"I'm a cult veteran -- and I'm one tough son of a bitch"
John M. Knapp
An extraordinary event took place two weeks ago. 39 people were murdered
in Southern California.
Your typical suicide doesn't require written instructions. Or an extra
pair of hands. Or 20 years of videotaped brainwashing. No way was this
their "choice." This was murder.
There was no low-speed chase. Choppers and forensic teams didn't crawl all
over this mansion. Heck, we didn't even call in Mulder and Sculley.
For the most part, the media reported on what can best be called a
"Disneyland" version of Heaven's Gate -- blissed-out hobbits, with sweet
little voices, and those darling buzz cuts and uniforms.
This hit me personally. While I watched those earnest, wholesome, engaged
cult members on the TV I realized I could have been any one of them. I
spent 23 years in Transcendental Meditation, and I, too, believed in
flying saucers, my ability to levitate, immortality, and saving the world
by my merest thought. There but for the grace of God went I. And at least
100,000 of my friends.
I can't really fault the press or the public for their abysmal lack of
empathy. They haven't the foggiest notion of what it feels like to be
mindf--ked brutally, repeatedly for 20 years.
But 10 MILLION of my generation do. We stumble out of the cult battlefield
by ones and twos -- and we ain't pretty to look at. We are the psychically
halt, the lame, and the blind. We don't give "snappy soundbites" or make
"good TV."
Most of us are still lost. Most cult veterans are still in various stages
of recovery, trying to click those ruby slippers just right and come on
home.
If the public doesn't understand, it's our fault -- all of us who have
tried to educate them for so long.
Many cult activists have been talking lately behind the scenes about why
we just can't seem to unite behind massive actions. You'd think if any
generation could take a page from the Gay Rights and Women's Liberation
Movements, it would be us!
Between our own well-earned phobias about group involvement and the
"button hammering" we take from the cults and "religious scholars" who
claim we're just "anti-cult cults," we may always find it indeed
difficult to unite behind a leader or group.
That's why I think our challenge is to find small individual actions that
we can choose to do -- or not. Possibly leaderless. Most likely, finding
the least common denominator that we can agree with.
You know, like murder and psychological torture aren't nice.
In that spirit, today is April 19 -- anniversary of both Waco and the
Oklahoma City Bombing.
Let's take back our own power from these horrors and these horrific
groups. Let's use the next week to educate in small ways the world at
large about our own personal involvement in cults.
Anyone who is comfortable "coming out of the closet" will find a variety
of Web buttons at http://www.trancenet.org you can download to your Web
page or emails. No need to give credit. No need to link to ours or any
other particular cult education site. Our gift to you.
We figure it's unlikely your government will ever bestow any medals for
surviving the Cult Wars.
America knows what 39 corpses draped in purple look like. America has no
frigging idea what 10 MILLION former cult members can accomplish.
We may not need a march on Washington, or a black day on the web.
Perhaps a simple chain email, "I'm a cult veteran -- and I'm one tough son
of a bitch" flooding cyberspace, will do.
John M. Knapp
executive director
trancenet.org
--
John M. Knapp, executive director, http://www.trancenet.org
"trancenet.org: Beaming 10 megs of unfiltered information daily!" Transcendental Meditation, Rama/Lenz, Chopra, Moon, more! To discuss controversial groups and cult recovery without flaming: email jmk...@crl.com about free email lists. trancenet.org relies solely on "sharefare" contributions of readers like you at http://www.trancenet.org/trancenet/levels.html.
John M. Knapp
John M. Knapp
An extraordinary event took place two weeks ago. 39 people were murdered
in Southern California.
Your typical suicide doesn't require written instructions. Or an extra
pair of hands. Or 20 years of videotaped brainwashing. No way was this
their "choice." This was murder.
There was no low-speed chase. Choppers and forensic teams didn't crawl all
over this mansion. Heck, we didn't even call in Mulder and Sculley.
For the most part, the media reported on what can best be called a
"Disneyland" version of Heaven's Gate -- blissed out little hobbits, with
sweet little voices, and those darling little buzz cuts and uniforms.
This hit me personally. While I watched those earnest, wholesome, engaged
cult members on the TV I realized I could have been any one of them. I
spent 23 years in Transcendental Meditation, and I, too, believed in
flying saucers, my ability to levitate, immortality, and saving the world
by my merest thought. There but for the grace of God went I. And at least
100,000 of my friends.
I can't really fault the press or the public for their abysmal lack of
empathy. They haven't the foggiest notion of what it feels like to be
mindf--ked brutally, repeatedly for 20 years.
But 10 MILLION of my generation do. We stumble out of the cult battlefield
by ones and twos -- and we ain't pretty to look at. We are the psychically
halt, the lame, and the blind. We don't give "snappy soundbites" or make
"good TV."
Most of us are still lost. Most cult veterans are still in various stages
of recovery, just trying to click those ruby slippers and come on home.
If the public doesn't understand, it's our fault -- all of us who have
tried to educate the public for so long.
Many cult activists have been talking lately behind the scenes about why
we just can't seem to unite behind massive actions. You'd think if any
generation could take a page from the Gay Rights and Women's Liberation
Movements, it would be us!
Between our own well-earned phobias about group involvement and the
"button hammering" we take from the cults and "religious scholars" who
claim we're just "anti-cult cults," we may always find it indeed
difficult to unite behind a leader or group.
That's why I think our challenge is to find small individual actions that
we can choose to do -- or not. Possibly leaderless. Most likely, finding
the least common denominator that we can agree with.
You know, like murder and psychological torture aren't nice.
In that spirit, today is April 19 -- anniversary of both Waco and the
Oklahoma City Bombing.
Let's take back our own power from these horrors and these horrific
groups. Let's use the next week to educate in small ways the world at
large about our own personal involvement in cults.
Anyone who is comfortable "coming out of the closet" will find a variety
of Web buttons at http://www.trancenet.org you can download to your Web
page or emails. No need to give credit. No need to link to ours or any
other particular cult education site. Our gift to you.
We figure it's unlikely your government will ever bestow any medals for
surviving the Cult Wars.
America knows what 39 people draped in purple look like. America has no
aim...@world.std.com
In article <jmknapp-1904...@malone14.slic.com>,
John M. Knapp <jmk...@crl.com> wrote:
>Perhaps a simple chain email, "I'm a cult veteran -- and I'm one tough son
>of a bitch" flooding cyberspace, will do.
Will do *what*?
>trancenet.org relies solely on "sharefare" contributions of readers
>like you at http://www.trancenet.org/trancenet/levels.html.
Oh. I see.
Judith Stein
In article <jmknapp-1904...@malone14.slic.com>,
jmk...@crl.com (John M. Knapp) wrote:
<snip>
> This hit me personally.
Yup, Trancenet's proprietor is getting low on funds again, time
to look for some tragedy to exploit for a solicitation campaign.
How fortunate the Heaven's Gate suicides came along just now!
This time "Honest" John can use something that has actually
happened rather than having to make it up, as he's done in the
past.
While I watched those earnest, wholesome, engaged
> cult members on the TV I realized I could have been any one of them. I
> spent 23 years in Transcendental Meditation, and I, too, believed in
> flying saucers, my ability to levitate, immortality, and saving the world
> by my merest thought. There but for the grace of God went I. And at least
> 100,000 of my friends.
It will come as no surprise to those familiar with "Honest" John
Knapp's anti-TM output to know that belief in flying saucers is
nowhere to be found in what TM teaches, despite the knowingly
false attempt above to suggest guilt by association with the
Heaven's Gate cult.
Those who are reasonably alert will also have spotted the
discrepancy between TM's save-the-world messianism and the belief
of the Heaven's Gate crowd that the world is beyond hope (indeed,
they referred to *staying* on earth as "the real suicide").
For those not knowledgeable about TM, one of its teachings is
that enlightenment can be achieved *only* in a human body. To
commit suicide and blow this chance would be to take a giant step
backward. Readers might want to reflect on why "Honest" John
failed to mention this.
Perhaps TM should make an attempt to screen out the sort of folks
who are so lacking in common sense they will swallow without
question or examination what appear to be wild claims, even those
made by TM. Had "Honest" John encountered the Heaven's Gate cult
before he got into TM, he might well be one of the 39 who
committed suicide. He was fortunate that his gullibility led him
to align himself with one of the most benign spiritual groups
around.
Most of those who become committed to TM do not do so on the
basis "Honest" John did, however. We take TM's claims with a
healthy dose of salt, ultimately accepting them only on the basis
of the evidence of our own experience and thorough intellectual
exploration. Moreover, it is entirely possible--as it was not
with Heaven's Gate and is not with most genuine cults--to be an
independently committed TMer without having anything at all to do
with the organization.
> I can't really fault the press or the public for their abysmal lack of
> empathy. They haven't the foggiest notion of what it feels like to be
> mindf--ked brutally, repeatedly for 20 years.
Nor, in fact, does "Honest" John. There is a sharp distinction
between being "mindf--ked" and engaging in compulsive mental
masturbation. It's understandable that those who eventually wake
up to their own self-abuse prefer to place the blame for it
elsewhere. To some extent such an awakening is a sign of
progress in self-knowledge, but the refusal to accept any
responsibility for it demonstrates there is a long way to go.
With some groups there is at least equal responsibility. Even
with TM, there is some responsibility, in that it does not
attempt to *discourage* the weak-minded from establishing a
cultlike relationship with it. But as the evidence of many
hundreds of thousands of healthy, happy, autonomous TMers
pursuing productive and independent lives demonstrates, such
cases are the exception rather than the rule, and the bulk of the
responsibility for any "victimization" must be laid at the door
of those who insisted on making the organization into something
that would fulfill their personal needs, which it never pretended
to be.
> But 10 MILLION of my generation do.
Those who like to reflect on facts might want to ask "Honest"
John to document his figure of 10 million "cult victims" in a
single generation. I'd question whether there are even 10
million current *and* former cult members in the world today
spanning *all* generations.
We stumble out of the cult battlefield
> by ones and twos -- and we ain't pretty to look at. We are the psychically
> halt, the lame, and the blind. We don't give "snappy soundbites" or make
> "good TV."
Well, actually some of you do. Some of you even manage to
surmount your victimization, real or imagined, and heal
yourselves. There are many very eloquent former cult members
expressing themselves on the airwaves, in the print media, and
even in cyberspace. Most of them are quite sincere; they attempt
to give an honest account of their cult experience. They have
learned to stand on their own two feet, however, and have
refrained from building their lives around their past
victimization.
Others have clearly made little progress in recovery. Some of
them remain so helplessly in the thrall of their unrealistic
expectations and unhealthy behavior patterns they are led to lie
about and distort and misrepresent their past experience in the
futile hope of exorcising their own personal demons by burying
them so deeply in fantasy and dishonesty they will never be able
to surface.
It is essential to this effort for these people to "convert"
others to their own twisted perspective. Their inner demons are
too powerful to be kept in check without massive external
reinforcement of the fragile defenses that hold them at bay.
Some of these unfortunate people, like "Honest" John Knapp, make
a career (possibly even a *profitable* career) of this endeavor,
and it takes on a life of its own, becoming a thoroughly
dishonest and cynical propaganda crusade that bears virtually no
relationship to reality.
Close examination of the material put out by these people,
however, even without reference to the facts of the situations in
question, will reveal enough inadvertent internal inconsistencies
to give one pause. The contrast, for example, between the two
opposing characterizations of cult "veterans" in "Honest" John's
post--"tough sons of bitches" versus "the psychically halt, the
lame, and the blind"--is particularly striking.
Such inconsistencies have been one of the hallmarks of "Honest"
John's anti-TM contributions since he first surfaced on
alt.meditation.transcendental back in 1994. Those who are
knowledgeable about TM have repeatedly pointed out the other
hallmarks--distortion, wildly exaggerated spin, and outright,
willful misrepresentation. Some examples of these
characteristics in "Honest" John's present post have been noted
above.
<snip>
> Perhaps a simple chain email, "I'm a cult veteran -- and I'm one tough son
> of a bitch" flooding cyberspace, will do.
Certainly an *honest* crusade against genuinely destructive cults
would be a worthy cause. It's questionable whether a massive
cyberspace spam conducted by "the psychically halt, the lame, and
the blind" posing as "tough sons of bitches" (and soliciting
financial contributions at the same time) is the most convincing
way to go about it.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Judy Stein * The Author's Friend * jst...@ziplink.net +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dragon999
Oh, come on!
Don't need to blame all cults (or maybe- all religions) from one
incident.........
schappell
John M. Knapp wrote:
>
> An extraordinary event took place two weeks ago. 39 people were murdered
> in Southern California.
>
> Your typical suicide doesn't require written instructions. Or an extra
> pair of hands. Or 20 years of videotaped brainwashing. No way was this
> their "choice." This was murder.
snip
So many crazies so few comets!!
s
Steve Guich
On Sat, 19 Apr 1997, John M. Knapp wrote:
> An extraordinary event took place two weeks ago. 39 people were murdered
> in Southern California.
>
> Your typical suicide doesn't require written instructions. Or an extra
> pair of hands. Or 20 years of videotaped brainwashing. No way was this
> their "choice." This was murder.
>
> There was no low-speed chase. Choppers and forensic teams didn't crawl all
> over this mansion. Heck, we didn't even call in Mulder and Sculley.
...mercy snip... of one of the most pathetic, transparent and goofy (words
fail) knappspams we have been offered.
(BTW, what a catchy little phrase - will there be merchandising of the
"I'm a cult veteran -- and I'm one tough son of a bitch" sticker,
cookbook, and day calendar?)
An embarrassing low for Knapp, already renown for unabashed schmaltzy
dribble. A burgeoning Ed Wood (of sorts - premature of the hip,
posthumous "so bad it's good" camp) of vanity spammism.
Steve
*****************************
| Steven M. Guich, PhD. |
| Brain Imaging Center |
| UC Irvine |
| sgu...@brains.bic.uci.edu |
*****************************
Mabel
Judith Stein <jst...@zip1.ziplink.net> wrote in article
<5jh4bv$1tq$5...@kayrad.ziplink.net>...
> <snip>
> Perhaps TM should make an attempt to screen out the sort of folks
> who are so lacking in common sense they will swallow without
> question or examination what appear to be wild claims, even those
> made by TM. Had "Honest" John encountered the Heaven's Gate cult
> before he got into TM, he might well be one of the 39 who
> committed suicide. He was fortunate that his gullibility led him
> to align himself with one of the most benign spiritual groups
> around.
Even the most "benign spiritual groups around" can convert a person who
previously had good powers of critical thinking into a gullible person who
will accept without question what appear to be wild claims.
I think we need to examine what can cause this transformation to take
place. In the case of certain Eastern cults, for example, where followers
meditate on the photo of a Guru, a self hypnotic type of reaction can
follow. If this is repeated for an hour or two a day, some followers can
become "hooked into" the thinking of the Guru to such an extent that they
turn to the Guru for all the answers to their problems. They soon believe
that the Guru is God incarnate. Once this point has been reached, their
faith in the Guru is at such a high level that they will not critically
question his teachings.
This then leads to the familiar pattern of becoming a student of a Guru and
believing, for example, in celibacy and reincarnation. After a while,
followers will probably believe that their Guru has lived several prior
lives and they will become certain that, after they die, they will come
back again, complete with all the knowledge they obtained from their
previous lives. This leads to a complete lack of fear of death and can mean
that some followers do not look after themselves as well as they should,
because they are looking forward to their next lives.
The process of how thinking people can gradually be sucked into cults and
start to lose their desire to question things must have been well
researched. Perhaps a psychologist could explain the process.
Steve Montgomery
Mabel wrote:
> Even the most "benign spiritual groups around" can convert a person who
> previously had good powers of critical thinking into a gullible person who
If this happens, its because the individual allowed it to happen. If an
individual has a weak will, they will often assume that someone else
knows more than they do. They are then told that they must 'act in this
way', 'believe in x' etc. I don't believe that a person who is not
gullible to start with would fall into this trap.
<snip discourse on getting hooked on a guru>
> This then leads to the familiar pattern of becoming a student of a Guru and
> believing, for example, in celibacy and reincarnation.
This is a non-issue for most cults which are usually based entirely on
the personality of the leader. Celibacy has been practiced by catholic
priests for over a thousand years. Reincarnation is a fundemental belief
of many religions.
Its the dominant personality of the leadership which causes cultism.
--
Steve M
Rudy Thompson
Mabel wrote:
>
> Judith Stein <jst...@zip1.ziplink.net> wrote in article
> <5jh4bv$1tq$5...@kayrad.ziplink.net>...
