Evidence
blackscorpio
A call for the evidence is a good thing; however, a lot of of the context
for this comes from experiences while in the Ashram. There is no rule that
says "The guru is perfect and if you question the perfection of the guru
such and such will happen". However, it is my experience that when dealing
with the hardcore SYDA types that they will do everything possible to
surpress debate. Did you know that when the Liz Harris article in the New
Yorker came out, they sent people around to the stores around the ashram
neighbourhood to buy up all the copies so that ordinary people at the ashram
wouldn't see it? In my personal experience, I mentioned to one of the local
hardcore that I thought there was something to the Liz Harris article.
After that, no more phone calls about special events. Not exactly an
organization that encourages the search for truth!
Leon Buker
Hi,
I was wondering if we are to going to have a debate about the
merits of the teachings of SY whether people would be able to
provide some sort of reference for their ideas.
At the moment we have someone saying that in SY the Guru is
perfect and somebody else saying that this isn't the case. At the
moment things just look like hearsay to me.
Ideally I would love to be able to look things up in one of the
SY books or even the upanashads etc. Hopefully this would make
things more "factual", but we may just end up debating
interpretations of these texts...
Thanks.
Leon.
w
"blackscorpio" <hhe...@magmacom.com> wrote:
How do you know that all of the copies were bought up? Were you there to see
that happen? or were you told that and now you repeat it as truth! This is the
difficulty with discussions is that if 1 person says something, it's gossip,
but if 2 people say the samething, then it must be true! You can only speak the
truth when you absolutely know it as such, otherwise you are just gossiping!
leor...@hotmail.com
You wrote:
>This is the difficulty with discussions is that if 1 person says something,
>it's gossip, but if 2 people say the samething, then it must be true! You can
>only speak the truth when you absolutely know it as such, otherwise you are
>just gossiping!
This is true. It is difficult to know whom to believe, and if someone is
just repeating a rumor second-hand. However, please understand that many
of us write from our own experience, like Dan and Stuart. I hope you
will listen to these gentlemen with an open mind, for they have been
close observers of the Siddha Yoga inner circle and are well-qualified to
speak to, and debunk (if necessary), rumors.
I was involved in Siddha Yoga for 17 years, much of that as a sevite in
Ann Arbor, Ganeshpuri and Oakland, before I left it this summer (7/97).
I left after reading a great deal on the Search for the Truth website
(www.cyberpass.net/truth/). It was through this website that I read the
"O Guru Guru Guru" article by Liz Harris, which surprised me with its
candor. Many of my own knowledge of "inner circle" practices and
decisions were confirmed by this article. The final straw was the
revelation of George Afif's conviction on statutory rape charges, and his
subsequent re-acceptance into the "inner circle" This is a matter of
fact, and I suppose if you need outside confirmation, someone somewhere
might be able to download the court documents for you to see.
The facts about Siddha Yoga can be slippery, because it doesn't really
function as a single, monoprogrammed unit. For example, I was told by
another devotee not to read the "O Guru" article - and she purportedly
had heard this from her contacts in South Fallsburg (she was a department
head in the Portland Center). I have spoken to others in the Portland
Center who have not heard such an edict, so who was right? I heard what
I heard, and I bought into it, and that delayed my reading of the article
until this summer. Do I believe that Fallsburg recommended we don't read
the article? Absolutely. Do I believe it was sent out as an edict to
all Centers? No, not really.
So what do I conclude about Siddha Yoga? That the teachings are
beautiful, most of the people in it and many of the people running it are
wonderful and sincere, but that the source of the teachings and the
object of devotion - the Guru and her inner circle - are venal, corrupt,
and menacing. It is perhaps fortunate that Siddha Yoga is not such a
tight ship, or the corruption would spread throughout the whole
organization.
Keep questioning and testing, and listen to the truth in your heart. If
you believe Kasmir Shaivism, that's the only truth you can believe
anyway.
Good luck to you in your search.
Marcy Phooli Hoeflein
always available at "leor...@hotmail.com"
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
blackscorpio
You are right, I did not personally see the copies of the New Yorker being
bought up. I just happenned to believe what other people said on the
INTERNET. Do you know for a fact that they were not bought up.
blackscorpio
David Corner
In article <648e6p$fd$1...@news.magma.ca>, "blackscorpio"
<hhe...@magmacom.com> wrote:
He doesn't have to prove that they were not bought up. You're trying to
shift the burden of proof. Whoever claims that they were bought up- they
have the obligation to give some evidence for this.
I don't think the mere fact that you heard it on the Internet is good
reason to believe it. After all, you have repeated this rumor on the
Internet yourself, yet by your own admission you have no personal
knowledge of the matter.
The charges against Muktananda and Gurumayi, and their organization, are
chilling. Is there anyone reading this NG who can give any personal
testimony about these?
--
David Corner ** dco...@csus.edu
dco...@volcano.net ** dco...@tlc.crc.losrios.cc.ca.us
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://tlc.crc.losrios.cc.ca.us/~cornerdr/dc.html
________________________________________________________________________
Anonymous 2
On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 20:15:30 -0500, "blackscorpio"
<hhe...@magmacom.com> wrote:
>You are right, I did not personally see the copies of the New Yorker being
>bought up. I just happenned to believe what other people said on the
>INTERNET...
>I just happenned to believe what other people said on the INTERNET...
>I just happenned to believe what other people said on the INTERNET...
>I just happenned to believe what other people said on the INTERNET...
>I just happenned to believe what other people said on the INTERNET...
GAME OVER.
Patty...@aol.com
In article ,
Leon Buker wrote:
> I was wondering if we are to going to have a debate about the
> merits of the teachings of SY whether people would be able to
> provide some sort of reference for their ideas.
I spent 12+ years in SY, five of them as a center leader and the rest as
a very active sevite. (My story is on the Leaving Siddha Yoga web site,
if you're interested in more background.)
SY borrows "teachings" from Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism and throws into
the mix ideas from just about every religious group and ethical culture
on the planet. Something for everyone. Those of us who have left SY do
not take issue with the "merits" of the teachings of SY. The teachings -
the ideals espoused - are one thing. Application, practice, is quite
another.
Celibacy is touted as an ideal, especially for gurus, but the gurus do
not adhere to this priniciple, and call it "tantra" or attribute it to
"inscrutability."
