead. My experience is that profound progress only happened when life cornered me and made me question cherished attachments. Both radical friends and conservative friends only supported my attachments. So much time is wasted in such status quo processes. The core is held together, and only the edges are questioned and negotiated. Getting real is rare, so you can expect that human interactions will be safe and therefore useless. You have to be one of the rare ones until getting real becomes as common as it should be. BTW, that doesn’t require slapping and wasting decades of your life in dramatic quests. It just requires that you uncover and question your most cherished beliefs, attachments, and interpretations. Of course, the evolutionaries think they are doing that, but they won’t know until they seriously interact with people who disagree with them.
I’ve had an experience similar to Tom’s. I spent ten years with a spiritual teacher who, while brilliant and innovative, lived largely in his ego. Over time, I became his right hand man, co-leading classes with him. As his following grew, so did his ego and he became more erratic. With me, his behavior ranged from close and trusted friend in private, to abusive and humiliating in public settings.
Interestingly enough, I never bought into his “enlightenment”. I was sure that he was brilliant and I had undeniable experiences of opening and clarity both in his presence and as a result of his work.
After about 10 years with him, I received a panicked call from him in the middle of the night. He was having the beginnings of what would become a nearly 2 year meltdown. I had seen it coming years earlier… he had created dangerous tension between who he claimed that he was and the life he was actually living. Others in the community that believed in the image were shocked and retreated like rats leaving a sinking ship. I stayed around for a little longer because there had been many close and powerful moments between us, even if they were tainted by his public treatment of me. Eventually, I left too. I simply couldn’t reconcile all the contradictions. Also, my self-esteem, clearly not strong enough to push back against his treatment of me, had begun to grow. I knew that I deserved better and that was it.
In the end, I have trust that the process… all of it… was right for me. I’m well aware of the degree of ego and unconsciousness that I began the process with and while the methods were (in my opinion) harsh and often abusive, I did eventually break through much of my dysfunctional and defensive patterns. So I am left with many mixed feelings about my experience. I would never want to repeat it, but I owe much of the man I am today to that time.
Dear Fred, thank you for sharing your experience so honestly and with such clarity and humanity. Warm Blessings, Terry
Great discussion, but I think the key missing insight that provides the most relevant context here regarding the group process in question, and many many other similar processes, is PERSONAL AND GROUP SPIRITUAL BYPASSING! It can be the most unconscious dimension in us as individuals and in groups as well. I surmise that certain people who have similar patterns of avoiding painful feelings, unresolved wounds, and developmental needs find others and spiritual teachers (or life partners, friends etc) and collude with each other to continue this partial embrace of our full humanness, to attempt to continue to live in a comfort zone, in spite of other dimensions of risk taking. I don’t think it was entirely “an accident” that a pivotal hurtful comment was something to the effect of “kill your inner child”. This, to me, is an obvious projection of self hatred that had been internalized in a different form in childhood, the dealing with of, threatened the spiritual bypassing hierarchy and group mind set. Spiritual bypassing is a vast, destructive, and unconscious process that is ubiquitous. For an in depth look at this most pertinent subject, see Spiritual Bypassing, When Spirituality Disconnects Us From What Really Matters, by Robert Masters. Reader’s of this blog can do some reading from his book at: http://www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Bypassing-Spirituality-Disconnects-Matters/dp/1556439059#
And Terry, I heard your wonderful interview with Robert Masters and I encourage you to consider having him on for a powerful snippet to passionately articulate as he does so well this process which is at the heart of the current discussion in your Wednesday event.
A few very relevant passage from Arjuna Ardagh’s book called: The Translucent Revolution:
Total Supreme Enlightenment
Some claim that the moment of radical awakening causes all old symptoms of personal identity to dissolve completely. There’s no more desire, no more fear, no more getting pissed off when someone nabs your parking place. No more of Iago’s whisper. Gone. Poof! The divine light, and nothing else, shines through every orifice of the body. Most of the people who make such claims are men. After all, it’s the hypermasculine curse to want to be totally finished and complete with the inconveniences of incarnation. So many men
We call it a glimpse of reality. Of course one comes down. The clouds again obscure the sun. But now you know why it’s light during the day. You can start your day without seeing the sun every minute. You know it’s there whether you see it or not. The glimpse is not the end of the path as some people might think, but just the beginning.
— Lama Surya Das
LIVING IT 47
long to swoop down someday onto an aircraft carrier and proudly announce, “Mission accomplished.”