>
> > <snip>
> > Perhaps TM should make an attempt to screen out the sort of folks
> > who are so lacking in common sense they will swallow without
> > question or examination what appear to be wild claims, even those
> > made by TM. Had "Honest" John encountered the Heaven's Gate cult
> > before he got into TM, he might well be one of the 39 who
> > committed suicide. He was fortunate that his gullibility led him
> > to align himself with one of the most benign spiritual groups
> > around.
>
> Even the most "benign spiritual groups around" can convert a person who
> previously had good powers of critical thinking into a gullible person who
> will accept without question what appear to be wild claims.
>
> I think we need to examine what can cause this transformation to take
> place. In the case of certain Eastern cults, for example, where followers
> meditate on the photo of a Guru, a self hypnotic type of reaction can
> follow. If this is repeated for an hour or two a day, some followers can
> become "hooked into" the thinking of the Guru to such an extent that they
> turn to the Guru for all the answers to their problems. They soon believe
> that the Guru is God incarnate. Once this point has been reached, their
> faith in the Guru is at such a high level that they will not critically
> question his teachings.
>
> This then leads to the familiar pattern of becoming a student of a Guru and
> believing, for example, in celibacy and reincarnation. After a while,
> followers will probably believe that their Guru has lived several prior
> lives and they will become certain that, after they die, they will come
> back again, complete with all the knowledge they obtained from their
> previous lives. This leads to a complete lack of fear of death and can mean
> that some followers do not look after themselves as well as they should,
> because they are looking forward to their next lives.
>
> The process of how thinking people can gradually be sucked into cults and
> start to lose their desire to question things must have been well
> researched. Perhaps a psychologist could explain the process.
this is as well said and spelled out as I've ever heard thanks for the
most vivid and easy-to-understand exclamation of it all
sk...@comcat.com
Steve Montgomery wrote:
>
> Mabel wrote:
> > Even the most "benign spiritual groups around" can convert a person
> > who previously had good powers of critical thinking into a gullible
> > claims.
>
> If this happens, its because the individual allowed it to happen. If
> an individual has a weak will, they will often assume that someone
> else knows more than they do. They are then told that they must 'act
> in this way', 'believe in x' etc. I don't believe that a person who is
> not gullible to start with would fall into this trap.
Steve, do you speak from experience here? You sound quite naive. Many
people that have been taken in by cults are very intelligent, not
gullible and in fact strong willed. It is their will that is subtlely
manipulated and bent or cracked.
I know this first hand. I happen to be an incredibly strong willed
person. I know that about my personality for a fact, as well as having
been told about my strong will my entire life by relatives, friends and
teachers. Yet I was pulled into a cult. Let's say i was in the wrong
place at the wrong time...
Once again, you're another person who obviously hasn't been there, yet
feels free to spout whatever blame you want onto people who have
suffered the abuse of cults.
We don't need 20 year studies and peer review journal articles and
statistics to validate what we know has happened to us. Nothing you or
anyone else can say will disprove what I know happened to me.
There seems to be a sense of fear and anger in those of you who feel the
need to blame ex-cultists, or explain away cult victimization. I don't
understand the reason you're getting so heated up.
Laurenn
I'm not a gullible person.
>
> <snip discourse on getting hooked on a guru>
> > This then leads to the familiar pattern of becoming a student of a Guru and
> > believing, for example, in celibacy and reincarnation.
>
piedtech
This has been crossed post to alt-support ex-cult .
It is obvious that you are a current member of an accepted cult so
your posting here is against our groups charter . And according to
what you have written even though you may have some brains it is
obvious your reasoning skills are nonexistant .
jim
David Rife
: > The process of how thinking people can gradually be sucked into cults and
: > start to lose their desire to question things must have been well
: > researched. Perhaps a psychologist could explain the process.
Please read Peter McWilliams book, Life 102. Peter was sucked into a guru
based cult by taking a transformational group awareness course known as
"Insight".
Bernie
pied...@intrlink.com (piedtech) wrote:
>This has been crossed post to alt-support ex-cult .
>It is obvious that you are a current member of an accepted cult so
>your posting here is against our groups charter.
So what is this ridiculous charter that forbid contradictory
viewpoints?
If you are going to stop people on such a basis, you would have
to moderate the newsgroup - and like so many other moderated
newsgroups, you will have *no* posting done in it at all...
> And according to
>what you have written even though you may have some brains it is
>obvious your reasoning skills are nonexistant .
Everything is always "obvious" for those who have fixed, frozen,
and stupid opinions.
Bernie
Bernie
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Perhaps the charter of a group called ALT.SUPPORT.EX.CULT
>which is designed to SUPPORT people who have LEFT ("EX") cults,
>rather than hold debates about whether cult beliefs are true
>or not.
>They probably resent idiots who stray into other
>subject areas as much as we resent idiots who think
>alt.religion.SCIENTOLOGY is the right place to debate
>christian myths or windoze95.
>Please stop making an arse of yourself: either write articles
>which are relevant there, or remove it from the newsgroups line.
Sorry, but questions of mind-control and cults are extremely
relevant to a group about cult. If for nothing else, to
counter-act the fallacies they are being told in there in guise
of "support" and which are only worsening the situation.
If you want to prevent people from posting there what they deem
as relevant to this newsgroup, then you should create a
soc.support.ex-cult, moderate it, and sit in it alone as with so
many other moderated newsgroups.
Or create a listserve to make sure they are completely isolated
and don't hear anything contradictory to their new
indoctrination.
Bernie
Bernie
Bev <dbj...@iag.net> wrote:
>Bernie wrote:
>> In the best of case, he may now have gained some of this power
>> upon leaving the cult, if he is honest enough to examine what
>> was his part in the process.
>That is a good way to heal also, by turning a negative into a positive.
>Everyone makes mistakes, it's what you learn from them that turns you
>from a vicTIM to a vicTOR. :-)
Hiya Bev,
Yes. There are so many deep elements that are involved in a
cult/religious experience that it can actually turn out to be a
very rich experience, at the end... All depends, as you say, of
what you make out from it.
For this, I am personally quite glad of my own experience. I
enjoyed the high intensity life that cult involvement entailed,
something that you hardly find on the outside. Many young people
have an immense desire to share some deep and true meaning and
to have an active part into building a better world. Since they
don't trust anymore the traditional churches that have become
sterile, they are an easy prey for new religions that seem to be
better able to answer these needs. The young then "found what
they were always looking for."
Although it is true that, to some extend, the cult exploit this
aspect, it is also true that an unilaterally negative
explanation of cult involvement ignores it, together with the
fact that society doesn't offer much else to the youth than sex,
drug, and Rock and Roll. The "brainwashing cult" explanation is
not only convenient for the individual to elude his
responsibilities, it is also a convenient excuse for modern
society to avoid having to look at its own failings.
To be able to retain this basic idealism while being acutely
aware of the dangers and restrictions of a cultic mindset is, I
would say, one of the challenge of the post-cult experience.
See ya,
Bernie
[p/m]
William O. West
Bernie wrote:
....
> Yes. There are so many deep elements that are involved in a
> cult/religious experience that it can actually turn out to be a
> very rich experience, at the end... All depends, as you say, of
> what you make out from it.
Maybe. What are "deep elements," Bernie?
....
> For this, I am personally quite glad of my own experience. I
> enjoyed the high intensity life that cult involvement entailed,
> something that you hardly find on the outside.
What cult were you in, and for how long, Bernie?
....
> Many young people have an immense desire to share some deep and true
> true meaning and to have an active part into building a better world.
That's certainly true.
....
> The "brainwashing cult" explanation is not only convenient for
> the individual to elude his responsibilities,
That one is more false, defamatory and damaging than useful.
What "responsibilities" are those, Bernie? A person certainly
winds up paying for whatever (s)he winds up believing, but that
certainly doesn't mean (s)he had any other options going in.
It all depends on the particular cult, Bernie.
....
> it is also a convenient excuse for modern society to avoid
> having to look at its own failings.
How is "modern society" ever going to look at "its own
failings," Bernie? Some group of churches might look at
society's failings. That's a church sort of inquiry. They
might even get the Democratic party to look at society's
failings. Most people, and especially most Republicans,
are going to look at the failures of individuals and blame
them for it.
....
> acutely aware of the dangers and restrictions of a
> cultic mindset is, I would say, one of the challenge
> of the post-cult experience.
What do you mean by "a cultic mindset," Bernie?
Monica Pignotti
Bernie wrote:
>
> For this, I am personally quite glad of my own experience. I
> enjoyed the high intensity life that cult involvement entailed,
> something that you hardly find on the outside.
That's an interesting way to look at it, which is quite different from
other people I knew who also worked for the GO at Saint Hill at the same
time you did. I spoke to a woman the other day who was there in the
70s, and early 80s. This woman is still very positive about the tech
and is a freezoner who still practices and today has a happy and
fulfilling life, yet she freely admitted that the GO at Saint Hill was
an extremelly abusive, oppressive organization to work for. She told me
about GO people would come into auditing sessions and have to justify
the horrendous acts they were committing including carrying out ops
against Paulette Cooper and of Operation Snow White (just to give 2
examples), which she had personal knowledge of. Did you see it that way
at all, or do you have only positive thoughts about your experiences
there? IMO, I don't think that acknowledging the negative aspects of
cult life precludes a person being positive about their current life.
>Many young people
> have an immense desire to share some deep and true meaning and
> to have an active part into building a better world. Since they
> don't trust anymore the traditional churches that have become
> sterile, they are an easy prey for new religions that seem to be
> better able to answer these needs. The young then "found what
> they were always looking for."
And was working for the crimminal GO a viable alternative for you as a
way of building a better world? I'm not blaming you, Bernie because I
believe you came into Scientology and the GO with idealistic intentions
as did most people, but what was the reality of it?
> Although it is true that, to some extend, the cult exploit this
> aspect, it is also true that an unilaterally negative
> explanation of cult involvement ignores it, together with the
> fact that society doesn't offer much else to the youth than sex,
> drug, and Rock and Roll. The "brainwashing cult" explanation is
> not only convenient for the individual to elude his
> responsibilities, it is also a convenient excuse for modern
> society to avoid having to look at its own failings.
To ~some~ extent? Can you really condone what went on at GO
headquarters?
> To be able to retain this basic idealism while being acutely
> aware of the dangers and restrictions of a cultic mindset is, I
> would say, one of the challenge of the post-cult experience.
I agree with you 100% there, and I believe that I have done that. I
might be extremely critical of Scientology here on this newsgroup, but
that certainly has not kept me from exploring other avenues which I find
very fulfilling and satisfying.
Monica Pignotti
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <33663bde....@news.Belgium.EU.net>,
>pied...@intrlink.com (piedtech) wrote:
>
>>This has been crossed post to alt-support ex-cult .
>
>>It is obvious that you are a current member of an accepted cult so
>>your posting here is against our groups charter.
>
>So what is this ridiculous charter that forbid contradictory
>viewpoints?
Perhaps the charter of a group called ALT.SUPPORT.EX.CULT
which is designed to SUPPORT people who have LEFT ("EX") cults,
rather than hold debates about whether cult beliefs are true
or not.
They probably resent idiots who stray into other
subject areas as much as we resent idiots who think
alt.religion.SCIENTOLOGY is the right place to debate
christian myths or windoze95.
Please stop making an arse of yourself: either write articles
which are relevant there, or remove it from the newsgroups line.
--
LRon Hubbub public relations teknology
(1) (2) (3)
.-~~-. .-~~-. .-~~-. ;
< ..@ .- < ..@ . < ..@ .-
'-..-| '-..-| : '-..-|
|____ |____ |__ _
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~-~~
[ clam, BLAM, thank you mam! ]
Bernie
ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk (Steve A) wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Apr 1997 20:08:06 GMT, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>> Sorry, but questions of mind-control and cults are extremely
>> relevant to a group about cult. If for nothing else, to
>> counter-act the fallacies they are being told in there in guise
>> of "support" and which are only worsening the situation.
>And who are you to determine whether the support being offered is
>fallacious?
I am familiar with the type of support that is being offered by
the anti-cult faction. I consider it to be fallacious. I am not
determining anything - that's just my opinion. I have expanded
this in many posts already. Further, anyone can read what is
going on in the alt.support.ex-cult and see for themselves.
>Hell, the cult of Scientology may as well launch an
>arsbomb attack there, since *they've* surely got as much right as you
>to decide what the readers of a.s.e. should think!
No one has such a right. I was told in this post that
alt.support.ex-cult has a charter. I asked that they post this
charter or say on which URL it can be found. I'm still waiting.
>> If you want to prevent people from posting there what they deem
>> as relevant to this newsgroup, then you should create a
>> soc.support.ex-cult, moderate it, and sit in it alone as with so
>> many other moderated newsgroups.
>> Or create a listserve to make sure they are completely isolated
>> and don't hear anything contradictory to their new
>> indoctrination.
>Right, there we have it. Thousands of people can go through all sorts
>of upheaval, reconfiguring, CFV's and assorted mayhem just so one kook
>can continue to post where HE thinks HE'S entitled to post, according
>to HIS ego. And sod the rest of us.
I have as much right to determine what I personally find
relevant to post there as you. I consider that topics about cult
and mind-control are relevant in a discussion about cults.
Didn't you yourself post ramblings about the COS in an alt.comp
newsgroup, Steve? Now that's for sure is most relevant... Or are
you defining "relevant" as something that suits your one-sided
crusade and "irrelevant" anything that may contradict it?
Bernie
Bernie
sk...@comcat.com wrote:
>Bernie wrote:
Before anything, let me put here a paragraph that stands
actually near the end of this post, but is an amazing
illustration of what I think is wrong with the anti-cult
support. You say:
>A professionally trained psychologist and psychiatrist told
>me all I need to know about what happened to me.
That's exactly what is wrong, in my view. When a member is
getting out of a cult, either on his own or with counseling, he
is in a very fragile mental state. The values he was holding so
much went to scratch, he is in a rather confused state and in
search of new values and signification, trying to re-adjust
himself to his immediate realities.
Then you have these so called psychologists (some of them), or
those that are not psychologists but regard themselves as
"expert on mind control", who come and explain to the member
"all they need to know about what happened to them!" They are
giving him ready-made explanations through which the members can
interpret their experiences in the cult. These so-called
experts, as a matter of fact, are doing exactly what they accuse
the cults of doing. The member himself never conceived of this
mind-control explanation on his own, he is just buying this
fallacious theory in a time where he is most vulnerable.
>> >> Sorry, but questions of mind-control and cults are extremely
>> >> relevant to a group about cult. If for nothing else, to
>> >> counter-act the fallacies they are being told in there in guise
>> >> of "support" and which are only worsening the situation.
>> >And who are you to determine whether the support being offered is
>> >fallacious?
No one in particular, just my opinion based on experiences on
both sides, personal contacts, study and reflection.
>Bernie, Tell me, what is the "guise of support" that we ex-members of
>cults are giving that is worsening the situation??
I don't know what you personally do, and as with anything, there
will be people better at what they do than others, but in
general the anti-cult support consists of little else than
"explaining" to the ex-member of what "happened" to them, and
convincing them of their own pet and egotistical theories. When
the member is thus convinced, these experts can then start to
"recover" them. They only recover them from the distress they
created themselves by getting the member to interpret everything
in a negative, angry and revengeful way.
>> I am familiar with the type of support that is being offered by
>> the anti-cult faction. I consider it to be fallacious. I am not
>> determining anything - that's just my opinion. I have expanded
>> this in many posts already. Further, anyone can read what is
>> going on in the alt.support.ex-cult and see for themselves.
>You are correct, Bernie. What is going on now in alt.support.ex-cult is
>NOT support. We are not able to support eachother because if we do we
>are:
>1. attacked by several posters from a.r.e. saying that the support we
>give is bogus
>2. Have been bombarded by posts from you and others in a.r.s. blaming
>ex-cultists for becomming involved in cults in the first place, putting
>us in the position to defend ourselves
I am not blaming ex-cultists for becoming involved, although I
understand that this is what you read from my posts. Saying that
the mind-control explanation is fallacious because it puts all
the blame on the "cult" and provides an handy justification to
the member for his behavior is not blaming the member. I am not
saying that is was *all* his fault. Saying that the
responsibility are shared between him and the group is not a
blame. As long as the members are not willing to see through
what *part* of responsibility they had in their experience, they
are forever going to remain a "damaged" victim, and hardly more
than puppets in the hand of the anti-cult movement.