Rewriting history to exclude - even erase - those who would speak the
truth or otherwise get in the way of the agenda of those in power is done
with regularity. In the late 1980s, for example, one could not work in
certain sevas if one had begun practicing SY after Swami Nityananda's
resignation. Explanations regarding that debacle were tightly controlled
by the spin doctors and those tutored to explain the pruning of that
particular branch of the lineage. That he would be mentioned at all on
SYDA's official web site is a product of the relentless campaign of
ex-devotees to reveal the whole truth about SY.
Nonattachment is encouraged but the people in power in SY, from the gurus
on down, cling to their position, their privilege, their creature
comforts - all at the expense of "grateful" devotees. The crowds are
subjected to programs which, years ago, offered more advertisement than
substance, always asking for more "dakshina" as proof of devotion, and to
earn "merit."
The "guru-disciple relationship" is said to be all important, but the
classical idea of the personal relationship between the two is merely
parodied ("satellite Intensives" giving instant initiation, a guru ever
more distant from her disciples, managers and trustees and seva bosses
who purport to be carrying out the guru's command but who are - in
reality - just on power trips of their own, often with the guru's tacit
approval).
People I know and respect have told me that they were asked to smuggle
goods in their luggage when going to and from Ganeshpuri, and that this
was standard practice. Another person told me he was asked to help
"rough up" a new house trailer so that it would pass as "used," to reduce
the duty.
These are only a few examples. The point is that questions as to the
ethics are typically met with the explanation, "We're doing this to
further the Guru's mission. It's for the greater good." Oh, really?
In SY, stealing, assault, sexual misconduct and other forms of violence
against man and nature are excused as furthering someone's idea of "the
greater good." The "teachings" are thus perverted to suit the ends of
those in power in SY.
blackscorpio
The woman who falsely charged the Dallas Cowboys with rape was likely out
for money. The motives aren't so obvious with the dissentors. Most of them
would love to believe in SYDA yoga. It is true that you should discount one
story from one person on the Internet. For example, there is one guy who
claims that George Afif asked him to kill Gurumayi's brother. That is just
one story so you don't necessarily accept it as fact. However, there are
numerous women complaining about George and his sexual harrassment. For my
money, I accept it as true that George did these things.
Andy Comanda
Andy Comanda wrote:
>
> blackscorpio wrote:
> >
> > A call for the evidence is a good thing; however, a lot of of the context
> > for this comes from experiences while in the Ashram. There is no rule that
> > says "The guru is perfect and if you question the perfection of the guru
> > such and such will happen".
>
> something like, "If God is angry with you the guru can help, but if the
> guru is angry with you, no one can help" Being that I trashed my
> chanting book, this a only a paraphrase.
I called a friend. The exact quote is:
"The Guru is the supreme diety. There is nothing higher than the Guru."
"If Lord Hari (Vishnu) is angry, the Guru protects you, but if the Guru
is angry, no one can save you."
sres...@slip.net
Not to mention the dozens of people who experienced SYDA folks harrassing
Nityananda's group. (The attacks even made the newspaper in Ann Arbor.)
It's also telling, in my view, that while this harrassment was going on,
Gurumayi never even *tried* to distance herself from it. I've never heard
of her giving a talk during that time & saying, "I do *not* approve of
people from our ashram attacking other gurus. We should see God in
everyone." (If I'm wrong on this point, someone please enlighten me.)
Stuart
sres...@slip.net
http://www.slip.net/~sresnick/mypage.shtml
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
Anonymous 2
On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 14:11:19 -0600, leor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>w wrote:
>>This is the difficulty with discussions is that if 1 person says something,
>>it's gossip, but if 2 people say the samething, then it must be true! You can
>>only speak the truth when you absolutely know it as such, otherwise you are
>>just gossiping!
>
>This is true. It is difficult to know whom to believe, and if someone is
>just repeating a rumor second-hand. However, please understand that many
>of us write from our own experience, like Dan and Stuart. I hope you
>will listen to these gentlemen with an open mind, for they have been
>close observers of the Siddha Yoga inner circle and are well-qualified to
>speak to, and debunk (if necessary), rumors.
>
>I was involved in Siddha Yoga for 17 years, much of that as a sevite in
>Ann Arbor, Ganeshpuri and Oakland, before I left it this summer (7/97).
>I left after reading a great deal on the Search for the Truth website
Is this the same "Search for the Truth" that edits out pro-SY views?
:-)
I'm fascinated by dissenters who were involved for 17 years !
During those years and years, they say they experienced things which
were corroborated on the Dissenters web site.
Well, if for 17 years, you experienced the SAME things mentioned on
the site, then why didn't you leave 15 years earlier??
The reality is that they experienced all the things found in large
organizations, including deceit, power mongering, zealousness, etc.
etc. Why? Because they are made up of HUMAN BEINGS.
So, when they read some of the exaggerated and invented allegations
found on the dissenters' web sites, they find small negative instances
in their experience over 17 years, and therefore they think that their
experience verifies the allegations.
How do I know that all these negative experiences are small?
Because if they had *large* negative experiences (first hand evidence
of rape and abuse, etc.) they would have *left previously*.
If someone is willing to leave something they've invested 17 years in,
only because of anonymous hearsay allegations, then *certainly* they
would have left had they experienced anything *first hand* that was
even remotely as bad.
So, clearly *none* of these people have experienced anything first
hand that is remotely like the allegations.
All they've experienced is normal human interactions.
Anonymous 2
On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 19:56:47 -0800, dco...@volcano.net (David Corner)
wrote:
>In article <648e6p$fd$1...@news.magma.ca>, "blackscorpio"
><hhe...@magmacom.com> wrote:
>
>>You are right, I did not personally see the copies of the New Yorker being
>>bought up. I just happenned to believe what other people said on the
>>INTERNET. Do you know for a fact that they were not bought up.
>
>He doesn't have to prove that they were not bought up. You're trying to
>shift the burden of proof. Whoever claims that they were bought up- they
>have the obligation to give some evidence for this.
>
>I don't think the mere fact that you heard it on the Internet is good
>reason to believe it. After all, you have repeated this rumor on the
>Internet yourself, yet by your own admission you have no personal
>knowledge of the matter.
>
>The charges against Muktananda and Gurumayi, and their organization, are
>chilling. Is there anyone reading this NG who can give any personal
>testimony about these?
Excuse me, David, but what would that prove?
Anyone can say *anything* on the Internet and they can sign it with
any name they want.
Anyone can post to this newsgroup the statement "I had sex with JFK in
the Oval Office in 1963".
