A lot of focus has been put on me by flamers on this newsgroup. For the most part, I've ignored the personal stuff against me that Bhaskar et al., and Narada, have repeated over and over.
However, I would like to make it clear to the readers of this newsgroup that I participate here because I have benefitted from the support I receive from others here (Matrka stated this on my behalf recently and I confirm it). I've received this support in many forms, including criticism and sharp debate.
I also participate here because I believe this forum and the LSY website are the most widely available places where it is possible to speak freely and openly about SY without the information being controlled by SY.
I would like to clarify, for the record, that I am not here in any professional capacity, nor do I seek to drum up business here.
I have never become the psychotherapist of anyone I have spoken to about SY on the internet, nor will I. I'm clear about professional boundaries and I make every effort not to cross them.
If I am referred a client who is a SY devotee, I will refer this patient to another therapist who is not a devotee. I do not consider myself capable of the necessary neutrality to conduct any kind of therapy with someone who is a SY devotee, or even, in most cases, with someone who was a SY devotee.
By contrast, the professional pshychotherapy conferences held at the South Fallsburg SY ashram offer special segments informing therapists about how they can speak to their clients about Siddha Yoga - which is in fact a professional ethical violation. These conferences are primarily aimed at helping therapists recruit their patients to become SY devotees.
It is interesting to note that Billy G ran into someone who was told to leave SY and sent to a devotee therapist. This happens quite frequently. Devotee therapists are enlisted by SY to work with devotees with problems, under the agreement that the therapist will defend SY and work on behalf of SY to suppress whatever negativity the devotee has about SY.
This is mind control in its purest form.
Because my essay on cults is on most databases and comes up when you use the keyword cult, I receive a lot of email from people. I refer them to this newsgroup if they are in SY, or to the American Family Foundation (AFF) if their concerns are not SY-related.
I am not an exit counselor, nor do I wish to be one. I have participated in one exit attempt, and on three occasions, spoken on the phone, at no charge, to friends of devotees who were concerned about their loved ones.
I occasionally receive referrals from the Cult Clinic of the Jewish Board for Family and Childrens' Services, in Manhattan. Out of about six referrals I received from them in the last 3 years, one of these people paid me for consulting services (not psychotherapy). I spoke to the other people who were referred to me on the phone, for free, not as a psychotherapist, but as a former devotee. 99.99% of the very minimal amount of work I do around cults is work I have done for free, as a former devotee.
I make my living as a psychoanalyst, not as an exit counselor or therapist specializing in cult issues. I have never worked as a therapist with a SY member or ex-member, nor will I.
It would probably be a better move for me professionally to conceal my status as an ex SY member (not that I go around everywhere disclosing it). I have not concealed it because I believe that the issue of cult mind control is one that needs to be brought more into awareness in the professional therapy community, and in society as a whole.
Thanks,
*************** Shaw...@aol.com (Daniel Shaw) http://members.aol.com/shawdan/page1.htm "It has been my experience that folks with no vices have few virtues." -- Abraham Lincoln "As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master." -- Abraham Lincoln
> I do not consider myself capable of >the necessary neutrality to conduct any kind of therapy with someone who is a >SY devotee, or even, in most cases, with someone who was a SY devotee.
I admire your professional ethics in this statement, Dan. I agree with the part about the SY devotee, but I think there will come a point where you could help the ex-devotee of sy.
I recently had an ethical dilema (sp?) myself where I was seeing a friend's clients while she was on maternity leave. One of the clients told me she was considering going to a therapist who I knew was very actively in sy and quite a nasty sort of person on top of that. (I actually had consulted her myself years ago when my problems first started in the center, mainly to ask for her support, and she was so awful as a therapist that I quit 20 minutes into the first session.) The client in question had some very serious physical problems and was looking for someone to help her deal with emotions that originally started the illness. Anyway, I had such a mixture of thoughts. First, that therapist was one of the nastiest and most manipulative local devotees I had ever met. Second, sy therapists are notorious for involving clients in sy. Third, sy is notorious for not welcoming sick people. And fourth, did I have the professional and ethical responsibility to let this client know about sy and this therapist's involvement in sy? Mainly, I was thinking of warning her that the therapist was in sy, and that the group was corrupt although there are good people in the group. What if this woman got involved in sy and was mistreated and I had not warned her when I knew the corruption of this organization?
My only consolation was that this client was not actually my client so what did it matter? I would only see her for 6 weeks. However, since she had told me the therapists name and I had reacted, she said, "Oh, you know her! Is she good!" I quickly said I had only heard her name around the area and the client said, "That must mean she's very known! I'm so excited!" So I was left with feeling I had to say something and not let my reaction be seen as a positive recommendation.
In the end, the client (thank God) decided not to pursue therapy and that what she really needed was to trust in herself and find strength in herself.