>3. Being pulled into debates by you and others from a.r.s. regarding
>acceptable definitions of the words "cult" and "destructive cult"
How are you going to ever support anyone about "cults" if you
are not even able to define and delineate what a cult is? This
only shows that the type of support the anti-cult proponents
give is only based on fixed and rigid ideas, on fear and
superstitions, reinforced between each other in a closed setup.
That's why you want to prevent differing opinion to be posted in
there, you are not able to deal with them. Ah, you still are not
healed? Then how are you ever going to heal others?
>4. Having several people in alt.support.ex-cult being viciously attacked
>for their beliefs in "mental coercion" and "mind control"
I am not attacking anyone for their belief, I am only attacking
the false belief itself. It is actually a help for the person,
and others who may fall prey to it, rather than an attack on the
person himself. The vicious attacks I see are those of ex-cult
members who didn't come to term with their conflicts (and
actually have them kept alive by the anti-cult faction), and
those who do not have either enough experience or insight to see
through the fallacy of such an approach.
>After reading the latest postings in alt.support.ex-cult, I doubt if any
>ex-cult member would feel safe opening up about their experiences here.
No one is ever safe opening up about their experiences on
usenet, unless there are safeguards preventing the unwanted
posts to come in. There are kooks much worse than I or Diane
around, you know ;-) If you want to create a "safe" group, you
should do so under the soc hierarchy, not the alt one, and make
it moderated. It will then be a safe and closed environment that
will soon degenerate and die out of lack of cross-breeding with
other type of opinions. Or you could create a listserve, but the
last one that existed on this topic, so I heard, was a
lamentable failure.
Since you seem to be such a prominent personality in the
alt.support.ex-cult, maybe you could post the charter I have
been told to run against by supposedly "being a member of an
accepted cult". Please post it here in a.r.s., since I have long
since stopped reading the alt.support.ex-cult newsgroup. It's
now the third time I am asking someone from there to do so, but
I doubt that it will ever be more forthcoming than the
declaration against deprogramming I have repeatedly asked
someone from CAN to post a few months ago. If this is the case,
it shows the kind of trust one can place in the assertions of
"cult experts".
>Perhaps this is the desired result you and the others posting from
>a.r.s. have been working towards.
No. My desire is to help members and ex-members to free
themselves from both the illusions of the cults and anti-cults.
The cognitive dissonance this may produce for the anti-cult
members may not be anymore pleasant than the one experienced by
the cult members, I must convene, but the alternative is to
leave things as they are, which on the long run is much worse.
>Bernie, I already KNEW about the mental coercion and mind control that
>went on in the cult i'd belonged to. A professionally trained
>psychologist and psychiatrist told me all I need to know about what
>happened to me.
The paragraph I started with. I leave it here in its context,
just in case I misunderstood it and someone would be charitable
enough to correct me.
>Since I've been reading this NG, mind control was never
>even brought up here, until you, Diane and Rebecca brought it up and
>never let go.
As I said, I have quit reading the asec NG, but mind-control is
*the* "cheval de bataille" of the anti-cult approach. Monica
gives a good example of that, and anyone who ever went to a CAN
meeting can attest this as well. Furthermore, for your
information, neither Diane nor I brought this theme in the first
place, it was of course the likes of Monica and her CAN friends.
Then don't be surprised that people dare to answer to what they
view as a vicious and abusive claim.
>Bernie, show me some posts from alt.support.ex-cult where ex-cult
>members came here for support and were told that they were victims of
>mind control. (The supposed "guise of support" that we give ex-cult
>members here). Just show me those posts of support that you need to work
>so very hard on to counteract. I'm waiting...
I am not reading this newsgroup, but I went to enough CAN
meetings, read enough of their pamphlet and books, spoke with
enough of their members and with enough deprogrammers to know
what I am talking about. We also have more than enough examples
of mind-control theory supporters in ars, including yourself, to
see that it isn't an invention on my part. Do you really want me
to come into the alt.support.ex-cult newsgroup and gather
examples? I don't think you would want that. Or should I make a
DejaNews search with mind-control and brainwashing as key words?
And what does your unexisting NG charter say about this point?
Sorry for sounding so hard. I know that what you do is made out
of genuine concern, but these things just have to be said.
Bernie
sk...@comcat.com
Bernie,
Yes, I will admit that my semantics were very poor when I said that the
psychologist and psychiatrist "told me" all I need to know... And I
thank you for bringing this to my attention.
Good therapists do not "tell" their patients anything, and this was not
the way it occurred with the doctors I saw. What I realized took several
years, and I came to my own conclusions. I regret my previous wording.
You and I clearly disagree about many things, and it's pointless to get
on a merry-go-round of arguement and bad feelings.
I've only been posting here a very short time. I've been posting a lot
lately because I felt strongly about some of the issues i've read.
I have no idea if this NG has a charter or not. Perhaps someone reading
this post knows if there is such a charter.
I don't read a.r.s. and you don't read a.s.e-c., so perhaps we won't run
head on into one another again.
Laurenn
Bernie
sk...@comcat.com wrote:
>Bernie,
>Yes, I will admit that my semantics were very poor when I said that the
>psychologist and psychiatrist "told me" all I need to know... And I
>thank you for bringing this to my attention.
>Good therapists do not "tell" their patients anything, and this was not
>the way it occurred with the doctors I saw. What I realized took several
>years, and I came to my own conclusions. I regret my previous wording.
Of course this gives it a completely different complexion.
>You and I clearly disagree about many things, and it's pointless to get
>on a merry-go-round of arguement and bad feelings.
Maybe true.
>I've only been posting here a very short time. I've been posting a lot
>lately because I felt strongly about some of the issues i've read.
That's what is making it lively :-)
>I have no idea if this NG has a charter or not. Perhaps someone reading
>this post knows if there is such a charter.
Thank you for this straight answer. Maybe the poster who had
also the (false) knowledge that I was a member of an accepted
cult, and who proclaimed that, because of that and the charter,
I was not allowed to post in there would know that (someone
called piedech or something)
>I don't read a.r.s. and you don't read a.s.e-c., so perhaps we won't run
>head on into one another again.
I wish you luck. An earnest and dedicated person can make an
important difference in a newsgroup.
Bernie
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
>sk...@comcat.com:
to Bernie:
>After reading the latest postings in alt.support.ex-cult, I doubt if any
>ex-cult member would feel safe opening up about their experiences here.
>Perhaps this is the desired result you and the others posting from
>a.r.s. have been working towards.
It's very rude for people who don't even believe that cultic
manipulation exists, or that recovery from such abuse should be
supported, to be posting to a newsgroup explicitly dedicated to
supporting such recovery.
But that is a typical cult tactic designed to stifle criticism.
[posted/mailed]
Dennis
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
>Judith Stein <jst...@zip1.ziplink.net>:
>Certainly an *honest* crusade against genuinely destructive cults
>would be a worthy cause.
Which destructive cults would those be, Judith? And how would you
advise conducting such a campaign?
Dennis
Stever and Kimipeli
I certainly can agree with many of the things you are saying here, but I
am wondering why you have posted this to trb. I hope that you are not
in some way insinuating that Buddhism is some sort of a "cult" to be
grouped in with TM or Heaven's Gate?? You're not saying that are you?
If so, you are sadly way off course, and certainly speaking to the wrong
group.
metta,
Stever
Rango Keshavan
Likewise anyone who equates TM to Heaven's Gate in any way is sadly
way off course, too.
Rango
--
"Can you answer? Yes I can!
But what would be the answer
to the answer, Man?" R. Hunter
Kurt Arbuckle
Stever and Kimipeli (skr...@gte.net) wrote:
: I certainly can agree with many of the things you are saying here, but I
: am wondering why you have posted this to trb. I hope that you are not
: in some way insinuating that Buddhism is some sort of a "cult" to be
: grouped in with TM or Heaven's Gate?? You're not saying that are you?
: If so, you are sadly way off course, and certainly speaking to the wrong
: group.
...and why do *you* group TM and Heavens Gate together? OTOH, I do recall
Buddhist monks killing themselves during the Vietnam war. POINT: Anyone
can draw similarities, and anyone can make distinctions. Stick with what
you know.
Kurt
Steve A
On Wed, 30 Apr 1997 06:49:22 GMT, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
> ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk (Steve A) wrote:
> >On Mon, 28 Apr 1997 20:08:06 GMT, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>
> >> Sorry, but questions of mind-control and cults are extremely
> >> relevant to a group about cult. If for nothing else, to
> >> counter-act the fallacies they are being told in there in guise
> >> of "support" and which are only worsening the situation.
>
> >And who are you to determine whether the support being offered is
> >fallacious?
>
> I am familiar with the type of support that is being offered by
> the anti-cult faction. I consider it to be fallacious. I am not
> determining anything - that's just my opinion. I have expanded
> this in many posts already. Further, anyone can read what is
> going on in the alt.support.ex-cult and see for themselves.
Sure, it's just your opinion, but then you go off into a support group
for ex-cult members like a bull in a china shop and start sounding
off, to the extent that a poster to a.s.e. commented recently that it
was actually virtually impossible to perform any kind of support work
thanks to such interference.
What gives YOU the right to trample the activities of others.
>
> >Hell, the cult of Scientology may as well launch an
> >arsbomb attack there, since *they've* surely got as much right as you
> >to decide what the readers of a.s.e. should think!
>
> No one has such a right. I was told in this post that
> alt.support.ex-cult has a charter. I asked that they post this
> charter or say on which URL it can be found. I'm still waiting.
What about common decency? Or has the Scientology mindset still got
enough of a hold over your thought processes that you still believe
that as long as they can't sue you for it, it's OK?
> >> If you want to prevent people from posting there what they deem
> >> as relevant to this newsgroup, then you should create a
> >> soc.support.ex-cult, moderate it, and sit in it alone as with so
> >> many other moderated newsgroups.
>
> >> Or create a listserve to make sure they are completely isolated
> >> and don't hear anything contradictory to their new
> >> indoctrination.
>
> >Right, there we have it. Thousands of people can go through all sorts
> >of upheaval, reconfiguring, CFV's and assorted mayhem just so one kook
> >can continue to post where HE thinks HE'S entitled to post, according
> >to HIS ego. And sod the rest of us.
>
> I have as much right to determine what I personally find
> relevant to post there as you. I consider that topics about cult
> and mind-control are relevant in a discussion about cults.
You do not, however, have the right to insist that the users of a
perfectly reasonable newsgroup attempting to do a social service
should jump through hoops just to serve your ends.
> Didn't you yourself post ramblings about the COS in an alt.comp
> newsgroup, Steve? Now that's for sure is most relevant... Or are
> you defining "relevant" as something that suits your one-sided
> crusade and "irrelevant" anything that may contradict it?
I endeavour to make sure that every group in the Newsgroups: line is
valid. Occasionally I forget to check where a post to which I am
responding is being crossposted to; sometimes it is difficult to
establish where in the list of groups a poster is posting from.
However, when this is pointed out to me, I invariably restrict
X-posts. What I do NOT do is to go off at the poster who pointed my
error out, insist that if he doesn't want MY posts in HIS newsgroup,
he'd better damn well find himself a new one with a watertight
charter, or leave Usenet altogether.
There IS a difference, Bernie, though I doubt that you will ever see
it. It's called "common courtesy". Go wordclear it.
Practicing medicine without a licence? You decide.
"Step Four - Cures for Illness
You will now find BTs and clusters being cures for illnesses of the body
part. Handle all such BTs and clusters by blowing them off. "Cures for
Illness" will then cease to read.
--
Steve A, SP4, GGBC, KBM, Unsalvageable PTS/SP #12
So long, Arthur...
ObURLS: Beginners: http://www.tiac.net/users/modemac/cos.html
In-depth: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/home.html
Suspicious Death: http://www.primenet.com/~cultxpt/lisa.htm
The Other Side: http://www.scientology.org
"...Your suppositions include an unwarranted accusation which
I do not consider myself called upon to address..."
- a nice line in diplomatic put-down from Swedish
A/G in response to letter of Warren McShane
Stever and Kimipeli
Actually, I don't group those things together. I was just wondering
about the motives of a posting about cultism to a Buddhist newsgroup.
It seemed like kind of an insinuation.
Peace,
Stever
Stever and Kimipeli
Rango Keshavan wrote:
>
> Stever and Kimipeli wrote:
> >
> > I certainly can agree with many of the things you are saying here, but I
> > am wondering why you have posted this to trb. I hope that you are not
> > in some way insinuating that Buddhism is some sort of a "cult" to be
> > grouped in with TM or Heaven's Gate?? You're not saying that are you?
> > If so, you are sadly way off course, and certainly speaking to the wrong
> > group.
> >
> > metta,
> >
> > Stever
>
> Likewise anyone who equates TM to Heaven's Gate in any way is sadly
> way off course, too.
>
> Rango
> --
> "Can you answer? Yes I can!
> But what would be the answer
> to the answer, Man?" R. Hunter
>
> http://www.ultranet.com/~rango
I am not equating TM to Heaven's Gate (although, if you can find the
original post of this thread, the poster I was responding to WAS). My
sentance was simply questioning why someone would post a message about
cultism to a Buddhist newsgroup. It seemed to me to be a kind of
indictment on Buddhism, hinting that Buddhism may be some sort of cult.
Apparently, my wording was awful, because the only responses I received
were from you and another gentleman who were upset with my question. I
will just ignore this type of thread in the future. Sorry for the
misunderstandings.
Peace,
Stever
Kurt Arbuckle
: >
: > : I certainly can agree with many of the things you are saying here, but I
: > : am wondering why you have posted this to trb. I hope that you are not
: > : in some way insinuating that Buddhism is some sort of a "cult" to be
: > : grouped in with TM or Heaven's Gate?? You're not saying that are you?
: > : If so, you are sadly way off course, and certainly speaking to the wrong
: > : group.
: > ...and why do *you* group TM and Heavens Gate together? OTOH, I do recall
: > Buddhist monks killing themselves during the Vietnam war. POINT: Anyone
: > can draw similarities, and anyone can make distinctions. Stick with what
: > you know.
: >
: > Kurt
:
:
: Actually, I don't group those things together. I was just wondering
: It seemed like kind of an insinuation.
That's the way people who do TM feel about his posts to our newsgroup.
Kurt
aim...@world.std.com
>> Stever and Kimipeli (skr...@gte.net) wrote:
>> : I certainly can agree with many of the things you are saying here, but I
>> : am wondering why you have posted this to trb. I hope that you are not
>> : in some way insinuating that Buddhism is some sort of a "cult" to be
>> : grouped in with TM or Heaven's Gate?? You're not saying that are you?
>> : If so, you are sadly way off course, and certainly speaking to the wrong
>> : group.
>>
>> ...and why do *you* group TM and Heavens Gate together? OTOH, I do recall
>> Buddhist monks killing themselves during the Vietnam war. POINT: Anyone
>> can draw similarities, and anyone can make distinctions. Stick with what
>> you know.
>
It seems to me that Buddhism has been really good for your perception.
It *was* an insinuation. The fact that the person who sent it doesn't
know that is tragically sad.
Bernie
wow...@pacbell.net wrote:
>be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>> sk...@comcat.com wrote:
>> >Bernie wrote:
This is going to be very long.
>> >A professionally trained psychologist and psychiatrist told
>> >me all I need to know about what happened to me.
>> That's exactly what is wrong, in my view. When a member is
>> getting out of a cult, either on his own or with counseling, he
>> is in a very fragile mental state. The values he was holding so
>> much went to scratch, he is in a rather confused state and in
>> search of new values and signification, trying to re-adjust
>> himself to his immediate realities.
>Bernie, it appears to me that "exactly what is wrong"
>here *IS* your view. You have the collossal arrogance to
>assume that everyone else's cult experience was the same
>as yours and that their experience in leaving whatever
>they were in was the same as yours. It may not be that
>the "values" went to scratch, but that his epistemology
>needed to go to scratch so his ethics could follow.
Sorry, I don't understand.
>My present
>purpose in life was to convert my mother so she,
>too, would give everything she had to the Guru,
>and now, I was going to get to convert this pleasant
>black man, too.
Usually, members do try to convince a maximum of other persons
to their newfound belief, including their close family. They do
that because they believe that they have found something unique,
and uniquely valuable. This is akin of trying to share with
others something you find really beautiful, a piece of music,
whatever. Furthermore, they believe that if their loved ones
don't prey, or meditate, or get auditing, (or get deprogrammed,
for that matter), they will end up in something akin to hell.