No one can prove that statement true or false.
JFK is dead and can't even deny the statement.
Recently, a woman charged two Dallas Cowboys football players with
rape at the point of a gun. Later, it was discovered that it didn't
happen, and that she had previously made the same false allegations
about other people.
Why is it that such a thing is plausible with regards to football
players, but not plausible with regards to Gurus?
Why would someone think that out of thousands of disciples, *all*,
repeat, *all* of them were so pure that none of them would make false
allegations --- but yet, the spiritual leaders of these 100%-pure
thousands of people were evil and corrupt??? (This is a very
important point, please re-read it carefully if it is not clear to
you.)
It make *no* logical sense whatsoever.
*Obviously* out of thousands of SY participants, one or two of them,
just by statistical probability, are people of low enough character to
invent false allegations due to some feelings of spite (probably
because Baba passed over them when appointing some high position).
Astonishingly, people are ready to believe anonymous allegations
against people with whom they have had many very positive experiences!
Why?
Because the ego will do anything to prevent you from participating in
an authentic spiritual - ie ego-diminishing - path.
Andy Comanda
Anonymous
On Tue, 11 Nov 1997 18:32:02 -0800,
dco...@volcano.net (David Corner) wrote:
>In article <346a0a8c...@news.jps.net>,
>another...@REPLAY.COM
>(Anonymous 2) wrote:
>
>
>>>The charges against Muktananda and Gurumayi,
?and their organization, are
>>>chilling. Is there anyone reading this
>NG who can give any personal
>>>testimony about these?
>>
>>Excuse me, David, but what would that prove?
what do you want, a court trial, a bull-s*it meter
or people who tell their stories?
>It wouldn't be proof,
"proof" is nigh impossible except in mathematics.
tobacco companies for years had experts testify that
there was no "proof" of the evil health effects of
their product. For a scientist, causality is not
easy to determine. Sometimes there is just correlation,
as in, "where there is smoke, there is fire."
>but it would have better
> evidential value than
>hearsay. Notice that our courts follow the same principle.
>If someone
>testifies in court, "So-and-so said x," t
>hat is normally considered
>hearsay and is not admissible.
>But if someone says "I have personal
>knowledge of x," that is OK.
>Of course, someone may be lying-
>if this happens in court we call it
>perjury- so there is still no guarantee.
>It helps to know something about
>the character of the witness. It also helps
>to get independent
>corroboration from another witness.
This is not a court, this is a public discussion
group.
If you think the SYDA foundation should
be *brought to court* on charges of fraud,
*maybe you've got something there*. Then the
rules of evidence could come into play and
a jury could decide.
>One problem we have here is that
>even with personal testimony, when it
>comes on the Net, people cannot be held
>accountable for lying as they can
>in a court of law. Often we don't even
>know someone's real name.
In court, there is also something called
"circumstantial evidence". It happens when
a picture emerges. A picture of what happened
emerges from the coming together of many
disparate facts. This is what also what occurs
in scientific endeavor. Evidence accumulates. This
is why the tabacco companies, after 40 years,
had to toss in the towel. Too much evidence
accumulated.
A picture emerges from the accumulation of
evidence. The evidence is accumulated from
disparate sources.
>
>In any case in my post, my point was
>not to say that personal testimony
>would be conclusive, but to criticize
>rumor mongering- "I read it on the
>Internet"- as particularly unreliable.
Ask Lis Harris how many woman was it,
with whom she spoke, who told her they had
sexual relations with "Baba".
That's qualifies as a fact!
you may ask her:
How many fact checkers went over the article
printed by "The New Yorker",
And how many lawyers.
Ask her how many times she was threatened
by representatives of SYDA.
And how many times she found a said representative
snooping around the New Yorker offices, unescorted.
Ask her how many times a lawyer representing
SYDA foundation threatened to sue the New Yorker.
Ask her if fear was a factor in deciding against
writing a book on the whole thing---as she did
receive an offer.
And then you can ask Gurumayi why she did
not sue.
And then you can figure out why there
are so many anonymous postings.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Anonymous
>On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 19:56:47 -0800, dco...@volcano.net (David Corner)
>wrote:
>Why would someone think that out of thousands of disciples, *all*,
>repeat, *all* of them were so pure that none of them would make false
>allegations ---
the thousands that are *making* allegations?, you are not clear.
>but yet, the spiritual leaders of these 100%-pure
>thousands of people were evil and corrupt??? (This is a very
>important point, please re-read it carefully if it is not clear to
>you.)
i've re-read it many times. And still don't understand it.
it seems you are trying to say that the complaints are
a *statistical* phenomenon. um, no.
As someone else pointed out. There are many other groups that
could fit into this hierarchy (alt.support.ex-cult), many
bigger than Siddha Yoga.
So i'll make my own statistical point. Since, according
to you, given enough people there will always be a few who
are dissatisfied, why don't other, much bigger groups have
newsgroups to discuss the group they left? (not that
i think that shouldn't be). What does that tell you about
the "statistical" chances of a problem at SYDA?
>It make *no* logical sense whatsoever.
>
>*Obviously* out of thousands of SY participants, one or two of them,
>just by statistical probability, are people of low enough character to
>invent false allegations due to some feelings of spite (probably
>because Baba passed over them when appointing some high position).
hahahahahahahah, yes, "one or two" keep reading!
>Astonishingly, people are ready to believe anonymous allegations
>against people with whom they have had many very positive experiences!
>
>Why?
because it is not always good to "trust your experience"
think of the "snake in the rope"--- As someone else recently
mentioned. People experience a snake when it is really a rope.
there is such thing as truth. some people like to determine it.
>
>Because the ego will do anything to prevent you from participating in
>an authentic spiritual - ie ego-diminishing - path.
oops.
that's funny. but unintentionally, i'm afraid.
Seriously, it is obvious, by your post, that you haven't tried
to check out any of the facts. Is that a positive or
a negative example of a lack of ego.? Is that supposed to
be a sign of a "lack of ego" which is a *good thing*?
David Corner
In article <64bapc$b...@basement.replay.com>, nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
wrote:
>what do you want, a court trial, a bull-s*it meter
>or people who tell their stories?
Well, what I said originally was that I would like to hear people tell
their own stories, rather than just retell what they heard on the
Internet. I got in trouble for that.
>"proof" is nigh impossible except in mathematics.
What makes you think that?
>This is not a court, this is a public discussion
>group.