But this situation left me thinking as a professional about the ethics involved in letting clients know about the dangers in sy, and the corruption. Otherwise, if anyone was mistreated as I was or as anyone else was who had come forward, I would feel that as a professional I should have said something, at least enough for them to make their own decision.
Anyway, your post reminded me of these thoughts, Dan.
Your post of 6/6/98; Subject: A clarification; was very edifying and you did a very good job of clarifying your professional stance (IRL) versus your personal stance here on the NG.
I also feel that you have comported yourself with integrity for the most part on the NG (although there have been times when it was clear that your patience had been severely challenged!) when you have been baited and berated.
In the best of all possible cyber-worlds, there would be fair exchange of information without rancor and mean-spiritedness, with room for all viewpoints without cruel distortions. Until such a cyber-world presents itself, however, the best we can do is hang on to our values and principles and stand strong.
In the time that has passed since I first found the AOL Ethics Board and this NG, I have watched metamorphosis occur with many of the people who were posting when I first started posting. I have witnessed much of the pain and struggle of souls in turmoil who honestly and devotedly sought truth via the avenue of sy. I have seen people move from extreme distress, anger, confusion, pain, embarrassment, self-loathing, and distrust to being able to see themselves again as not gullible mis-fits, but simply as human beings striving for wholeness and an integrated life. Together, many on these boards have worked through issues that were staggering and crippling. Many were so broken and torn that they posted with great timidity. Some were so outraged and angry that they posted with great bitterness. Some were so confused and afraid that they posted with nearly cryptic musings of the broken poetry of their hearts. But, through it all, together, through the sharing of their stories and the 'allowing' of the detritus of their fallout to filter as it might, one by one I have seen health and balance come back into their lives.
Though there may always be detractors and confusers, never doubt that the ability to share the truth is a mighty weapon against blindness and dogma.
>But this situation left me thinking as a professional about the ethics
>involved >in letting clients know about the dangers in sy, and the corruption. >Otherwise, if anyone was mistreated as I was or as anyone else was who had >come >forward, I would feel that as a professional I should have said something
Very interesting post, Chels. I feel that it's fine for a professional who knows of some wrongdoing in an organization to at least inform the client that there is more than one side to the story and to tell him/her where to find additional information. This allows the other person to draw his/her own conclusions about the matter. That way neutrality is maintained at the same time that the person is being warned.
In article <1998060619185000.PAA03...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, by...@aol.com
(ByeSY) writes:
> Very interesting post, Chels. I feel that it's fine for a professional >who >knows of some wrongdoing in an organization to at least inform the client >that >there is more than one side to the story and to tell him/her where to find >additional information. This allows the other person to draw his/her own >conclusions about the matter. That way neutrality is maintained at the same >time that the person is being warned.
I basically agree with this, although I think that it needs to be handled delicately, with tact and restraint. But the way you describe how it could be done sounds good to me. *************** Shaw...@aol.com (Daniel Shaw) http://members.aol.com/shawdan/page1.htm "It has been my experience that folks with no vices have few virtues." -- Abraham Lincoln "As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master." -- Abraham Lincoln
Ishaw...@aol.com (Shawdan) wrote: > However, I would like to make it clear to the readers of this newsgroup that I > participate here because I have benefitted from the support I receive from > others here (Matrka stated this on my behalf recently and I confirm it). I've > received this support in many forms, including criticism and sharp debate.
Me too. I think that when we communicate honestly & try to be helpful, we're all benefitting from each others' effort.
> I have never become the psychotherapist of anyone I have spoken to about SY > on the internet, nor will I. I'm clear about professional boundaries and I > make every effort not to cross them.
From my layman's perspective, this sounds ethical & correct.
>I basically agree with this, although I think that it needs to be handled >delicately, with tact and restraint.
Yes, it has to be done carefully. It's a delicate matter but I have a strong belief that ethically I must say something and not let someone walk blindly into involvement with a group I know has hurt many people.
Shawdan says: "South Fallsburg SY ashram offer special segments informing therapists about how they can speak to their clients about Siddha Yoga - which is in fact a professional ethical violation. These conferences are primarily aimed at helping therapists recruit their patients to become SY devotees."
When we left last year, someone close to me told her SY devotee therapist that she had left SY. No sooner had she hung up the phone than our center leader called to ask if "everything is alright with you guys?" I got the distinct impression that the therapist hung up, called the center leader and the center leader got right on the phone to us. When I asked, "did such-and-such (therapist) just call you?" she answered, "oh no, gee, how is such and such...I haven't spoken to her in a long time." LIAR! ******************S235108*********************** “Why would even the most realized of beings want people to become reliant on his wisdom instead of their own?” GURU PAPERS