They are, therefore, very motivated in trying to convert them.
This is all a "normal" religiously fanatical behavior, ensued
from a particular combination of hope and fear typical of so
many religions, and more intense in radical religions. It has
nothing to do with "mind-control", unless you try to qualify as
mind-control any such psychological aspects, in which case it
would be a gross misnomer.
>It took Ted Patrick less than twenty minutes to
>challenge every belief I just expressed (except,
>of course, for the sexual one), and then to advise
>me that I had been "brainwashed and hypnotized"
>without my knowledge or consent, to suggest that I
>stop meditating and to ask, in a concerned voice,
>whether I could stop meditating.
>> Then you have these so called [snip] "experts on
>> mind control", who come and explain to the member
>> [snip] ready-made explanations [snip] doing exactly
>> what they accuse the cults of doing.
>So, do you know someone this happened to? I sure
>don't. I don't know where you got your own information
>but you're sure parroting the $cientology party-line
>here.
That's strange. Didn't you just say in the paragraph above: "and
then to advise me that I had been 'brainwashed and hypnotized'
without my knowledge or consent"? How can you then say that it's
a conception, and idea, an observation that comes initially from
you?
>> The member himself never conceived of this
>> mind-control explanation on his own, he is
>> just buying this fallacious theory in a time
>> where he is most vulnerable.
>You've done nothing to demonstrate that the
>explantion is fallacious, Bernie. I did not
>make up the idea that the Guru was God. I
>did not make up the idea that the mind was
>Satan. I did not make up the idea that the
>Guru was beautiful. I did not make up the
>idea that I should "meditate" during every
>waking moment. I did not invent the "meditation"
>techniques. I did not make up the idea that
>"meditation" was a good thing. I did not make
>up the idea that it was wrong to have sex.
>I did not make up the idea that it was wrong
>to eat meat. I did not make up the idea that
>I had to give the Guru all of my money.
And I didn't say that the ideas you've got in the cult were your
own. So what's your point?
>I did accept Ted's claim (that I was hypnotized)
>enough to stop meditating in order to test the
>truth of his statements. I did have difficulty
>in stopping the meditation, and I asked for advice.
>Ted Patrick recommended reading aloud. That was
>the only thing he told me that I accepted with
>no corroborating information. As I started to
>come out of it, I realized that I had been
>carrying pairs of contradictory ideas around
>in my head, believing both and not seeing the
>contradiction. Then I remembered the word that
>I had just defined: "doublethink." As I was now
>deprogrammed, I excused myself, then went to a
>bookstore, bought a copy of George Orwell's 1984
>and started to read that aloud, making lots of
>notes in the margins and blank pages.
So what you did was (1) buy the idea of hypnosis, brainwashing,
from Patrick, (2) dismount the set of belief you had while in
the DLM, and reconstruct another set of beliefs according to the
mind-control doctrine, re-interpreting your experiences and
conceptions according to this doctrine. You went from one set of
belief to another, without really tackling the real causes
(because the mind-control doctrine is mainly a justification
doctrine), and this other set of belief have been fixed by the
strength of the emotional period you were in. No wonder you can
hardly see alternative explanations now, or even nuances and
distinctions in the very set of doctrine you now preach
yourself.
Furthermore, because you didn't really resolves and extracted
the real causes of fanaticism (the superficial explanation of
mind-control is hiding this from you), every time your new
belief is challenged, like I do, you get back in this initial
confusion period and therefore feel the need to defend yourself
vigorously, insult people trying to reason with you, etc.
>Later,
>during 1984, at a Mensa discussion of the book,
>I impressed a group of intellectuals - mostly
>college professors - with my knowledge of what
>Orwell was writing about.
Holla! *I* am supposed to be the arrogant know-it-all Belgian
waffle around here, not you. Please go back to your seat ;-)
[snip]
>> As long as the members are not willing to see
>> through what *part* of responsibility they had
>> in their experience, they are forever going to
>> remain a "damaged" victim, and hardly more than
>> puppets in the hand of the anti-cult movement.
[snip]
>This business about "remain[ing] a 'damaged
>victim' simply reeks of "blaming the victim,"
>Bernie, and I'm certainly not a tool of the
>anti-cult movement. I had a board member of
>CFF furious with me almost twenty years ago
>because I wouldn't go along with his personal
>request that I lie about my former guru. I
>did have one of the worst experiences of anyone
>in my own cult, but I was not going to lie.
Well done! This proves that what I say isn't an absolute either.
>I eventually did est, which helped me get over
>the guru, and although, for myself, the experience
>was excellent and the organization did not appear
>to be cultish, I have just had to recognize that,
>for a few of the women in the alt.support.ex-cult
>NG, it was a bad experience. I'm certainly not
>about to insist that their personal experiences
>were less valid than my own.
No, of course, except when you label the others's as being under
the influence of an induced psychosis. But, silly me, this isn't
an insistence where their personal experiences are less valid
than your own...
I recognize, however, that there are people who don't see much
alternative. It's either the cult doctrine or the explanation
provided to them by the mind-control doctrine. They don't have
much else to compare with.This doesn't make, however, the
mind-control doctrine necessarily true.
Like one is to go beyond his belief, whether it be a cult or
otherwise, to be aware of the limits of this belief, so one is
to go beyond his belief in the mind-control doctrine, and be
able to acknowledge the limit of this parabola.
For me, one of the main difference between an healthy belief and
a cultic one, is the ability to be aware of the limit of this
belief, or this set of beliefs. That's all the difference
really, between a tolerant group or individual and a fanatical
one. To be able to put things in perspective.
As you see with est, it can be interpreted in cultic term or
not, according to one's experience, conditions, teachers, etc,
etc. So, how would you like that those who decided that est was
a cult, to forcibly detain you and force their view down your
throat? Yet, this is what you are promoting.
I doubt personally that a "cult" exists per se, it only a group
that is more or less cultic than an other, and more or less
cultic at some time than other. A cultic attitude isn't
necessarily limited to cults either, and could be found in all
walks of life. It is mainly those in the anti-cult movements who
believe that there is a clear cut, definite, and absolute
demarcation between what is a cult and what isn't. Of course,
the unmistakable sign is that they use "mind-control"...
>Bernie, please go to dejanews and read through
>Lance Tane's posts in his interaction with Jim
>Heller, esq. You will see that Lance is one
>conflicted individual. Jim keeps trying to pin
>him down on whether our former (Lance's current)
>guru is God or not, and Lance is simply unable
>to answer.
If you take this as "evidence" of mind-control, then I have to
object. Arguments and counter-arguments, reactions and
interpretation by others of others reactions, are normal in a
contradictory debate. To interpret anything at this level, as it
is so often done in this NG, BTW, as a "damage to one's thinking
process" is only intellectual dishonesty and stupidity.
>I was into Divine Light Mission for
>over ten months, and the damage the so-called
>"meditation" did to my thinking process took
>another ten months to undo.
It also took a long time for myself to start thinking in another
way than the way I was used to in Scientology. The difference is
that I don't interpret this as a "recovering of the damage done
to my thinking process". It is a normal that after you go out of
an intense experience, in which you invest all of your being,
you take certain habits, which not only you have to learn to get
rid of, but also involves the fact of having to find and
establish new basic and fundamental values to adjust to your new
setting. See? It's all a matter of interpretation, but one can
choose to interpret things with common sense and simple words,
or ignorantly interpret them according to some bogus theory
using loaded language and twisted concepts.
>The emotional damage
>of the culture shock was with me for about seven
>years until I shed it in the old est training.
>Before est, I also read a couple of books about
>hypnotism and took a commerical self-hypnosis
>course. I was even better as a subject for myself,
>knowing that I was hypnotized, than as a subject
>for an organization that kept telling me that I
>was not hypnotized. On the other hand, Jim Heller
>was not deprogrammed. He was also exposed to a
>slightly different set of teachings which did
>not require that he meditate during every waking
>moment. It took him eight years to experience
>enough lies and contradictions to think his way
>out, leave and go to law school. He now wishes
>that his family had gone with their impulse to
>deprogram him. He feels that he lost those eight
>years of his life. Are you now saying that your
>opinion about this trained attorney's life
>is more valid and important than his own?
Certainly not, but his interpretation is not necessarily more
valid than mine. He sees things this way, I see in a very
different way, and others maybe in still other way, unless they
have been indoctrinated in the mind-control theory, in which
case you can predict what they will say with as much certainty
as you can predict what a cult-member will say.
>There
>are guidlines written for distinguishing cults
>from other political parties, group therapies
>or what-have-you.
And these guidelines have been debunked and discussed many times
here in ars. The only ones who can use them to ascertain with
certainty what is a cult and what isn't a cult, are the
anti-cult proponents for whom this is "obvious". But then why
use guidelines at all if they aren't useful to others? Anti-cult
proponents already have their fixed ideas about this, so they
don't really need guidelines. These guidelines serve only as an
appearance of legitimacy, that may look valid on the surface,
and that further serves in calling on the emotions and fears of
the people they want to proselytize to.
>Another problem is that for
>one person a particular group may really be a
>destructive cult, while for another person, it
>simply isn't. We all have different vulnerabilities,
>and our vulnerability varies at different points
>in our lives or different times of day.
Well, exactly! And that's not just another problem, it is *the*
problem: it simply is impossible to delineate what is valid for
someone else, and therefore there is only one answer to that,
and it is freedom of belief, freedom of religion, freedom of
expression. The mind-control theory runs exactly opposite to
this, it asserts that the choice the cult member made is not a
choice, since he doesn't have free will, and therefore, since
what he holds isn't really a belief, he does not enjoy the same
freedom and rights as others in this area. This is what is
fallacious, and, needless to say, dangerous.
>> This only shows that the type of support the
>> anti-cult proponents give is only based on
>> fixed and rigid ideas, on fear and superstitions,
>> reinforced between each other in a closed setup.
>Your last sentence seems to reflect, in the
>Scientology party-line about brainwashing, the
>same thing you are claiming takes place in
>here. Do you realize that? You have voiced,
>in that very sentence fear and superstitions,
>either your own humble opinions or those of
>$cientology, from which they really seem to be
>indistinguishable.
What is the fear aspect, and what is the superstition aspect in
this sentence?
>> I am not attacking anyone for their belief, I
>> am only attacking the false belief itself.
>No, you're attacking the EXPLANATION itself,
Mmm, maybe to say that I am addressing the explanation rather
than the belief may be more exact indeed.
>But, of course, you are so much
>better-informed than anyone else, so filled
>with a love for humanity and so accurate in
>your assessments that it's really wonderful
>that you were able to rush right in and fill
>the opening when God died like that.
This "argument", together with the other ones you indulge along
your posts, and that I ignore, isn't bringing anything useful to
others and they don't affect me in the least. Keep doing them if
you so wish, but they are not to your advantage. Their only
effect is to indicate that you are not really interested in
discussion but more that your are "defending" something.
The need to defend something is, BTW, very indicative of a
cultic mindset. I remember a forcibly deprogrammed guy I
interviewed in California who explained to me that he wasn't
really deprogrammed during his deprogramming, but his
deprogrammers thought so. At that time, as a "sign" that you
were really deprogrammed, you sometimes had to participate in
the forcible deprogramming of others, and so he did. It is only
then that he really got "deprogrammed", because he saw how these
other people "defended" their doctrines, doctrines that for him
had no value. He then realized that he likewise defended himself
so desperately against something that maybe wasn't really that
worth after all...
As a matter of fact, I had a similar experience. When I read Ted
Patrick's book, I was still in Scn. What stroke me was that I
could identify myself fully with the people that so desperately
defended their doctrine. Obviously, I didn't view Moon's
doctrine as anything valuable at all, quite on the contrary, and
still these people where defending themselves in probably the
same way I would in such a circumstance. I had a similar
realization as the one above: maybe what I held as an absolute,
what was for me my whole eternal future, was maybe nothing else
than just that: a belief, a belief that may have just as much
validity as the Moon doctrine, which obviously for me had none.
Since then I also became wary when I found myself defending
something. What is there to defend? Either something is true or
not, and why should I hold desperately on something that may not
be true?
Bernie
Kurt Arbuckle
aim...@world.std.com wrote:
insinuation. That is why he did it. That is even more tragically sad.
Kurt
Richard
Steve A wrote:
>
> On Wed, 30 Apr 1997 06:49:22 GMT, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>
> >
> > I am familiar with the type of support that is being offered by
> > the anti-cult faction. I consider it to be fallacious. I am not
> > determining anything - that's just my opinion. I have expanded
> > this in many posts already. Further, anyone can read what is
> > going on in the alt.support.ex-cult and see for themselves.
>
>
> What gives YOU the right to trample the activities of others ?
>
Bernie is ex GO/OSA. By joining that/those organisations he showed that
he wasn't interested in anyone's rights, he just wanted to trample on
them for his own miserable attention-seeking purposes.
Now that he has no group to applaud his efforts in that direction, he
resorts to this ng in his attempt to pursue that same pitiable end.
tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
>> Likewise anyone who equates TM to Heaven's Gate in any way is sadly
>> way off course, too.
Aren't you the bozos who think you're "levitating"?
Rango Keshavan
No, we're the bozos who think levitation is possible, but we certainly
aren't bozo enough to think we're levitating!!!
Steve A
On 1 May 1997 12:28:01 -0700, inF...@primenet.com (Rev. Dennis L
Erlich) wrote:
> >sk...@comcat.com:
>
> to Bernie:
> >After reading the latest postings in alt.support.ex-cult, I doubt if any
> >ex-cult member would feel safe opening up about their experiences here.
> >Perhaps this is the desired result you and the others posting from
> >a.r.s. have been working towards.
>
> It's very rude for people who don't even believe that cultic
> manipulation exists, or that recovery from such abuse should be
> supported, to be posting to a newsgroup explicitly dedicated to
> supporting such recovery.
Rude. Yes, I like that. It's so easy, with affidavits, Requests for
Production of Things, court orders and ho'grams flying around the
place to see things in an overly mechanistic way.
But you're right. Bernie's insistence on posting the sort of attacks
on people who are just trying to perform a service is rude, in the way
that a spoiled two-year-old brat who kicks the shins of old ladies in
the checkout queue is rude.
Hmm. Bernie. The Rude Child.
> But that is a typical cult tactic designed to stifle criticism.
As well as being rude.
Bernie
ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk (Steve A) wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Apr 1997 06:49:22 GMT, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>> Didn't you yourself post ramblings about the COS in an alt.comp
>> newsgroup, Steve? Now that's for sure is most relevant... Or are
>> you defining "relevant" as something that suits your one-sided
>> crusade and "irrelevant" anything that may contradict it?
>I endeavour to make sure that every group in the Newsgroups: line is
>valid. Occasionally I forget to check where a post to which I am
>responding is being crossposted to; sometimes it is difficult to
>establish where in the list of groups a poster is posting from.
>However, when this is pointed out to me, I invariably restrict
>X-posts.
My my my, you sure would benefit from a little bit of memory
improvement session from one of the cults, Stevie.
I can hardly belief that you can cover what you did in the
comp.sys.acorn.misc newsgroup with such a lame pretext as
"occasionally I forget to check where a post to which I am
responding is being crossposted to". What you did was nothing
less than the disgusting act of trying to smear and discredit
the editor of a computer magazine in the middle of the newsgroup
he was posting to, for no better reason that he was a
Scientologist.
Forgot it all already? Then I need to refresh your memory with
some of the reactions you encountered in there:
"how can you critise the methods of the CoS when you are
advocating similar yourself? To anyone here in
c.s.a.misc you are ridiculous."
"Tell me, those of you on alt.religion.scientology, do
rants against individual scientologists usually spill
over into newsgroups where a substantial number of
people:
a) Know the individual personally
b) Frequently see postings from the individual
c) Have read editorials and articles by the individual
for about the last ten years without noticing *any*
bias towards scientological viewpoints"
"If he doesn't use his position to promote his views
(and he doesn't), then his beliefs or affiliation are
*not* relevant to us. We are certainly *not* justified
in withdrawing support from Acorn User."
You even made the incredible blunder to "know better" the status
of the people in a newsgroup that you obvious never read. You
said:
"> I doubt it very much. You really aren't that
important, you know.
No? Given that Steve Turnbull succeeded me at Acorn User
(and you seem to consider him fair game) I'd like to
know how you make that decision. ;-)
(Well, actually I wouldn't, which is why I've deleted
c.s.a.misc from the newsgroup list. Come back when
you've learned to argue ;-)."