Yes, I know. What's your point, Anonymous? Are you suggesting that,
since this is not a court but a discussion group, we don't have to think
about what is good evidence and what is not? I think we should *always*
have good reasons for believing what we do, regardless of whether we are
in court.
>Ask Lis Harris how many woman was it,
>with whom she spoke, who told her they had
>sexual relations with "Baba".
>
>That's qualifies as a fact!
Fine. It sounds to me like the Harris article might give some real
evidence. I'd like to see it. What was the date of publication, do you
know?
>And then you can figure out why there
>are so many anonymous postings.
I'm asking. Why don't you use your real name?
blackscorpio
Quotes in the Guru Gita are not necessarily rules although people are
allowed to interpret them that way. However, this is a highly selective
process. Many quotes in the Guru Gita can be consider silly if interpreted
in a literal way. Afterall what to you make of verse 179:
"Do not impart this even mentally to Ganesha"
It is like we are supposed to try and keep secrets from omniscient gods?
This is the genius of SYDA yoga. It seduces you with this belief structure
in which you are made to feel like a true insider when you believe
wholeheartedly in ridiculous things.
blackscorpio
Stuart Resnick
> >There are no facts.
> >
> >There are only allegations.
blackscorpio wrote:
> This is bullshit. It is granted that a high percentage of the discussions
> are not based on first hand accounts. However, an honest reading of the AOL
> archives will reveal many people who have seen things first hand.
Also, many of the charges are never even denied. For instance, I was
living in ashrams with Muktananda when word started to get around that
the guru was having sex with underage women. I personal wasn't close
enough to him to say one way or the other, so merely hearing these
stories didn't convince me of anything. But it was very interesting to
hear what the folks who *were* personally close to Muktananda would say
in private. They'd say things like, "I only care about my own
experience." Or "Whatever he did, it must have been for the girls'
spiritual upliftment." Or "When a man that age can still have sex, more
power to him." *No one* close to the guru ever privately expressed any
surprise at the stories, or doubts that they were true. Muktananda
himself would say things like, "You should just be happy I'm still
alive," but never denied anything.
(Even today, it seems like the folks who most vehemently deny charges
against Muktananda & Gurumayi are those that were rarely if ever
anywhere close to the guru in real life.)
Similarly, I've never heard of Gurumayi saying anything to deny or
explain her role in Nityananda's harassment.
Stuart
sres...@slip.net
http://www.slip.net/~sresnick/mypage.shtml
blackscorpio
>It is not possible to check out any of the facts.
>
>I've read *all* of the articles, and a good portion of the
>discussions.
>
>There are no facts.
>
>There are only allegations.
This is bullshit. It is granted that a high percentage of the discussions
Anonymous 2
>Quotes in the Guru Gita are not necessarily rules although people are
>allowed to interpret them that way. However, this is a highly selective
>process. Many quotes in the Guru Gita can be consider silly if interpreted
>in a literal way. Afterall what to you make of verse 179:
>
>"Do not impart this even mentally to Ganesha"
>
>It is like we are supposed to try and keep secrets from omniscient gods?
Just in case some are unaware of it, I thought I should mention that
the Guru Gita pre-dates SY by several thousand years.
I've come across one other group that actively uses the Guru Gita
text, and have seen the overall text that it is excerpted from,
mentioned several times in scholarly discussions by people wholly
separate from SY.
Anonymous 2
Your problem is that your quotation above of my statement ended one
sentence too soon, as you cut it off before an important part where I
"quote" the dissenters:
"We, the anonymous people, declare that we saw these things first
hand."
The whole idea that an anonymous person can make a first-hand
statement of fact on the !@#$%^& INTERNET is so ludicrous that it
should have "ROFL" after it.
This is the same Internet where any "25-year old woman" you are
talking to, is likely to actually be a 12-year old boy.
Naturally, if someone is posting against the politician (or sports or
movie personality) you support, then of course "everything is a lie".
But somehow, anything posted against a Guru is automatically free from
any possibility of being made up.
Daniel Shaw
In article <64cc6o$5...@basement.replay.com>,
nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 19:56:47 -0800, dco...@volcano.net (David Corner)
> >wrote:
>
>
> could fit into this hierarchy (alt.support.ex-cult), many
> bigger than Siddha Yoga.
Scientology and Trans.Medit. both have their own ex-member newsgroups and
websites. Many other groups also have websites and other kinds of net
presence for ex-members. Look at the links on Steve Hassan's website or
at Jan Groenveld's site in Australia.
Daniel Shaw
A few points about this newsgroup:
1) There are many people who have left SYDA and told their stories. Some
of these stories are archived on http://www.cyberpass.net/truth, the
Leaving Siddha Yoga website, and others are archived in the Hinduism File
Libraries on AOL. This comprises 2 years of people telling stories.
2) This newsgroup was created so that a whole new group of people could
read the old stories on the website, and add their new stories.
3) The regular ex-members are mostly on America Online, which has not of
yet made this newsgroup available, so it's hard for them to get on here
and join the discussion. That will hopefully change soon.
4) People who wish to defend Siddha Yoga have other places they can talk
about it, including the Siddha Yoga website. This site is for people who
have left SYDA or are interested in knowing why others have left. It is
a "support" newsgroup, not a flame or debate newsgroup, IMO. I respect
any questioners here, but I think flaming defenders are off-topic here,
IMO.
Anonymous 2
On Fri, 14 Nov 1997 05:01:50 -0600, Sha...@aol.com (Daniel Shaw)
wrote:
>4) People who wish to defend Siddha Yoga have other places they can talk
>about it, including the Siddha Yoga website. This site is for people who
>have left SYDA or are interested in knowing why others have left. It is
>a "support" newsgroup, not a flame or debate newsgroup, IMO. I respect
>any questioners here, but I think flaming defenders are off-topic here,
>IMO.
The problem is that the premise of the newsgroup is flawed, since we
are not discussing a cult.
If there were an existing "alt.religion.s-y" newsgroup, then there
could also be an "alt.support.ex-s-y" newsgroup, and devotees could
post in the "alt.religion.s-y" newsgroup, and just leave
"alt.religion.ex-s-y" to people who want to swap lies to make
themselves feel good.
But you had to put "cult" in the newsgroup title.
Since this is the only "s-y" newsgroup, then you damn well know that
plenty of devotees will read this newsgroup as well. As a result,
some of us feel that lies should not go unchallenged.