“The clearer you get,” says Isaac Shapiro, “the more you believe your own bullshit.” When we see teachers surrounded only by adoring students, when these teachers no longer have a peer group
to offer honest and supportive feedback,
not about their enlightenment, but about
their humanity, we are often watching an
accident waiting to happen. The more
grandiose the claims made about ultimate
enlightenment, the more sordid the scan-
dals we often hear about later, from disgruntled devotees and former spouses. Let’s leave the jury out on such absolute transformations.
Initiation into Endless Evolution
The fifth impact of radical awakening is the most interesting. What has been seen and known in a snap of the fingers leaves a strong enough mark that it can never be overlooked again. Have you ever come across those images that jump off the page if you look at them cross-eyed? At first glance, you see a bunch of squiggly lines and nothing else. Then, if you step back a little and look beyond the lines to an imaginary point a few feet beyond the flat surface, a dragon or a ballerina magically appears as a holo- gram. After you’ve seen the -D image just once, you can easily find it again when you look for it.
In the same way, when the awakening is strong enough, it leaves an imprint on the body and psyche. You are left with a deep knowing of the per- fection of things, even when they are going wrong. You realize that everything is interconnected, even when you are caught in conflict, that who you are is actually much bigger than the person you have taken yourself to be. The game is up on Iago.
At the same time, you have the humility, the honesty, and humor to cop to the habits of this human monkey. You recognize that it is still predis- posed toward craving ice cream, wanting more of this and less of that. It has addictions to particular pleasures, and it also has its favorite miseries. The
It’s not chosen; for example, I didn’t choose to wake up, it chose me, and from that point on I’ve exercised my awareness in trying to separate the real from the unreal.
— Richard Moss
48 the TRANSLUCENT REVOLUTION
awakening initiates a gradual metamorpho- sis, which is both evolutionary and endless. A spontaneous generosity of spirit, an im- pulse to serve, and a willingness to trans- form living into art gradually replace the normal relationship to life marked by fear and acquisition. You develop an amused, playful attitude to the only raw materials available: the strange habits of the bundle of thoughts you call “me.”
This dual state of being both limitless and limited, of being both out of time and within it, reveals an evolutionary impulse, inherent in life itself — the impulse for the realization to continu-
ously marinate the personal and to become ever more embodied.
We will call this endless process of evolution and transformation
“translucence.”
This initiation into endless evolution seems to express your path well Terry! And mine as well!
A final point, group intimacy is utterly complex and is limited by what its members are individually and collectively avoiding. So let’s be humble about what has been experienced, however profound. We are always scratching the surface of the infinite!
Let’s pull out the stops and make this Wednesday conversation a HUGE TEACHING MOMENT ABOUT SPIRITUAL BYPASSING, which it very well could be! Avoiding anything painful is a vast cultural trap as well that our so called spiritual groups are only one context of. Keep up the superb work Terry!!!!
Dear Richard, Thank you for this comprehensive, thoughtful assessment. And the excerpts from “The Translucent Revolution”. Spiritual bypassing, at the personal and group levels, is a key principle at work, and I’ll bring that awareness into Wednesday’s call. Thank you! And you are right about this being a tremendous teaching moment. We won’t be able to include Robert Masters at this late date, but I appreciate that suggestion as well.
Warmly, Terry
THANK YOU for your heartfelt thoughts and compassionate sharing regarding this evolutionary experience for us ALL.
Thank you for your good words Laura. Blessings, Terry
Also one other question (or two): Was a total collapse of the organization foreseeable and could it have been avoided? Was there a distinct lack of love or compassion that contributed to the collapse? Thank you for allowing me to post and ask my questions.
I’m still mystified as to what the tipping point or exactly what caused to the glass house to shatter. I felt like everyone was walking on eggs. I still don’t know WHY Andrew left or the movement collapsed. I’m not interested in gossip or certain specifics. What the hell happened to cause it to collapse?
Dear Paul, I saw your comment prior to my second conversation with Tom and I did my best to shed some light on what exactly happened. Here is the recording in case you weren’t able to make the call: http://www.beyondawakeningseries.com/archive/ I hope you’ll find that your question was adequately addressed.
Warm thanks,
Terry
Terry,
I’m listening now and I appreciate how much more deeply you and Tom delved into this subject. It sheds a lot of light on the subject and for that I’m grateful. Be well!