Your bigoted action of course had the exact reverse effect than
the one you expected. Seems people in there are able to see
through games such as yours rather well - fortunately:
"it might cause some people to think: "Well if
*Steve Turnbull's* a scientologist, perhaps it's not so
bad after all." "
Even the guy who started it all apologized and said:
I've never met Steve [Turnbull], he's probably a great
person - I can see that he has many friends here.
I was surprised to read the extract from Steve
[Turnbull]'s editorial about censorship. It contrasts
with the actions of the CoS in trying to muzzle a.r.s,"
And your trip in this newsgroup had another positive effect: it
provided me with an excellent .sig from someone describing your
action.
"All bigots are unequal, but some are more unequal than
others."
>What I do NOT do is to go off at the poster who pointed my
>error out, insist that if he doesn't want MY posts in HIS newsgroup,
>he'd better damn well find himself a new one with a watertight
>charter, or leave Usenet altogether.
No, of course you don't...
>There IS a difference, Bernie, though I doubt that you will ever see
>it. It's called "common courtesy".
How did you say it's called again?
Bernie
William O. West
Stever and Kimipeli wrote:
...
> Rango Keshavan wrote:
....
> > Stever and Kimipeli wrote:
.....
> > > I hope that you are not in some way insinuating that
> > > Buddhism is some sort of a "cult" to be grouped in
> > > with TM or Heaven's Gate??
There are some people who feel, strongly, that there
are and/or have been "destructive cults" which called
them selves "Buddhists," or groups of Buddhists who
behaved reprehensibly.
.
I opine that the old 'est' training and the Japanese
Perfect Liberty Kyodan are harmless organizations
with some of their roots in Buddhism, and that both
organizations did and do more good than harm. On the
other hand, I was told that Nichiren Shoshu was expelled
from a world Buddhist organization and I consider the
act of making Buddhism the state religion of Sri Lanka
to have been unskillful.
MoonOwl
On Sat, 03 May 1997 09:56:58 -0400, Rango Keshavan
<ra...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>
>tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu wrote:
>>
>> >> Likewise anyone who equates TM to Heaven's Gate in any way is sadly
>> >> way off course, too.
>>
>> Aren't you the bozos who think you're "levitating"?
Tom (still not sure how to decipher this viewer, so I'm not sure, is
this Tom?
>No, we're the bozos who think levitation is possible, but we certainly
>aren't bozo enough to think we're levitating!!!
>
Are you talking about physically, or mentaly, or physicly, or all 3?
MoonOwl wondering
Rango Keshavan
MoonOwl wrote:
> Are you talking about physically, or mentaly, or physicly, or all 3?
>
> MoonOwl wondering
Physically... Don't know rightly if it is possible, but the technique
that is practiced, which is a Yoga Sutra (It's called the Yogic Flying),
("discovered" by Maharishi Patanjali back in the age old days), does
cause the body to hop, very physically, which is what was demostrated
on the tape that the other guy (Tom?) referred to. It's actually a
very energizing, invigorating, and spiritually cleansing experience,
at least on my part (and, I might add, thousands of others).
Rango
MoonOwl
On Sat, 03 May 1997 21:09:08 -0400, Rango Keshavan
<ra...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>
>MoonOwl wrote:
>
>> Are you talking about physically, or mentaly, or physicly, or all 3?
>>
>> MoonOwl wondering
Rango:
>Physically... Don't know rightly if it is possible, but the technique
>that is practiced, which is a Yoga Sutra (It's called the Yogic Flying),
>("discovered" by Maharishi Patanjali back in the age old days), does
>cause the body to hop, very physically, which is what was demostrated
>on the tape that the other guy (Tom?) referred to. It's actually a
>very energizing, invigorating, and spiritually cleansing experience,
>at least on my part (and, I might add, thousands of others).
>
You are saying that it is a very energizing, invigorating, and
spiritually cleansing on your part and yet you dont know rightly if it
is possible?
Here is where I went today. Not my body, but I was surely there.
(This is the background so you know what I did that caused my
experience.)
First I did an hour of dimoku..(.I am currently on a dimoku campaign
because I am trying to over come some major problems that I have in my
life at the moment. )
Then I did gongyo. First prayer turning to the east because that is
supposed to be the 'begining' - sun rising - begining of day - etc.
(I'm sure David can tell you exactally why we face the east) Anyway,
I have been told by senior members that after the first prayer, the
buddhist gods join behind you. So you finish the other prayers with
the gods behind you.
As I was chanting Nam-Myho-Renge-Kyo, a flash sort of entered my mind
and I let it stay there so I could take a better look at it. I was
chanting about all these things and for people, when it seemed that I
was presenting (as one of them) these things to all the 'council' (a
council is the only thing I can aquaint it to) All the Buddas sitting
around in a circle, and I was making a presentation.
That was all, but then I started gongyo, and it sort of came together
for me what everyone had been trying to tell me about all the Buddas
gathering behind me.
As David says, it is clear to me that as we chant, we too become
Buddas. And because we are, the other Buddas (which are simply the
forces of the universe) gather to protect us and guide us in order
that we may find/seek the right path.
Buddhism is so many things wraped up in one word...wisdom is one of
them. It gives you the wisdom to find/seek the right path for you.
Anyway, I sort of got off subject, but would a 'vision' or just a
'knowing' that you are somewhere other than the room that you are in,
be considered an 'out-of-body' experience?
MoonOwl
sk...@comcat.com
Richard,
Thanks for your interpretation as to Bernie's motives. I have been at a
loss to understand why he continues to bait this NG with issues that
have been debated adnauseum.
Laurenn
Bernie wrote:
Richard wrote:
>
> Steve A wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 30 Apr 1997 06:49:22 GMT, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
> >
> > >
Bernie
moo...@idt.net (MoonOwl) wrote:
>Anyway, I sort of got off subject
Are you sure? I don't know. I think that the gongyo dimoku
chanting Nam-Myho-Renge-Kyo certainly does have a relevance in
this thread.
Bernie
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <5ke42i$2...@news.jhu.edu>,
>>> Likewise anyone who equates TM to Heaven's Gate in any way is sadly
>>> way off course, too.
>
>Aren't you the bozos who think you're "levitating"?
bum-bouncers; cushion-pilots.
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on alt.religion.scientology *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |___&_http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk_________________________|/_______| L
/clam/lynx/q0.html I plonked the Witch of Zun.
Rango Keshavan
> You are saying that it is a very energizing, invigorating, and
> spiritually cleansing on your part and yet you dont know rightly if it
> is possible?
I personally have never seen anyone levitate, nor have I experienced
it. I have heard of others who have, and of course countless stories
through time that people have, so I "believe" it is possible. The
sensation that I experience with the Sutra is catagorized as hopping,
which is not levitation in the sense that we generally think of it.
However, it isn't me making myself hop in the standard sense, either,
but something else, which originates from something much deeper than
my willing myself to hop.
Rango Keshavan
Stever and Kimipeli wrote:
> Actually, I don't group those things together. I was just wondering
> about the motives of a posting about cultism to a Buddhist newsgroup.
> It seemed like kind of an insinuation.
>
> Peace,
>
> Stever
The originator of the post does equate TM and Heaven's Gate, and
Jamestown, amongst others. In his mind (and his many of his associates
at trancenet), they feel that people involved with TM are so blind
that they would go and do something like those other souls did.
I've been involved with TM for 18 years, practicing it, lived at a
center for a couple years, have attended many resident courses,
including advanced lessons (TM-Sidhis), and I think that they are way
off base. My feeling is that they are so taken-over by their misgivings
of TM that they see ghosts where-ever they look, including many of
the variousl subject areas they cross posted to.
The sad thing is that folks who share their way of thinking have messed
up the TM newsgroup something terrible for years, so thank your
stars that when this thread dies, it will vanish from your group, but
we TMers have to deal with this kind of nonsense (I termed it Knapp
nonsense) all the time, incessantly.
Rango
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
>Rango Keshavan <ra...@ultranet.com>:
>I personally have never seen anyone levitate, nor have I experienced
>it. I have heard of others who have, and of course countless stories
>through time that people have, so I "believe" it is possible. The
>sensation that I experience with the Sutra is catagorized as hopping,
>which is not levitation in the sense that we generally think of it.
>However, it isn't me making myself hop in the standard sense, either,
>but something else, which originates from something much deeper than
>my willing myself to hop.
Perhaps you can will yourself to levitate this thread TF out of
alt.support.ex-cult?
Thanks in advance.
Dennis
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
>moo...@idt.net (MoonOwl):
[snipt - description of current religious practice]
>Anyway, I sort of got off subject, but would a 'vision' or just a
>'knowing' that you are somewhere other than the room that you are in,
>be considered an 'out-of-body' experience?
MoonOwl,
Since you are neither an ex-cultist, nor are you seeking support in
recovery from same, would you mind trimming alt.support.ex-cult out of
your post next time?
Thanks in advance.
Dennis
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
>Rango Keshavan <ra...@ultranet.com>:
>The originator of the post does equate TM and Heaven's Gate, and
>Jamestown, amongst others.
I don't know about TM, but Waco, Aum, Jonestown and Heaven's Gate
do have some striking similarities. Don't you think?
>In his mind (and his many of his associates
>at trancenet), they feel that people involved with TM are so blind
>that they would go and do something like those other souls did.
Nobody thought the others would do it, either. And not all the
members did.
>I've been involved with TM for 18 years, practicing it, lived at a
>center for a couple years, have attended many resident courses,
>including advanced lessons (TM-Sidhis), and I think that they are way
>off base.
Since you are clearly not an ex-cultist, Rango, I don't understand
why you are disrupting alt.support.ex-cult with your postings.
>My feeling is that they are so taken-over by their misgivings
>of TM that they see ghosts where-ever they look, including many of
>the variousl subject areas they cross posted to.
<chuckle> Dint you bother to notice where you cross-posted this?
>The sad thing is that folks who share their way of thinking have messed
>up the TM newsgroup something terrible for years,
If a post is ~about~ TM, be it positive or negative, it belongs in
the TM newsgroup. It doesn't belong in alt.support.ex-cult if it
doesn't support recovery from a cult. Geddit?
>so thank your
>stars that when this thread dies, it will vanish from your group, but
>we TMers have to deal with this kind of nonsense (I termed it Knapp
>nonsense) all the time, incessantly.
Ever heard of trimming off-topic newsgroups yourself, Rango?
Dennis
Steve A
On Sat, 03 May 1997 19:45:50 GMT, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
> ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk (Steve A) wrote:
> >On Wed, 30 Apr 1997 06:49:22 GMT, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>
> >> Didn't you yourself post ramblings about the COS in an alt.comp
> >> newsgroup, Steve? Now that's for sure is most relevant... Or are
> >> you defining "relevant" as something that suits your one-sided
> >> crusade and "irrelevant" anything that may contradict it?
>
> >I endeavour to make sure that every group in the Newsgroups: line is
> >valid. Occasionally I forget to check where a post to which I am
> >responding is being crossposted to; sometimes it is difficult to
> >establish where in the list of groups a poster is posting from.
> >However, when this is pointed out to me, I invariably restrict
> >X-posts.
>
> My my my, you sure would benefit from a little bit of memory
> improvement session from one of the cults, Stevie.
>
> I can hardly belief that you can cover what you did in the
> comp.sys.acorn.misc newsgroup with such a lame pretext as
> "occasionally I forget to check where a post to which I am
> responding is being crossposted to". What you did was nothing
> less than the disgusting act of trying to smear and discredit
> the editor of a computer magazine in the middle of the newsgroup
> he was posting to, for no better reason that he was a
> Scientologist.
If, instead of making snide references like some cultist DA merchant,
then perhaps we could have established exactly what you were on about,
and got on with discussing it. Still, old habits die hard, eh, Bernie?
First of all, I had nothing to do with the initiation of that debate,
so your characterisation of my postings to the thread as "the
disgusting act of trying to smear and discredit the editor of a
computer magazine in the middle of the newsgroup he was posting to,
for no better reason that he was a Scientologist." falls at the first
hurdle.
Secondly, I made no claims in that thread that I was not prepared to
stand behind. I don't recall the exact debate, and I'm not
particularly interested in going back to dejanews and dredging it up
for your benefit, but as I recall my views were that, personally
speaking, I'd be highly reluctant to be handing over my hard-earned
cash, not to mention my name and address if I were a subscriber, to an
organisation in which a Scientologist played a leading role. AIR, as
the discussion progressed, we discovered that the Scieno wasn't the
owner, but the editor. I would hope that I moderated my position
slightly on that basis, but would imagine that I was still in favour
of the man's connection to the cult having being made known, as I
would today. For the record, I firmly support Germany's stand on
Scientologist-owned companies as a useful piece of consumer protection
aside from any other benefits it might have.
I cannot see anything in what I, or anyone else in that thread for
that matter, did or said that could be called a "disgusting act".
> Forgot it all already? Then I need to refresh your memory with
> some of the reactions you encountered in there:
I'm not going to quote every selective quote that Bernie has snipped
from the thread: his posting is recent enough that you should have it
on your spool. Suffice it to say that a series of unattributed
fragments, with no indication as to who said them, nor what they were
being said in response to, is hardly a useful tool in furthering
debate. I would also observe that, in addition to the critical
reactions which did occur, there were also plenty of favourable ones.
But then, you wouldn't want to be furthering the enemy line, would
you, Bernie?
[testimonials snipped]
> You even made the incredible blunder to "know better" the status
> of the people in a newsgroup that you obvious never read. You
> said:
>
> "> I doubt it very much. You really aren't that
> important, you know.
Another completely out-of-context quote. This remark is so out of
character for me that I am almost tempted to fire up the modem and
take a look. But then I'm not really sure I can be bothered: something
tells me that you, Bernie, aren't going to make any bigger dents in my
credibility than I could manage.
[more selective editing snipped]
> >What I do NOT do is to go off at the poster who pointed my
> >error out, insist that if he doesn't want MY posts in HIS newsgroup,
> >he'd better damn well find himself a new one with a watertight
> >charter, or leave Usenet altogether.
>
> No, of course you don't...
Are you contesting my point? If so, let's see some more of your
"evidence" for my evil and bigotry.
> >There IS a difference, Bernie, though I doubt that you will ever see
> >it. It's called "common courtesy".
>
> How did you say it's called again?
Common courtesy. I don't expect you to get it first time.
Steve A
On Fri, 02 May 1997 23:29:11 -0700, Richard <Abb...@arscc.com> wrote:
>
> Steve A wrote:
> >
> Bernie is ex GO/OSA. By joining that/those organisations he showed that
> he wasn't interested in anyone's rights, he just wanted to trample on
> them for his own miserable attention-seeking purposes.
Sure, but as he is (apparently) an ex-member, I was prepared to give
him the benefit of the doubt.
> Now that he has no group to applaud his efforts in that direction, he
> resorts to this ng in his attempt to pursue that same pitiable end.
So it would seem.
Salmon G. Eddingtton
Stever and Kimipeli wrote:
>
> I certainly can agree with many of the things you are saying here, but I
> in some way insinuating that Buddhism is some sort of a "cult" to be
> If so, you are sadly way off course, and certainly speaking to the wrong
> group.
>
>
> Stever
all deist/theist are cults, must follow the leader, noise to tail
Salmon G. Eddingtton
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------F84A135BBE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
All deist/theist are cult members following the leader nose to tail
--------------F84A135BBE
Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="Atagit.wps"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Atagit.wps"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--------------F84A135BBE--
aim...@world.std.com
moo...@idt.net (MoonOwl) originally posted a:
> [snipt - description of current religious practice]
Rev. Dennis L Erlich <inF...@primenet.com> wrote:
> Since you are neither an ex-cultist, nor are you seeking support in
>recovery from same, would you mind trimming alt.support.ex-cult out of
>your post next time?
I find this a fairly interesting reply from someone who signs
himself "Rev." Now let me see if I got this straight: if one
has a "current religious practice," then one cannot be either
an ex-"cultist" or "seeking support."
Sorry I misunderstood. I was somehow under the impression that
one could pay one's dues in a cultish spiritual environment and
yet walk away still having an intense respect for the spiritual,
and still having a spiritual practice...just one's own.
Thank you, Rev, for pointing out the error of my ways. I now
realize that the truly evolved and hip way to emerge from a
cult is to become a sour, embittered old man and attempt to make
a.s.e-c a "safe haven" for that, and *only* that viewpoint.