Notice that there are NO other sub-groups of alt.support.ex-cult.
Not even:
Scientology
Unification Church
Jim Jones' Temple
David Koresh's group
EST and its spinoffs
have sub-groups of alt.support.ex-cult.
In other words, the groups that allegedly practice mind control on
100% of participants have no sub-groups of alt.support.ex-cult
dedicated to them.
Why not?
Because alt.support.ex-cult is sufficient for them. In fact, it is
helpful to have people in cults read about the other ones, and be
supportive, all in the same newsgroup.
So why did the SY dissenters feel they needed to start a separate
newsgroup?
Because, as "blackscorpio" <hhe...@magmacom.com> wrote in this
newsgroup:
> For 98 per cent of the people who go to
>the ashram nothing really bad happens.
Real cult members in alt.support.ex-cult report grisly, terrible
things that happen to THEM and everyone else in the cult.
SY dissenters report that other people talk about other people who
heard about someone else saying that someone was abused. This
alleged abuse consists of either the guru frowning at them, or else
some swami criticizing them or taking away some sort of privilege they
had (cf: SY dissenters' web site).
Since 99% of SY participants report positive results, INCLUDING the
dissenters (cf: SY dissenters' web site), these sorts of "abuses"
looked pretty silly next to the real cult abuses reported in
alt.support.ex-cult.
So, the SY dissenters had to create a separate newsgroup, where "the
guru frowned at me" reports don't look so trivial.
Sha...@aol.com
In article <346c9179...@news.jps.net>,
>
> Since 99% of SY participants report positive results, INCLUDING the
> dissenters (cf: SY dissenters' web site), these sorts of "abuses"
> looked pretty silly next to the real cult abuses reported in
> alt.support.ex-cult.
>
> So, the SY dissenters had to create a separate newsgroup, where "the
> guru frowned at me" reports don't look so trivial.
You're attempts to trivialize the abuses in Siddha Yoga is not any less
factual or backed up by evidence than the reports of those who claim that
the abuses are real and serious.
There are many definitions of cults. I say Siddha Yoga meets that
definition, as do others, you say it doesn't. If you wish to take this
to court, and get a legal decision as to whether SYDA can be called a
cult or not, you should do that. I will be happy to testify that it is a
cult.
If you wish to describe sexual abuse of girls age 13-and up as "the guru
frowned on me", or the 7 year campaign of harassment, stalking and
terrororizing of Swami Nityananda as trivial, you are free to do so.
Anyone can say anything about anything. I am trying to speak the truth
about what I saw, heard, experienced, did and know about SYDA. I realize
that what the Open Letter asyas about SYDA is shocking, but I stand by
every word of it. I know it all to be true. And I think it is deeply
serious.
I wrote an essay called Traumatic Abuse in Cults. I'd like you to read
it. It's at http://www.cyberpass.net/truth/essay.htm
The charges that SYDA is a cult and that it is led by destructive and
deceitful leaders are not light charges made by fools, as you would
suggest. They are serious charges made by serious people. Perhaps, if
you continue to read here (why do you, by the way?), you will come to
have more understanding and compassion for the many ways that SYDA has
caused suffering and damage to many of its participants.
blackscorpio
>Just in case some are unaware of it, I thought I should mention that
>the Guru Gita pre-dates SY by several thousand years.
That is not the point. What is relevant is peoples reaction to it. This
text is alleged to be holier than the Bhagavad Gita by the movement and it
props up the image of the guru that should not be questioned. It is part of
the process of making rules without being obvious.
Andy Comanda
Anonymous 2 wrote:
> Since this is the only "s-y" newsgroup, then you damn well know that
> plenty of devotees will read this newsgroup as well. As a result,
Are you saying that devotees are not capable of recognizing truth or
fiction? I would think you would have more respect for your own fellow
devotees. It also doesn't say a whole lot about their poweful and
mighty guru. Why do you fell you must try to protect and preserve. For
what? Ram in siddha's correspondence course says, "Let life happen.
Let anything happen the way it wants, with no resistance and no
objections."
For all you siddha devotees who might be reading, don't forget to check
out the volumes found at: http://www.cyberpass.net/truth/ This is what
Anonymous 2 and everyone else still involved in siddha yoga is afraid
you might read. It appears that they have no faith in your
discernment. They would like to think you are nothing but blind sheep.
Prove them wrong and read for yourself. Then you will know what they
have been trying to hide from you.
Stuart Resnick
Anonymous 2 wrote:
> If there were an existing "alt.religion.s-y" newsgroup, then there
> could also be an "alt.support.ex-s-y" newsgroup, and devotees could
> post in the "alt.religion.s-y" newsgroup, and just leave
> "alt.religion.ex-s-y" to people who want to swap lies to make
> themselves feel good.
Anon2 now accuses the whole newsgroup of lying. Without even specifying
the accusation, without a shred of evidence, without any explanation.
Without giving a real name, & without any indication that he personally
ever even spent much time in an ashram!
> Notice that there are NO other sub-groups of alt.support.ex-cult.
>
> Not even:
>
> Scientology
> Unification Church
> Jim Jones' Temple
> David Koresh's group
> EST and its spinoffs
Good point. I think they should make that the new SYDA slogan: "Siddha
Yoga: It's not nearly as bad as Scientology!"
> Since 99% of SY participants report positive results, INCLUDING the
> dissenters (cf: SY dissenters' web site), these sorts of "abuses"
> looked pretty silly next to the real cult abuses reported in
> alt.support.ex-cult.
Anon2 makes up this 99% figure & then use it as if it had some meaning.
> So, the SY dissenters had to create a separate newsgroup, where "the
> guru frowned at me" reports don't look so trivial.
On this newsgroup or on the Leaving Siddha Yoga page, no one has ever
based their criticism on "the guru frowned at me." Anon2 made this up.
I apologize to the group for responding to Anon2; maybe it will
encourage him. I'll try to ignore him in the future. It just didn't seem
right to leave his nonsense unanswered.
Stuart
sres...@slip.net
http://www.slip.net/~sresnick/mypage.shtml
blackscorpio
>But you had to put "cult" in the newsgroup title.
Whether SYDA yoga would be considered a cult or not would depend on ones
definition. There are certainly a lot of cult-like attitudes and activities
going on within the organization. The bulk of people who have casual
interactions with SYDA are not harmed by these activities. However, it
should be pointed out that a lot of people have casual interactions with
Scientology or Hari Krishna without any harmful effects as well.
blackscorpio
blackscorpio
Jim
Hey Ken,
So why don't you start a pro siddha yoga news group then?