Of course, I was never either very evolved or hip, so you'll
forgive me if I view the situation differently. The way it
looked to me, a fairly sour old man from a.s.e-c *created* the
post that spawned this thread, and *he* spammed it to all the
newsgroups in the header. If some of the people in those groups
or this one feel that the view of spirituality he expressed is
not thiers, and followup with less than sour experiences of
their own, well, learn to live with 'em, sucker. The same way
they have learned, rather gracefully I might add, to live with you.
Bernie
sk...@comcat.com wrote:
>Richard,
>Thanks for your interpretation as to Bernie's motives. I have been at a
>loss to understand why he continues to bait this NG with issues that
>have been debated adnauseum.
Eh, and now you "understand," don't you Laurenn? Just as you
"understand" the issue of cults interpretated for you in terms
mind-control...
Bernie
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
>aim...@world.std.com:
>Unlike those who now presume to speak for exactly what can and cannot
>be said on a.s.e-c (paying attention, Rev?),
If you are speaking to me, yes.
But you are mischaracterizing what I have said since I began to
post here. I merely pointed out the rudeness of people disrupting a
newsgroup dedicated to ex-cult members' support.
This is Usenet, jerk. Anybody can say whatever they want here.
All I can do is comment that much of what is posted here is done
simply to disrupt the support this newsgroup is supposed to
accomplish.
>I was around at the time
>of the newsgroup's creation. True, I was a lurker at the time, but
>I was there. And, speaking as someone who has passed through and
>out the other side of more than one group that many would consider
>"cults," I have ever since had a great deal of respect for the fellow
>who *created* the group, because not once in all this time has *he*
>felt the need to dictate its content.
Nobody can dictate what anybody says in a non-moderated newsgroup,
you clueless twit.
>There is little question that, at the time of its inception, the
>newsgroup was created not to provide "support,"
And that must be why it was named alt.support ... yea, right.
>but to promote the
>mind-control view of alternative spirituality. But, to the credit of
>most posters and the newsgroup's creator, it has rarely stooped to
>trying to silence voices that do not agree with the "mind-control"
>view.
Were you in a cult? Do you need support? If not, wtf are you
doing posting here?
>It's interesting to me that the few who do just that can some-
>how turn around and criticize Scientology and others for their sup-
>pressive tactics. Guess it's not only "cult followers" who are
>schooled in doublethink.
Yes, I agree. You seem well versed in it.
Now, if you are neither an ex-cultist in need of support, nor
someone who is offering support to one, you are probably in the wrong
newsgroup.
Dennis
sk...@comcat.com
>>Skye wrote:
>Bernie wrote:
>>A well known psychiatrist and a psychologist went undercover to study
>>the cult I was in. They both concluded that the leader of the group used
>>strong hypnosis techniques as well as techniques that were mentally
>>abusive. The psychiatrist had a psychotic break the evening after his
>>visit. He had to be hospitalized. You might conclude that the
>>psychiatrist was bound to have a psychotic break anyway. I don't
>>subscribe to this.
>I am sorry to say, but this is ridiculous. A psychiatrist having
>a psychotic break the next day when thousands other "normal"
>youngster don't have such even after years?
Bernie,
This is a fact! Your saying that it is ridiculous shows just how very
narrow minded you are. The "thousands of other normal youngsters" in the
cult are still there in the group as, imo slaves to the guru. The few
people that attempted to leave the group while I was a member did not
leave with ease. One man died while trying to leave, his death is being
investigated. Another man, a young promising attorney, left and is now
homeless in NYC. His family called me for help, saying he hasn't spoken
one coherent sentence since leaving the group. A woman who left needed
years of therapy to function again. And myself, who suffered far more
than I will ever share with you.
Laugh all you want Bernie. Deny all you want. Perhaps one of your
children need to "crack" in a cult for you to ever believe any of this.
>Tomorrow I will infiltrate the boy-scout association and have a
>psychotic break to prove they are really a cult and use
>mind-control techniques...
Cute Bernie
aim...@world.std.com
sk...@comcat.com wrote:
>>Thanks for your interpretation as to Bernie's motives. I have been at a
>>loss to understand why he continues to bait this NG with issues that
>>have been debated adnauseum.
Bernie <be...@arcadis.be> wrote:
>Eh, and now you "understand," don't you Laurenn? Just as you
>"understand" the issue of cults interpretated for you in terms
>mind-control...
Having lost my lurker status once today, I might as well continue
the trend. I don't know Bernie *or* his affiliations or lack thereof,
but I sure appreciate his presence on a.s.e-c.
Unlike those who now presume to speak for exactly what can and cannot
be said on a.s.e-c (paying attention, Rev?), I was around at the time
of the newsgroup's creation. True, I was a lurker at the time, but
I was there. And, speaking as someone who has passed through and
out the other side of more than one group that many would consider
"cults," I have ever since had a great deal of respect for the fellow
who *created* the group, because not once in all this time has *he*
felt the need to dictate its content.
There is little question that, at the time of its inception, the
newsgroup was created not to provide "support," but to promote the
mind-control view of alternative spirituality. But, to the credit of
most posters and the newsgroup's creator, it has rarely stooped to
trying to silence voices that do not agree with the "mind-control"
view. It's interesting to me that the few who do just that can some-
sk...@comcat.com
For the record:
I searched thru my past posts and did find one where I mentioned mind
control. Just didn't remember doing so. I still assert that the issue of
mind control was never "interpreted for me" by anyone. I have a mind of
my own now, thankfully, and can actually interpret issues for myself.
L.
sk...@comcat.com wrote:
>
> Bernie wrote:
>
> > Eh, and now you "understand," don't you Laurenn? Just as you
> > "understand" the issue of cults interpretated for you in terms
> > mind-control...
>
> Bernie,
>
> So we meet again. When did I ever say that cults were interpreted for me
> in terms of "mind control?" Furthermore, in what post did I say that I
> was a victim of cult mind control? Why do you continue to bring up mind
> control in this newsgroup post after post?
>
> Laurenn
Bernie
>> [snipt - description of current religious practice]
>Rev. Dennis L Erlich <inF...@primenet.com> wrote:
>> Since you are neither an ex-cultist, nor are you seeking support in
>>recovery from same, would you mind trimming alt.support.ex-cult out of
>>your post next time?
>I find this a fairly interesting reply from someone who signs
>himself "Rev." Now let me see if I got this straight: if one
>has a "current religious practice," then one cannot be either
>an ex-"cultist" or "seeking support."
>Sorry I misunderstood. I was somehow under the impression that
>one could pay one's dues in a cultish spiritual environment and
>yet walk away still having an intense respect for the spiritual,
>and still having a spiritual practice...just one's own.
Right!
>Thank you, Rev, for pointing out the error of my ways. I now
>realize that the truly evolved and hip way to emerge from a
>cult is to become a sour, embittered old man and attempt to make
>a.s.e-c a "safe haven" for that, and *only* that viewpoint.
You have made an *excellent* assessment - well done!
>Of course, I was never either very evolved or hip, so you'll
>forgive me if I view the situation differently. The way it
>looked to me, a fairly sour old man from a.s.e-c *created* the
>post that spawned this thread, and *he* spammed it to all the
>newsgroups in the header. If some of the people in those groups
>or this one feel that the view of spirituality he expressed is
>not thiers, and followup with less than sour experiences of
>their own, well, learn to live with 'em, sucker. The same way
>they have learned, rather gracefully I might add, to live with you.
Expect massive flame from the "Rev."
Bernie
starshadow
moo...@idt.net (MoonOwl) wrote:
>On Sat, 03 May 1997 21:09:08 -0400, Rango Keshavan
><ra...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>>
>>MoonOwl wrote:
>>
>>> Are you talking about physically, or mentaly, or physicly, or all 3?
>>>
>>> MoonOwl wondering
>Rango:
>>Physically... Don't know rightly if it is possible, but the technique
>>that is practiced, which is a Yoga Sutra (It's called the Yogic Flying),
>>("discovered" by Maharishi Patanjali back in the age old days), does
>>cause the body to hop, very physically, which is what was demostrated
>>on the tape that the other guy (Tom?) referred to. It's actually a
>>very energizing, invigorating, and spiritually cleansing experience,
>>at least on my part (and, I might add, thousands of others).
>>
>You are saying that it is a very energizing, invigorating, and
>spiritually cleansing on your part and yet you dont know rightly if it
>is possible?
>Here is where I went today. Not my body, but I was surely there.
>(This is the background so you know what I did that caused my
>experience.)
>First I did an hour of dimoku..(.I am currently on a dimoku campaign
>because I am trying to over come some major problems that I have in my
>life at the moment. )
You mean daimoku. I used to chant too. It is very rhythimnic and
can produce a kind of "self-hypnosis" for lack of a better word.
>Then I did gongyo. First prayer turning to the east because that is
>supposed to be the 'begining' - sun rising - begining of day - etc.
>(I'm sure David can tell you exactally why we face the east) Anyway,
>I have been told by senior members that after the first prayer, the
>buddhist gods join behind you. So you finish the other prayers with
>the gods behind you.
>As I was chanting Nam-Myho-Renge-Kyo, a flash sort of entered my mind
>and I let it stay there so I could take a better look at it. I was
>chanting about all these things and for people, when it seemed that I
>was presenting (as one of them) these things to all the 'council' (a
>council is the only thing I can aquaint it to) All the Buddas sitting
>around in a circle, and I was making a presentation.
This kind of experience isn't uncommon, but I think it's more of
a meditative technique the mind engages in than true out of body
experiences. In NSA, now SGI, teachings, we are all Buddhas waiting
to realize it and daimoku, chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo is the way to
realize that Buddha-awareness. It's one way, I think, like all
religious practices, but not the only way.
In other words there are other ways to acheve the goal of
spiritual awakening.
>That was all, but then I started gongyo, and it sort of came together
>for me what everyone had been trying to tell me about all the Buddas
>gathering behind me.
>As David says, it is clear to me that as we chant, we too become
>Buddas. And because we are, the other Buddas (which are simply the
>forces of the universe) gather to protect us and guide us in order
>that we may find/seek the right path.
>Buddhism is so many things wraped up in one word...wisdom is one of
>them. It gives you the wisdom to find/seek the right path for you.
>Anyway, I sort of got off subject, but would a 'vision' or just a
>'knowing' that you are somewhere other than the room that you are in,
>be considered an 'out-of-body' experience?
Sorta-kinda. Hard to explain, English is pretty deficient in
language for these kinds of experiences.
Someone who is purely into science could call it self-deception,
but I think it is a bit more than that...a trying to put into terms
one's mind can understand, a spiritual knowing that English is
deficient in.
>MoonOwl
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow star...@aa.net
"Feminism: the radical notion that women are people, too."
Bernie
sk...@comcat.com wrote:
>Bernie,
>So we meet again.
So it seems, but you invited me :-)
>When did I ever say that cults were interpreted for me
>in terms of "mind control?" Furthermore, in what post did I say that I
>was a victim of cult mind control?
I think we discussed this on the last post already, but since I
don't have that much time to search back archives, I will admit
that I don't know enough off hand about your viewpoint to assert
anything on the subject. I may have read something you posted,
or I may have mixed you with someone else, it's possible.
>Why do you continue to bring up mind
>control in this newsgroup post after post?
If you are not interpreting cult experience in terms of mind
control, then you probably are an exception among anticultists
(if you are one at all). I probably received this impression
from the content of your answer, but maybe I did make a wrong
assumption. I don't know - yet.
Now I will answer your question.
If you may recall, I was not the one who brought the question of
mind-control in this thread. I just joined it in the middle of
discussion about it, and since I didn't know all the background,
I had no way to know whether the crossposting was there for a
good reason or not, so I let it in place.
By all means, independently of this, I do think that questions
of mind-control are relevant in a newsgroup dealing with cults.
Not that I think that cult involvement can be explained that
way, as you know, but unless you have been completely
disconnected from the cult/anticult issue, you know very well
that it is a question that is at the core of the anticult
arguments. What is wrong, then, of it being discussed? Or can it
only be discussed when everyone agree on the same view about it,
but when some other question its validity, then all of a sudden
it isn't relevant anymore?
Bernie
aim...@world.std.com
aim...@world.std.com wrote:
>>Unlike those who now presume to speak for exactly what can and cannot
>>be said on a.s.e-c (paying attention, Rev?),
Rev. Dennis L Erlich <inF...@primenet.com> wrote:
> If you are speaking to me, yes.
>
> But you are mischaracterizing what I have said since I began to
>post here. I merely pointed out the rudeness of people disrupting a
>newsgroup dedicated to ex-cult members' support.
>
> This is Usenet, jerk. Anybody can say whatever they want here.
>All I can do is comment that much of what is posted here is done
>simply to disrupt the support this newsgroup is supposed to
>accomplish.
No, Rev, that's *not* what you have been doing. You have been
telling anyone who posts anything contrary to your view of cults
that they should remove a.s.e-c from the list of newsgroups and
thus, in effect, that they have no right to post here.
>>I was around at the time
>>of the newsgroup's creation. True, I was a lurker at the time, but
>>I was there. And, speaking as someone who has passed through and
>>out the other side of more than one group that many would consider
>>"cults," I have ever since had a great deal of respect for the fellow
>>who *created* the group, because not once in all this time has *he*
>>felt the need to dictate its content.
>
> Nobody can dictate what anybody says in a non-moderated newsgroup,
>you clueless twit.
But that is *exactly* what you have been attempting to do.
>>There is little question that, at the time of its inception, the
>>newsgroup was created not to provide "support,"
>
> And that must be why it was named alt.support ... yea, right.
Hey, Rev...*you* are the newbie here, not me. The actual purpose
of the newsgroup is a matter of interpretation, true, but you are
in no position to say one way or another. If anyone is coming
across as a clueless nettwit, trying to dictate what is "approp-
riate" and what is not in a newsgroup he is new to, it's you.
>>but to promote the
>>mind-control view of alternative spirituality. But, to the credit of
>>most posters and the newsgroup's creator, it has rarely stooped to
>>trying to silence voices that do not agree with the "mind-control"
>>view.
>
> Were you in a cult?
Yes, I was a member of a group that many consider a cult (but
I haven't been for quite some time). Were you, or are you just
one of those crusaders who has an opinion and wants a place
to shoot off his mouth free of the nuisance of people who
don't agree with him?
> Do you need support?
Yes, I am still working through issues surrounding this, and
like to hear stories from other people dealing with those
issues and how they have dealt with them. I don't feel much
need to talk about my experiences, but often learn from the
stories and personal experiences (as opposed to propaganda
either for or against) that are posted here.
> If not, wtf are you doing posting here?
Learning. It seems to me that if your answer to your own
question #1 above is "No," then you might consider looking in
a different place for the person who "doesn't belong here"
and is here pushing an agenda. Like the mirror.
>>It's interesting to me that the few who do just that can some-
>>how turn around and criticize Scientology and others for their sup-
>>pressive tactics. Guess it's not only "cult followers" who are
>>schooled in doublethink.
>
> Yes, I agree. You seem well versed in it.
>
> Now, if you are neither an ex-cultist in need of support, nor
>someone who is offering support to one, you are probably in the wrong
>newsgroup.
Rev, I *rarely* post anything to this newsgroup because I do not
hold many of the views that people here seem to. Yes, I was a
member of a group with many cult-like qualities. Yes, I walked
away from it. But unlike many here, I did not feel the need to
decide that spirituality itself was bogus just because I didn't
like a particular spiritual teacher or the dynamics of the group
that surrounded him. On the other hand, I would never argue
with people's right to do just that, and to post those messages
here. I just think that there is another side to walking away
from a spiritual path or group that almost never gets talked
about, and that *those* people have a right to have their say.
My suspicion is that there are quite a few "ex-cultists" lurking
out there who feel exactly the same way, and that you are painfully
aware of this fact, and are trying everything you can to make sure
*they* don't feel comfortable posting to this group. From what
I can tell, you have developed quite a name for yourself ragging
on Scientology. And now you've found another "small pond" in
which you hope to become the "big fish." *I* don't really have
too much more to say on this whole matter, but I hope that those
who do are *not* intimidated by you and have the guts to say what
they really feel, as opposed to what *you* want them to feel.
Bryan
Hello I'm five years old and don't understand. Do you?
On Sat, 03 May 1997 09:56:58 -0400, Rango Keshavan
<ra...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu wrote:
>>
>> >> Likewise anyone who equates TM to Heaven's Gate in any way is sadly
>> >> way off course, too.
>>
>> Aren't you the bozos who think you're "levitating"?