Jim
p.f...@worldnet.att.net
Stuart Resnick wrote:
>
> Anonymous 2 wrote:
> > If there were an existing "alt.religion.s-y" newsgroup, then there
> > could also be an "alt.support.ex-s-y" newsgroup, and devotees could
> > post in the "alt.religion.s-y" newsgroup, and just leave
> > "alt.religion.ex-s-y" to people who want to swap lies to make
> > themselves feel good.
>
> Anon2 now accuses the whole newsgroup of lying. Without even specifying
> the accusation, without a shred of evidence, without any explanation.
> Without giving a real name, & without any indication that he personally
> ever even spent much time in an ashram!
>
> > Notice that there are NO other sub-groups of alt.support.ex-cult.
I don't suppose that this person has *ever* heard the phrase "First time
for everything"? Anon2 really doesn't like the concept of this newsgroup
huh? <g>
> > Not even:
> >
> > Scientology
(but if you read alt.religion.scientology you will find that there is a
heated discussion that has been going on about forming a *moderated*
newsgroup...to keep off the people that have been rather successful in
showing the "religion" for what it is)
> > Unification Church
> > Jim Jones' Temple
> > David Koresh's group
Regarding *this*:
> > EST and its spinoffs
If Anon2 had been following the news then this particular person would
know that Landmark Education Corporation has been *agressively*
attacking *anyone* (Cult Awareness Network, authors, journalists,
peridicals to name a few) that they *feel* is tarnishing their
corporation with the "cult" label. Same can be said of Scientology.
Doesn't matter to them if there are people that can state from their
experience that these particular groups are abusive. And both of these
groups have devotees that go to great lengths to shut people up
(personal verbal attacks comes to mind) but *never* seem to address the
issues that the "ex-member" is asking about or eventually even wishing
to discuss.
> Good point. I think they should make that the new SYDA slogan: "Siddha
> Yoga: It's not nearly as bad as Scientology!"
>
> > Since 99% of SY participants report positive results, INCLUDING the
> > dissenters (cf: SY dissenters' web site), these sorts of "abuses"
> > looked pretty silly next to the real cult abuses reported in
> > alt.support.ex-cult.
>
> Anon2 makes up this 99% figure & then use it as if it had some meaning.
also uses the minimizing technique too that is really common: My group
isn't a cult because it doesn't do what *that* group does...
> I apologize to the group for responding to Anon2; maybe it will
> encourage him. I'll try to ignore him in the future. It just didn't seem
> right to leave his nonsense unanswered.
And I hope that you don't mind that I jumped in Stuart -- I saw some
other stuff that was going on too...and just wanted to add that.
>
> Stuart
> sres...@slip.net
> http://www.slip.net/~sresnick/mypage.shtml
--
Pamela Fitzpatrick
http://trancenet.org
editor: SHATTERED HEARTS, HEAVEN'S GATE
All that is necessary for the triumph of
evil is that good men do nothing
-- Edmund Burke, 1790
Brian Vincent
> I am trying to speak the truth
> about what I saw, heard, experienced, did and know about SYDA. I realize
> that what the Open Letter asyas about SYDA is shocking, but I stand by
> every word of it. I know it all to be true. And I think it is deeply
> serious.
> The charges that SYDA is a cult and that it is led by destructive and
> deceitful leaders are not light charges made by fools, as you would
> suggest. They are serious charges made by serious people.
For many years you thought siddha yoga was the truth but you were mistaken.
Do you really want to be so righteous about your truth now? Maybe the thing
to learn from the siddha yoga experience is not to be inflexible and
righteous.
Just read the newspaper and you will see that all world religions have
plenty of corruption and terrible criminal behavior. Most people are in
religion anyway because they like it. If siddha yoga was all bad, no one
would be in it and you wouldn't have joined it. You liked it enough to
spend all those years in it. I try to take responsibility for my life by
being honest about how I used to feel instead of blaming my past decisions
on someone else after the fact.
I don't think you have moved on if your identity is caught up in telling
your siddha yoga experiences all the time. That's more than just
remembrance because you are depending on siddha yoga to make sense out of
your life in the present. It's unhealthy double talk to say you've moved on
while you keep talking about siddha yoga. On the other hand it is good
someone stays caught up in siddha yoga because if everyone moved on no one
could tell the story.
I had some good times in siddha yoga but got turned off fast by the
righteous attitude. I saw people losing touch with reality and acting like
fanatics. I wasn't surprised to hear it is corrupt with all that money and
power.
--
to reply replace nospam in header with hotmail.
Sha...@aol.com
In article <brian_vincent-ya0240...@news.supernews.com>,
brian_...@nospam.com (Brian Vincent) wrote:
> For many years you thought siddha yoga was the truth but you were mistaken.
> Do you really want to be so righteous about your truth now? Maybe the thing
> to learn from the siddha yoga experience is not to be inflexible and
> righteous.
I don't experience myself as righteous. I experience myself as actively
dedicated to working in the area of cult and mind-control recovery; to
using my experience and knowledge to be helpful to others who have been
or are vulnerable to being deceived, damaged and abused; and to being a
vocal member of the community of people who left SYDA because of the
moral and ethical abuses of its leaders.
> I don't think you have moved on if your identity is caught up in telling
> your siddha yoga experiences all the time. That's more than just
> remembrance because you are depending on siddha yoga to make sense out of
> your life in the present. It's unhealthy double talk to say you've moved on
> while you keep talking about siddha yoga. On the other hand it is good
> someone stays caught up in siddha yoga because if everyone moved on no one
> could tell the story.
Well. You are judging me pretty strongly here. I am used to this now,
and recognize that in any system of secrets and lies, like an incest or
alcoholism family, or an abusive cult, people want to silence and
discredit those who speak out, and avoid confronting or acknowledging the
abuses.
I am a messenger who will not be killed. The message I and others bring
here is worth speaking aloud, I think. My character and motivation can
be used as a red herring to avoid dealing with the real issues, but that
won't shut me up.
Your fantasy of me and my life is only that: you know as much about me as
I know about you.
If moving on means shutting up and being in denial, then no, I absolutely
have not moved on. If moving on means having a rich, full, meaningful
life, then yes, I have indeed moved on. You may define it whatever way
you want, we simply don't agree.