>
>No, we're the bozos who think levitation is possible, but we certainly
>aren't bozo enough to think we're levitating!!!
>
>
Christian
It's a cult. Tm, buddism, heaven's gate, jamestown. and waco.
Bernie
>Steve Montgomery wrote:
>> If this happens, its because the individual allowed it to happen. If
>> an individual has a weak will, they will often assume that someone
>> else knows more than they do.
Will has hardly anything to do with beliefs.
>They are then told that they must 'act
>> in this way', 'believe in x' etc. I don't believe that a person who is
>> not gullible to start with would fall into this trap.
To be or not gullible in the field of religion doesn't mean
anything. It only is a value judgement, and it reflects rather
badly on the one making it.
>> Its the dominant personality of the leadership which causes cultism.
That may be...
Bernie
Richard Menninger
Christian wrote:
> It's a cult. Tm, buddism, heaven's gate, jamestown. and waco.
See my previous post, you mindless bonehead.
Some people are so out of it that you have to
hit them real hard to have a shot at getting
through to them. You are such a totally
confused person. Hitting such a person real
hard is the most compassionate thing you can
do with them. WAKE UP!
Take care of yourself
Dick
rmenn...@lucent.com
Judy Stein
In article <33765a13...@news.primenet.com>,
inF...@primenet.com (Rev. Dennis L Erlich) wrote:
> >Judith Stein <jst...@zip1.ziplink.net>:
>
> >Certainly an *honest* crusade against genuinely destructive cults
> >would be a worthy cause.
>
> Which destructive cults would those be, Judith? And how would you
> advise conducting such a campaign?
Hey, Rev, putting together such a campaign is not one of my
personal priorities, but I might contribute to one designed by
someone else if I thought it had integrity.
But your question raises an important point. I haven't yet seen
a really clear, well-thought-out definition of "destructive
cult." So constructing such a definition would probably be a
prerequisite; then we could begin to discuss which groups should
be included in the campaign and which should not.
Hmm, another requirement, from my perspective, would be that the
campaign involve planners who are just as concerned about
potential infringement of human rights emanating from the
anticult side as the anticult side is concerned about
infringement of human rights instigated by cults. Couple of
seasoned folks from the ACLU might do the trick.
And while we're at it, the names of any of the usual anticult
suspects on the letterhead would give me serious reservations--
Singer, Lifton, Hassan, Knapp, Ehrlich, et al. I've been
distinctly underwhelmed, to say the least, by what I've seen of
their work.
Like I say, I'd be looking for a campaign with integrity.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Judy Stein * The Author's Friend * jst...@ziplink.net +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
P.Fitz
Judy Stein wrote:
>
> In article <33765a13...@news.primenet.com>,
> inF...@primenet.com (Rev. Dennis L Erlich) wrote:
>
> > >Judith Stein <jst...@zip1.ziplink.net>:
> >
> > >Certainly an *honest* crusade against genuinely destructive cults
> > >would be a worthy cause.
> >
> > Which destructive cults would those be, Judith? And how would you
> > advise conducting such a campaign?
>
> Hey, Rev, putting together such a campaign is not one of my
> personal priorities, but I might contribute to one designed by
> someone else if I thought it had integrity.
Why don't you design it and make the rules instead of "following" someone
else. Much easier to be a critic then a leader. Your list at the bottem
of the post demonstrates that and then your "underwhelmed" comment
completely (seems to) supports what my observation is.
>
> But your question raises an important point. I haven't yet seen
> a really clear, well-thought-out definition of "destructive
> cult." So constructing such a definition would probably be a
> prerequisite; then we could begin to discuss which groups should
> be included in the campaign and which should not.
So, let's go on forever to see what a destructive group means to Judy.
Let me guess, this goes on for quite awhile...you not agreeing to
anything any of us "over here" have to say -- bring up all these numerous
scholarly works that are to intimidate those of use that are ex-cult
members into silence because we don't at all understand let alone know
what we went through. Now where have I heard this all going on before?
>
> Hmm, another requirement, from my perspective, would be that the
> campaign involve planners who are just as concerned about
> potential infringement of human rights emanating from the
> anticult side as the anticult side is concerned about
> infringement of human rights instigated by cults. Couple of
> seasoned folks from the ACLU might do the trick.
Ya, right. ACLU isn't at all interested in what happened to me. I already
checked. Apparently the Better Business Bureau is where I was to go. Or
to do a lawsuit...and I'm just really rolling in the dough for something
like that. <choke, gasp, sputter...>
>
> And while we're at it, the names of any of the usual anticult
> suspects on the letterhead would give me serious reservations--
> Singer, Lifton, Hassan, Knapp, Ehrlich, et al. I've been
> distinctly underwhelmed, to say the least, by what I've seen of
> their work.
Minds on well add me to the list...it will get there eventually -- save
yourself the trouble later on. And I don't mind being a part of that list
-- at least they all seem to have questions about what goes on around
them...
>
> Like I say, I'd be looking for a campaign with integrity.
est? Just so that I have an understanding of what you mean by
"integrity". Because in est it means "follow my rules or else" out here
in the real world it means who I am and I how I am to the world. Which is
with integrity.
-pam
James Adams
Some so-called reverend, eh?
Daniel Kuehne wrote:
>
> Rev. Dennis L Erlich wrote:
> >
> > >aim...@world.std.com:
> >
> > >Unlike those who now presume to speak for exactly what can and cannot
> > >be said on a.s.e-c (paying attention, Rev?),
> >
> > If you are speaking to me, yes.
> >
> > But you are mischaracterizing what I have said since I began to
> > post here. I merely pointed out the rudeness of people disrupting a
> > newsgroup dedicated to ex-cult members' support.
> >
> > This is Usenet, jerk.
>
> Wait just a minute, "Reverend." When I last checked, "reverends" didn't go around
> calling people jerks, you irreverent (and irrelevant) jerk!!!!!!!!
Richard Menninger
Bernie wrote:
> Richard Menninger <r...@winner.lc.lucent.com> wrote:
...
> >No, the process of genuine spiritual development
> >is one of softening, actually, and that is what
> >I have been doing.
> What do you mean by a softening process, Richard?
Well Pema Chodron and others do a better job than
I ever will on discussing this rather surprising
phenomenon. But you can look at it like this.
A most basic trait of all of our neurotic patterns
is that they are trying to solidify anything they
can find as part of the strategy of trying to shore
up the mistaken and unreasonable belief in a solid,
unchanging self. Yet there always is some soft spot
that is left (an analogy from topology comes to mind
but that would only speak to a very limited audience).
When we practice correct technique with a correct
attitude, more and more of the seeming solidity
get undermined and we get to know and make friends
with all of our processes (accepting that they are
there is very much that). There are statement that
describe the fruition of certain practice stages as
being completely processed, completely softened.
You have lost your projected hard shell, your
attempted no-chink armour. You are tender and more
sensitive to everything, just as you are much more
aware of everything. Things do hit you more
immediately in the face and are more painful, but
those are the things that are actually going on
and you have lost a big, painful hunk of struggle
from trying to force the pattern in many ways
(though by no means have all such disappeared).
You are seeing many things in detail for the
first time because you only saw your projections
previously. There is a sense of softness and
of awe. You have room for accomodating much more
of the world around you in all of its rough hewn
aspects. Things such as the bodhisattva ideal
are just simple expressions of relating and accepting
that go on (very simple, direct, immediate) instead
of being some esoteric foriegn ideas to adopt.
Hopefully you can make some sense out of this babble.
> >Relating directly to the moment without ever
> >embellishing or supressing is a thorough but
> >very genuine challenge.
> Indeed.
> >Good luck in your spiritual pursuits. Yours
> >are based on blindness so that is the best I
> >can do for you right now. But I always wish
> >people success and mean it. Spiritual development
> >is inherently an individual personal effort and
> >that is the true source of individual human rights.
> >You are responsible for your mistakes. Good luck!
> Nicely put.
But did they help?
> Bernie
--
us
Rango Keshavan wrote:
>
> MoonOwl wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 03 May 1997 21:09:08 -0400, Rango Keshavan
> > <ra...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> >
>
> > You are saying that it is a very energizing, invigorating, and
> > spiritually cleansing on your part and yet you dont know rightly if it
> > is possible?
>
> it. I have heard of others who have, and of course countless stories
> through time that people have, so I "believe" it is possible. The
> sensation that I experience with the Sutra is catagorized as hopping,
> which is not levitation in the sense that we generally think of it.
> However, it isn't me making myself hop in the standard sense, either,
> but something else, which originates from something much deeper than
> my willing myself to hop.
My wife has the siddhis, and I never got beyond the regular TM (and
mostly I don't do it any more - so I'm no big devotee). Every once in a
while we used to meditate together, and then I'd lie down with my back
to her while she went on. Mostly it was just bounce-bounce-bounce.
Every once in a while, though, she'd be up for much longer than it would
be possible with just a bit of gymnastic ability. Scared the dickens
out of me.
I have great problems anyway with the idea that we "know" levitation is
impossible. We don't _know_ the answers to the two great questions -
why there is anything rather than nothing, and how life came to be; so
the idea that we _know_ much lesser things is silly. We assume, and get
by that way.
Keith Rhodes
Bernie
Richard Menninger <r...@winner.lc.lucent.com> wrote:
>Robert Cholette wrote:
>> And when I make mistakes (believe
>> me I make them) he is always able to forgive me. No matter what!
Jeesh, I would like to have someone like that and be allowed to
do whatever I want ;-) Does this Jehova guy have an e-mail
address?
>No, the process of genuine spiritual development
>is one of softening, actually, and that is what
>I have been doing.
What do you mean by a softening process, Richard?
>Relating directly to the moment without ever
>embellishing or supressing is a thorough but
>very genuine challenge.
Indeed.
>Good luck in your spiritual pursuits. Yours
>are based on blindness so that is the best I
>can do for you right now. But I always wish
>people success and mean it. Spiritual development
>is inherently an individual personal effort and
>that is the true source of individual human rights.
>You are responsible for your mistakes. Good luck!
Nicely put.
Bernie
Rango Keshavan
us wrote:
> My wife has the siddhis, and I never got beyond the regular TM (and
> mostly I don't do it any more - so I'm no big devotee). Every once in a
No one in TM is a devotee of anyone, just to clarify that comment
on this widely spewed thread.
> I have great problems anyway with the idea that we "know" levitation is
> impossible. We don't _know_ the answers to the two great questions -
> why there is anything rather than nothing, and how life came to be; so
> the idea that we _know_ much lesser things is silly. We assume, and get
> by that way.
In other words, we as a human race have proven the impossible to be
possible so many times, that we should learn by now to can that
word, eh?
Rango (Who not only feels that levitation is possible (but surely
doesn't know it), but also feels that breaking the speed of light
is also possible..., and quite probably for the same reasons...).
>
> Keith Rhodes
Brian Drummond
be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>Richard Menninger <r...@winner.lc.lucent.com> wrote:
>
>>No, the process of genuine spiritual development
>>is one of softening, actually, and that is what
>>I have been doing.
>
>What do you mean by a softening process, Richard?
>
since this thread is being cross-posted to alt.buddha.short.fat.guy ...
He's probably referring to the use of fabric softener in the Snake Cult's
brainwashing process. Without it, some of the original cult members had
problems with socks sticking to their head, due to static cling. But the
softening process eliminated this difficulty.
Only good quality branded fabric softener is used, the unbranded stuff
turned several cult members heretical...
- Brian
Betti Gefecht
In article <Pine.BSF.3.95q.97050...@zip1.ziplink.net>,
Judy Stein <jst...@zip1.ziplink.net> wrote:
> And while we're at it, the names of any of the usual anticult
> suspects on the letterhead would give me serious reservations--
> Singer, Lifton, Hassan, Knapp, Ehrlich, et al.
"the usual anticult suspects"
...sounds like a movie title. Where can I apply for a part?
Betti
--
Freimann/Gefecht
Willkommen in der Realitaet -- Welcome to Reality
Judy Stein
In article <33728B...@worldnet.att.net>,
"P.Fitz" <p.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Judy Stein wrote:
> >
> > In article <33765a13...@news.primenet.com>,
> > inF...@primenet.com (Rev. Dennis L Erlich) wrote:
> >
> > > >Judith Stein <jst...@zip1.ziplink.net>:
> > >
> > > >Certainly an *honest* crusade against genuinely destructive cults
> > > >would be a worthy cause.
> > >
> > > Which destructive cults would those be, Judith? And how would you
> > > advise conducting such a campaign?
> >
> > Hey, Rev, putting together such a campaign is not one of my
> > personal priorities, but I might contribute to one designed by
> > someone else if I thought it had integrity.
>
> Why don't you design it and make the rules instead of "following" someone
> else. Much easier to be a critic then a leader.
That's right, it's much easier. As I said, I have other
priorities than being a leader in this area. That doesn't
*prevent* me from contributing to one that looks like it has
integrity, or from making comments in response to a question.
Your list at the bottem
> of the post demonstrates that and then your "underwhelmed" comment
> completely (seems to) supports what my observation is.
Demonstrates what, that it's easier to be a critic than a leader?
I'm not sure what your point is here.
> > But your question raises an important point. I haven't yet seen
> > a really clear, well-thought-out definition of "destructive
> > cult." So constructing such a definition would probably be a
> > prerequisite; then we could begin to discuss which groups should
> > be included in the campaign and which should not.
>
> So, let's go on forever to see what a destructive group means to Judy.
> Let me guess, this goes on for quite awhile...you not agreeing to
> anything any of us "over here" have to say -- bring up all these numerous
> scholarly works that are to intimidate those of use that are ex-cult
> members into silence because we don't at all understand let alone know
> what we went through. Now where have I heard this all going on before?
I don't know, where? I didn't have any scholarly works in mind,
actually, nor do I have any intention of intimidating anybody
into silence.
But you don't appear to like the idea of spending any time
working on a good, clear, consistent definition. Do I take it
you're perfectly content to include in an anticult campaign
groups that are actually benign, just because it's too much
trouble to make the distinctions?
> > Hmm, another requirement, from my perspective, would be that the
> > campaign involve planners who are just as concerned about
> > potential infringement of human rights emanating from the
> > anticult side as the anticult side is concerned about
> > infringement of human rights instigated by cults. Couple of
> > seasoned folks from the ACLU might do the trick.
>
> Ya, right. ACLU isn't at all interested in what happened to me. I already
> checked. Apparently the Better Business Bureau is where I was to go. Or
> to do a lawsuit...and I'm just really rolling in the dough for something
> like that. <choke, gasp, sputter...>
Yes, that's exactly the point. For balance, doncha know? In my
observation, anticultists aren't the least bit concerned about
whether they may be trampling on other people's rights.
> > And while we're at it, the names of any of the usual anticult
> > suspects on the letterhead would give me serious reservations--
> > Singer, Lifton, Hassan, Knapp, Ehrlich, et al. I've been
> > distinctly underwhelmed, to say the least, by what I've seen of
> > their work.
>
> Minds on well add me to the list...it will get there eventually -- save
> yourself the trouble later on. And I don't mind being a part of that list
> -- at least they all seem to have questions about what goes on around
> them...
Fine, you're on. Certainly on the basis of the post I'm
responding to, you belong there.
There are questions, and then there are questions. In some cases
the questions are better asked of oneself than of what goes on
around one. (See below re "integrity.")
> > Like I say, I'd be looking for a campaign with integrity.
>
> est? Just so that I have an understanding of what you mean by
> "integrity". Because in est it means "follow my rules or else" out here
> in the real world it means who I am and I how I am to the world. Which is
> with integrity.
No, not est. I haven't a clue what you're attempting to get
across with your own definition ("I am and I am to the world with
integrity" doesn't exactly qualify as a definition of integrity),
but I'll give you mine in the context of an anticult campaign.
Integrity means excluding from participation those with a
financial and/or political interest in or personal agenda of
labeling as many groups as possible destructive cults. Integrity
means going to the trouble to make appropriate distinctions (see
above). Integrity means recognizing that there are VERY
difficult questions of freedom of belief and practice involved in
the anticult endeavor (see above re the ACLU).
Integrity means examining deeply one's own motivations to see
whether championing "psychological freedom" really means "freedom
to believe whatever you like as long as it doesn't conflict with
what I believe."
That's a start, at any rate.