Dan Shaw
http://members.aol.com/shawdan/page1.htm
David Corner
>In article <brian_vincent-ya0240...@news.supernews.com>,
> brian_...@nospam.com (Brian Vincent) wrote:
>> your life in the present. It's unhealthy double talk to say you've moved on
>> while you keep talking about siddha yoga. On the other hand it is good
>> someone stays caught up in siddha yoga because if everyone moved on no one
>> could tell the story.
>
>Well. You are judging me pretty strongly here. I am used to this now,
>and recognize that in any system of secrets and lies, like an incest or
>alcoholism family, or an abusive cult, people want to silence and
>discredit those who speak out, and avoid confronting or acknowledging the
>abuses.
Is SYDA really abusive- comparable to an incestuous family? I'd like to
hear more about this, if anyone can speak from their personal experience.
I don't think Brian was trying to silence or discredit you, BTW. I
appreciate the fact that this is a support newsgroup, and I think you are
right to insist that this be its primary focus. If people have had bad
experiences, they should be allowed to talk about them, if this will help
them to heal. Surely the supporters of siddha-yoga can see the value in
that.
On the other hand, this is a public forum, and under the circumstances I
think it is reasonable to expect those who find value in siddha-yoga to
defend it, or at least to remind others that there is another side to the
story. That's what the whole concept of free speech is about- let's hear
both sides before coming to a conclusion. There are many who may tune in
here, like me, who don't know anything about S-Y and it's a shame if they
don't get to hear a balanced account. I'm sure that is what is bothering
some of the S-Y people.
>The message I and others bring
>here is worth speaking aloud, I think.
I agree.
>My character and motivation can
>be used as a red herring to avoid dealing with the real issues, but that
>won't shut me up.
This is a good point, I think. Surely the proper topic of the newsgroup
is not Dan Shaw. Red herring- yes, a diversion away from the real issue.
This particular diversion is also sometimes called an "ad hominem." I
understand if people want to defend S-Y, but let's keep to the point.
--
If you'd like to e-mail me, I'm dcorner, and I'm at volcano.net.
Stuart Resnick
Brian Vincent wrote:
> Just read the newspaper and you will see that all world religions have
> plenty of corruption and terrible criminal behavior. Most people are in
> religion anyway because they like it. If siddha yoga was all bad, no one
> would be in it and you wouldn't have joined it. You liked it enough to
> spend all those years in it. I try to take responsibility for my life by
> being honest about how I used to feel instead of blaming my past decisions
> on someone else after the fact.
I haven't heard anyone saying that Siddha Yoga was all bad. For me,
"taking responsibility" means recognizing that I myself made the
decision to follow someone else, rather than my own experience. (The
good feelings that I got from meditation, etc, were my own experience.
Believing that I owed everything to the "perfect" guru was following
someone else.)
Generally, I think I have more to learn by pondering my own mistake than
from pondering the gurus' mistakes. Still, hearing about the deception,
etc, that went on in the ashrams probably served as a "wake up call" to
get me to start looking at the whole experience more clearly. So for
folks who still feel dependent on the guru, it might help to hear others
tell their stories of corruption, etc. I don't think such stories are
out of place here.
> I don't think you have moved on if your identity is caught up in telling
> your siddha yoga experiences all the time. That's more than just
> remembrance because you are depending on siddha yoga to make sense out of
> your life in the present.
Yes, but be clear that posting to this newsgroup may take a few minutes
a day; it doesn't constitute telling siddha yoga experiences "all the
time." (For many of us, the newsgroup is the *only* place where we talk
about such things.) And we're in no position to judge whether someone
who posts has their "identity caught up" in this or that.
(Also: I'm going to my high school reunion this month, & will likely do
a lot of talking about old times, just for the pleasure of relating to
folks with similar experiences. Likewise when I find old ashramites.)
> It's unhealthy double talk to say you've moved on
> while you keep talking about siddha yoga. On the other hand it is good
> someone stays caught up in siddha yoga because if everyone moved on no one
> could tell the story.
"Telling the story" can be helpful to others, as you seem to realize. If
that's the motivation, there's nothing at all unhealthy about doing so
after we've moved on.
> I had some good times in siddha yoga but got turned off fast by the
> righteous attitude. I saw people losing touch with reality and acting like
> fanatics. I wasn't surprised to hear it is corrupt with all that money and
> power.
I myself was very surprised; perhaps I was younger & more naive than
you. Seeing the corruption that takes place when we give others too much
power over us is a big lesson, that has application to our lives in
general far beyond the specific Siddha Yoga experience.
Stuart
sres...@slip.net
http://www.slip.net/~sresnick/mypage.shtml
Brian Vincent
> Well. You are judging me pretty strongly here. I am used to this now,
> and recognize that in any system of secrets and lies, like an incest or
> alcoholism family, or an abusive cult, people want to silence and
> discredit those who speak out, and avoid confronting or acknowledging the
> abuses.
Jeez.I am not in a system of secrets and lies. I don't like siddha yoga
either like I said. Do you think anyone who disagrees with you is a member
of a conspiracy? If you ask me it sounds like you want to discredit and
silence me.
Anonymous 2
On Mon, 17 Nov 1997 20:12:06 -0500, "blackscorpio"
<hhe...@magmacom.com> wrote:
>That last post by Anonymous 2 was quite revealing in that he did not answer
>my question but acted as if he had proven a point. I will put it to him
>again -do you know for a fact that people from the Ashram did not buy up the
>copies of the New Yorker?
>
>It will be interesting to see if there is an honest answer to this question.
Of course, I can't possibly know what all of those people did or did
not do.
Why?
Because I did not see them either buying or not buying.
I don't -> believe <- anything.
You, on the other hand, who also did not see them either buying or not
buying, already said that you believe someone on the Internet :-) :-)
just because they said so!
And that is the difference between us - dissenters are Believers -
they Believe things that people say, or -> especially <- if someone
actually prints it in a magazine. Wow, magazines, there's a great
source for reliable information!
Oohh, and they really like it if you say it is "fact checked". Of
course, it is easy to say that - because there are no facts to check!
Why? Because there are only quotes - "Rodarmor's article then
said.... " or " I interviewed someone at the ashram who said he heard
that... ". Read the article carefully a second time, and you will
see what I mean.
When they say "Joe said 'blah blah' ", then fact checking only means
that Joe really said that. Whether Joe himself is lying or
misinformed or misinterpreting what he thinks he saw, is irrelevant to
fact checking. They just need to be sure that he really said that
when they interviewed him.
Pat Voelker
In article <347111aa...@news.jps.net>,
I do not believe everything I read. I attempt to be critical, looking
for bias and factual basis.
In my efforts to examine the probative value of "O Guru, Guru, Guru" (New
Yorker Magazine, 11/94) I have spoken to people who lived in or
frequently visited the ashrams at the time of the events to which she
referred. Many of them dismissed or excused the allegations, sometimes
even acknowledging that they did not care whether the allegations were
true or not. People refused to consider the obvious moral, ethical, and
legal issues, deferring to the guru's "wisdom and grace." One woman who
had been involved in SY from the mid 1970s and had lived in Oakland and
Ganeshpuri for most of the years since that time, only scowled and
refused all discussion.
Very often, people would acknowledge that the events had taken place but
were "misunderstood." They professed not to understand the ways of the
guru -- protesting that the ways of a great being are "inscrutable" --
but were absolutely confident in their belief that behavior which
appeared on its face to be immoral, illegal, unethical -- behavior which
would get other "beings" in deep trouble -- was somehow "yogic."
Others replied that they understood that the guru was "just a human
being" but that their own "experiences" in the presence of (or attributed
to) the guru(s) were so profound, life-changing, or uplifting that, in
effect, any crimes the guru(s) had committed were irrelevant.
Through my activity in the AOL Ethics|Leaving Siddha Yoga board, I have
met several of the people who post there, including Dan Shaw and others
who remain anonymous. I can absolutely confirm that these are real
people. I have confirmed the identities of people I knew in SY, people
who were stalwart devotees, longtimers and their families whom I
respected and to whom I had looked for guidance because of their position
in SYDA. They have told me they were wrong.
Some people are very hurt and angry over their involvement in SY.
However, I have also met a few people who have left SY because of the
ethical and moral issues but are *not* consumed by anger or pain. They
left because they could not countenance abuses and ethical lapses,
including in no small measure those they had witnessed first hand.
I continued to participate in SY after beginning to study the volumes of
material and speaking to so many people. More and more, I was forced to
abandon my conscience, my ethics, my judgment, and my compassion for the
victims. I do not believe that yoga *ever* requires this level of
"surrender" and that *anyone* who asks you to abandon conscience, ethics,
morals, and compassion -- measured by *any* human standard -- has an
agenda which cannot possibly include the "upliftment of mankind."
As I examined my own experiences in SY, I concluded that no amount of
"inscrutability" or "upliftment" could possibly excuse such behavior in a
spiritual teacher. I attempted to ignore this mountain of evidence and a
palpable inner certainty. I tried to maintain this position. Full lotus
became an "easy posture" in comparison. My dilemma escalated to a
consuming cognitive dissonance, an inner conflict I could relieve only by
severing my 12+ year involvement in SY, a commitment I had long believed
was inviolable.
Along the way, I became suspicious of a very rich Foundation with its own
cadre of lawyers which failed to fight in court allegations they assert
are untrue. They seemed to have no compunction for raising other legal
challenges, such as Nityananda's claim to the seat. In tandem with that
legal battle, the Foundation proceeded to rewrite SY history, and write
out Nityananda. This was propaganda, pure and simple. It was not the
truth. From a guru and an organization who professed to value "satya,"
to a person who had longed valued truth and had been victimized by other
"big lies," this was damning. Try to swallow a big lie after you've
digested several others. To me, the taste is unmistakable.
Since leaving SY I have spoken to Lis Harris. She confirmed what I had
heard from others and had long suspected with regard to the legal issues
of the matter. Ms. Harris said that her article ("O Guru, Guru, Guru",
New Yorker, 11/94) had been substantially "lawyered down." She said
that, in response to the review of the magazine's legal department,
pressures brought to bear by SYDA's lawyers, and personal intimidation so
convincing that she hired body guards, much material had been deleted
from the finished article.
My conversation with Ms. Harris confirmed what I had long suspected:
that SYDA is a cult which, by beautiful and seductive mind control
techniques, enriches itself and its operatives and the physical,
financial, emotional, and psychological expense of its adherents.
When I left SY, I reclaimed my conscience.
sres...@slip.net
Patty...@aol.com (Pat Voelker) wrote:
> In my efforts to examine the probative value of "O Guru, Guru, Guru" (New
> Yorker Magazine, 11/94) I have spoken to people who lived in or
> frequently visited the ashrams at the time of the events to which she
> referred. Many of them dismissed or excused the allegations, sometimes
> even acknowledging that they did not care whether the allegations were
> true or not. People refused to consider the obvious moral, ethical, and
> legal issues, deferring to the guru's "wisdom and grace." One woman who
> had been involved in SY from the mid 1970s and had lived in Oakland and
> Ganeshpuri for most of the years since that time, only scowled and
> refused all discussion.
My experience has been similar. Both in talking to fellow ashramites in
India during the early 80s, & communicating with current devotees in the
years since, it's *not* that I find many folks who say they have reason
to disbelieve the New Yorker Magazine article (or the earlier
Co-Evolution Quarterly report, etc). Rather, I find *many* devotees who
make it clear that they *don't care* enough about whether abuses go on to
even look at the matter.
So, leaving aside the abuses themselves, the extent to which otherwise
decent people become indifferent to what's going on around them is
troubling in itself.
My personal example: During Baba's 3rd World Tour, I heard from Amma (one
of Baba's oldest & closest devotees) about how Baba had sent 2 of the
physically largest ashramites (I'm pretty sure it was Shripati & Joe Don
Looney) to intimidate former ashramites Chandra & Michael Dinga. (As
"inner circle" folks, the Dinga's knew about Baba's sexual improprieties,
etc, that he wanted kept secret.)
Of all the people (including myself) who knew of this incident, few
showed any signs of being uncomfortable with it. After years of living in
a situation where everyone (at least outwardly) agreed that the guru was
perfect, the idea of questioning his actions didn't occur to me.
But not *everybody* was like that. When I spoke privately to my friend
Angiras about the incident, he made it clear that he was disgusted that
ashram "enforcers" were harrassing folks like that. My conversation with
Angiras was a small matter; it may have only lasted a minute. But in
retrospect, it may well have had an eye-opening effect on me to see that
at least *someone* had some integrity that hadn't been swept away by the
ashram group-think.
Stuart
sres...@slip.net
http://www.slip.net/~sresnick/mypage.shtml