P.Fitz
Judy Stein wrote:
>
> In article <33728B...@worldnet.att.net>,
> "P.Fitz" <p.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > Judy Stein wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <33765a13...@news.primenet.com>,
> > > inF...@primenet.com (Rev. Dennis L Erlich) wrote:
> > >
> > > > >Judith Stein <jst...@zip1.ziplink.net>:
> > > >
> > > > >Certainly an *honest* crusade against genuinely destructive cults
> > > > >would be a worthy cause.
> > > >
> > > > Which destructive cults would those be, Judith? And how would you
> > > > advise conducting such a campaign?
> > >
> > > Hey, Rev, putting together such a campaign is not one of my
> > > personal priorities, but I might contribute to one designed by
> > > someone else if I thought it had integrity.
> >
> > Why don't you design it and make the rules instead of "following" someone
> > else. Much easier to be a critic then a leader.
>
> That's right, it's much easier. As I said, I have other
> priorities than being a leader in this area. That doesn't
> *prevent* me from contributing to one that looks like it has
> integrity, or from making comments in response to a question.
But you would not continue contributing if it had no integrity? That means that
you will no longer post to anything I say right?
>
> Your list at the bottem
> > of the post demonstrates that and then your "underwhelmed" comment
> > completely (seems to) supports what my observation is.
>
> Demonstrates what, that it's easier to be a critic than a leader?
> I'm not sure what your point is here.
Yes. And I didn't expect you to understand. You would much rather critize. You
would much rather have someone else "stick their neck out" so that you could
come along with whatever arguements you have stacked up waiting. My point is
that for anyone to take up this challenge of yours would be a fool. You have
already in mind what you believe.
> > > But your question raises an important point. I haven't yet seen
> > > a really clear, well-thought-out definition of "destructive
> > > cult." So constructing such a definition would probably be a
> > > prerequisite; then we could begin to discuss which groups should
> > > be included in the campaign and which should not.
> >
> > So, let's go on forever to see what a destructive group means to Judy.
> > Let me guess, this goes on for quite awhile...you not agreeing to
> > anything any of us "over here" have to say -- bring up all these numerous
> > scholarly works that are to intimidate those of use that are ex-cult
> > members into silence because we don't at all understand let alone know
> > what we went through. Now where have I heard this all going on before?
>
> I don't know, where? I didn't have any scholarly works in mind,
> actually, nor do I have any intention of intimidating anybody
> into silence.
Bill Nye's side kick comes to mind here...
>
> But you don't appear to like the idea of spending any time
> working on a good, clear, consistent definition. Do I take it
> you're perfectly content to include in an anticult campaign
> groups that are actually benign, just because it's too much
> trouble to make the distinctions?
I don't? What you consider benign can be destructive to an individual. But you
are looking for group consensis. I'm not. And no, it's not too much trouble to
make distinctions -- it's just that you know full well it is fraught with
personal histories and stories, opinions, likes and dislikes, media circuses
and ivory tower academics. This process "distinction" could go on forever. With
me not ever satisfying your ideal integrity or your preconceived notion of
distinction.
>
> > > Hmm, another requirement, from my perspective, would be that the
> > > campaign involve planners who are just as concerned about
> > > potential infringement of human rights emanating from the
> > > anticult side as the anticult side is concerned about
> > > infringement of human rights instigated by cults. Couple of
> > > seasoned folks from the ACLU might do the trick.
> >
> > Ya, right. ACLU isn't at all interested in what happened to me. I already
> > checked. Apparently the Better Business Bureau is where I was to go. Or
> > to do a lawsuit...and I'm just really rolling in the dough for something
> > like that. <choke, gasp, sputter...>
>
> Yes, that's exactly the point. For balance, doncha know? In my
> observation, anticultists aren't the least bit concerned about
> whether they may be trampling on other people's rights.
Maybe you have been observing in the wrong places. I suspect that I'm what you
consider an anti-cultist. I'm actually a cult veteran. But you have a
preconceived notion of who I am and what I'm about. Because of that you have
dismissed me (see below). The ACLU is not interested in those that have had
their rights violated by a group or an individual that could be considered a
cult. That is much more defined by the laws and business world. Because there
were no chains in my imprisonment...I wasn't a victim of having my rights
violated. The ACLU has some rather questionable ways of looking at the world
from my point of view...
>
> > > And while we're at it, the names of any of the usual anticult
> > > suspects on the letterhead would give me serious reservations--
> > > Singer, Lifton, Hassan, Knapp, Ehrlich, et al. I've been
> > > distinctly underwhelmed, to say the least, by what I've seen of
> > > their work.
> >
> > Minds on well add me to the list...it will get there eventually -- save
> > yourself the trouble later on. And I don't mind being a part of that list
> > -- at least they all seem to have questions about what goes on around
> > them...
>
> Fine, you're on. Certainly on the basis of the post I'm
> responding to, you belong there.
Yes, I do belong there. I question what goes on around me, I care about what
has happened to someone that was involved in a cult, and above all -- I'm a
cult veteran.
>
> There are questions, and then there are questions. In some cases
> the questions are better asked of oneself than of what goes on
> around one. (See below re "integrity.")
Nope, not always. When you start only looking at yourself (I threw my mirror
out long ago) then you lose perspective on what is really happening in the
world. Integrity is not a self reflection mode of operation -- it involves
being humane and in the world.
>
> > > Like I say, I'd be looking for a campaign with integrity.
> >
> > est? Just so that I have an understanding of what you mean by
> > "integrity". Because in est it means "follow my rules or else" out here
> > in the real world it means who I am and I how I am to the world. Which is
> > with integrity.
>
> No, not est. I haven't a clue what you're attempting to get
> across with your own definition ("I am and I am to the world with
> integrity" doesn't exactly qualify as a definition of integrity),
> but I'll give you mine in the context of an anticult campaign.
Yes, est. Because who I am is integrity. How I interact in the world is
integrity. You don't know me, so you wouldn't be able to go -- yes, she is that
way. Oh, I'm not in any anticult campaign so you may want to just answer that
one to someone else, okay? I'm not anti-cult. And I think you would have
figured that out. Cults have every right to be here in this world...what isn't
right is how individuals can be treated. That is why you will never get a list
of destructive cults. It is individual in nature, not the group IMO.
>
> Integrity means excluding from participation those with a
> financial and/or political interest in or personal agenda of
> labeling as many groups as possible destructive cults. Integrity
> means going to the trouble to make appropriate distinctions (see
> above). Integrity means recognizing that there are VERY
> difficult questions of freedom of belief and practice involved in
> the anticult endeavor (see above re the ACLU).
My freedom of belief was crushed in my cultic involvement. But the ACLU would
not see it that way. I was stupid and ignorant (not) is how you and the ACLU
would see it. And because you can easily come up with your definition of
integrity I would expect you to also come up with the list of destructive cults
and all that you are presenting to the newsgroup but are much more interested
in being a critic. Oh, I'm not in the business of labeling groups as cults, I
have no financial interest in this matter and definately no political interest.
But you would disagree with me on all points. Stalemate.
>
> Integrity means examining deeply one's own motivations to see
> whether championing "psychological freedom" really means "freedom
> to believe whatever you like as long as it doesn't conflict with
> what I believe."
I'm not into defining integrity. I know what it means to me. I'm not sure I
really care what it "might" mean to you. You have a preconceived notion of what
I'm about...that is fine with me. I'm just pointing that out. So, to continue
on this discussion would do neither of us any good, right? So, any takers to
pick this up with Judy?
>
> That's a start, at any rate.
And once again it is your rules that now one could possibly follow and you know
it. You dismissed me right off the bat...how many others are on your A-list?
tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
>> >I personally have never seen anyone levitate, nor have I experienced
>> >it. I have heard of others who have, and of course countless stories
>> >through time that people have, so I "believe" it is possible.
Yeah, I "believe" it too, just like I "believe" in the extremely
worthwhile and productive nature of your "screwy" religion.
tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
>> My wife has the siddhis
My sympathies. I recommend masturbation as an alternative outlet.
>> I have great problems anyway with the idea that we "know" levitation is
>> impossible.
It's not that difficult a concept to understand. What's your problem?
We don't _know_ the answers to the two great questions -
>> why there is anything rather than nothing, and how life came to be; so
>> the idea that we _know_ much lesser things is silly. We assume, and get
>> by that way.
I see your point. Since we can't possibly answer those two questions, no
other answers count for anything worthwhile. That's why you never count
your change at the grocery store, and you sign anything that's put in front
of you without reading it, right?
>Rango (Who not only feels that levitation is possible (but surely
>doesn't know it), but also feels that breaking the speed of light
>is also possible..., and quite probably for the same reasons...).
My original point stands: that anyone whose thinking is so shallow
has no basis for criticizing anyone else's religion. Yours is clearly
just as whacked.
David
made a frog levitate by subjecting it to some sort of magnetic field.
Has anybody heard anything about this?
Prabbit
David <Mill...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>Someone mentioned to me that very recently, scientists have actually
>made a frog levitate by subjecting it to some sort of magnetic field.
>Has anybody heard anything about this?
Yeah -- I saw it on the news. It was in the UK and they had the frog
floating in the middle of a cylinder-shaped thing which was
presumeably kicking out an electromagnetic field. Didn't look too
portable, especially if you wanted one big enough to float humans.
-P
mac...@ionet.net
Frogs levitate by jumping on their back legs. Humans can do
this too, but not as well as frogs. Toci
P.Fitz
sk...@comcat.com wrote:
>
> >Judy Stein wrote:
>
> > But you don't appear to like the idea of spending any time
> > working on a good, clear, consistent definition. Do I take it
> > you're perfectly content to include in an anticult campaign
> > groups that are actually benign, just because it's too much
> > trouble to make the distinctions?
>
> of finding out which cults are dangerous and which are benign? Are you
> going to send unbiased hand-picked ppl to go undercover into every
> single cult to determine whether they are destructive or not. Or are you
> suggesting a group be formed to read everything that's ever been written
> about every cult and then try and make an objective opinion? Or will
> folks coming out of cults be the ppl you listen to as to whether their
> cult was benign or dangerous? And how will you assess their experiences?
>
> I think that your statement that "an *honest* crusade against genuinely
> destructive cults" is your way of saying that people who look for
> support after leaving a cult may not in fact need that support unless
> you or a group of experts deem that their cult was destructive. There is
> no way that any group of people will ever be able to come to such a
> black or white agreement.
>
> I think we need to listen to the 'individual,' not start some academic
> investigation into what you might consider cults that are "geniunely
> destructive" In my opinion, if an individual has had a difficult time in
> a closed cultic type group, their experience should be listened to,
> acknowledged and supported. Period.
>
> What I read in your suggestion is that if an individual comes out of
> (that they consider to be) a damaging cultic experience, and you don't
> find their group on your special list of destructive cults, that person
> doesn't deserve attention or support.
>
> In my book, anyone who has felt hurt in a cultic situation deserves to
> be heard and supported.
>
> Laurenn
Laurenn --
Amen and thank you for a wonderful reply.
And for bringing this newsgroup *back* on topic to boot -- pam
tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
In article <3376C4...@netcomuk.co.uk> David <Mill...@netcomuk.co.uk> writes:
>Someone mentioned to me that very recently, scientists have actually
>made a frog levitate by subjecting it to some sort of magnetic field.
>Has anybody heard anything about this?
No, they subjected it to TM and the frog only thought he was levitating.
wi...@xs4all.nl
You may like to read my paper:"On the psychological mechanisms in
spiritual movements"
--
Michael
http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/psymove.html
dchannon
Richard Menninger wrote:> ...
> > >No, the process of genuine spiritual development
> > >is one of softening, actually, and that is what
> > >I have been doing.
>
> > >embellishing or supressing is a thorough but
> > >very genuine challenge.
>
> > Indeed.
>
> > >Good luck in your spiritual pursuits. Yours
> > >are based on blindness so that is the best I
> > >can do for you right now. But I always wish
> > >people success and mean it. Spiritual development
> > >is inherently an individual personal effort and
> > >that is the true source of individual human rights.
> > >You are responsible for your mistakes. Good luck!
>
> > Nicely put.
>
and yet a diamond is so hard.
debbie.
Richard Menninger
dchannon wrote:
> Richard Menninger wrote:
> > Bernie wrote:
> > > Richard Menninger <r...@winner.lc.lucent.com> wrote:
> > ...
> > > >No, the process of genuine spiritual development
> > > >is one of softening, actually, and that is what
> > > >I have been doing.
> > > What do you mean by a softening process, Richard?
[a lot of my babble on that: deleted]
> and yet a diamond is so hard.
> debbie.
The indestructability that diamond refers to
is your wakefulness. You become locked in the
moment. Now you still have a lot to work out
and those who start the diamond way are not
always locked in the moment, but you spend much
time there and you come back readily. Some of
the bubbles of the magic of the moment may
catch you off guard and lead you to a moment of
rash suppressing or embellishing (I certainly
represent that remark!). But coming back is
quick. You just momentarily rose up and surfed
a wave instead of letting happen on the surface
without affecting you. But being locked in the
moment is now a good expression of your existence
and it becomes more and more thorough. The
fire (of awareness) has caught and is fully
raging its way through ego-mind. There is a lot
to work on and the methods change as new things
now become the right tool to bring the hidden
nuggets into the fire. Those new things are
the practices of the diamond way.
But the sense of personal softness deepens
on that way. You become much more sensitive,
tender.
Take care of yourself
Dick
tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
In article <33797E...@xs4all.nl> wi...@xs4all.nl writes:
>You may like to read my paper:"On the psychological mechanisms in
>spiritual movements"
Hope springs eternal, eh?
Garry Scarff
Wow!! <sounds of a million people clapping & one ex-Cramming Officer
beating a child with a cane>
STEVE FISHMAN
Rev. Dennis L Erlich wrote in article <337c804...@news.primenet.com>..
..
>>us <krh...@asde.com>:
> Please take your levitation talk out of alt.support.EX(as in no
>longer)-cult.
> Thanks in advance.
You are one to talk. You don't support ex-cult members, you trash them.
You should be ashamed of the way you talked to and about Garry Scarff
during his first time on IRC #scientology when he was just trying to come
on board and make friends.
Leave Garry Scarff alone, you pock-marked, slimy, ugly, black-hearted,
incestuous mother fucker.
> Be well,
Drop Dead, Dennis. May all your body thetans cause you a lingering case of
terminal cancer until the end of time.
> Dennis
> -= the inFormer =-
Steve Fishman
B.E. Lantz
THIS SO UTTERLY IGNORANT AND STUPID HOW DO PUT ONE FOOT IN FRONT OF
THE OTHER?
Bernie
Judy Stein <jst...@zip1.ziplink.net> wrote:
>> > In article <33765a13...@news.primenet.com>, inF...@primenet.com (Rev. Dennis L Erlich) wrote:
>> > > >Judith Stein <jst...@zip1.ziplink.net>:
[snip]
>But you don't appear to like the idea of spending any time
>working on a good, clear, consistent definition. Do I take it
>you're perfectly content to include in an anticult campaign
>groups that are actually benign, just because it's too much
>trouble to make the distinctions?
>> > Hmm, another requirement, from my perspective, would be that the
>> > campaign involve planners who are just as concerned about
>> > potential infringement of human rights emanating from the
>> > anticult side as the anticult side is concerned about
>> > infringement of human rights instigated by cults. Couple of
>> > seasoned folks from the ACLU might do the trick.
Right on! That's the most basic point in this discussion. An
independent body would need to be as critical towards the
anticults as towards the cults when either abuse individual
rights.
>> > And while we're at it, the names of any of the usual anticult
>> > suspects on the letterhead would give me serious reservations--
>> > Singer, Lifton, Hassan, Knapp, Ehrlich, et al. I've been
>> > distinctly underwhelmed, to say the least, by what I've seen of
>> > their work.
>> Minds on well add me to the list...it will get there eventually -- save
>> yourself the trouble later on. And I don't mind being a part of that list
>> -- at least they all seem to have questions about what goes on around
>> them...
>Fine, you're on. Certainly on the basis of the post I'm
>responding to, you belong there.
And you are not wrong on this one, Judy.
>Integrity means excluding from participation those with a
>financial and/or political interest in or personal agenda of
>labeling as many groups as possible destructive cults.
Exactly, and this is an increasing trend among independent
observers and independent bodies who have found the anticults to
be no better than the cults.
>Integrity
>means going to the trouble to make appropriate distinctions (see
>above). Integrity means recognizing that there are VERY
>difficult questions of freedom of belief and practice involved in
>the anticult endeavor (see above re the ACLU).
>Integrity means examining deeply one's own motivations to see
>whether championing "psychological freedom" really means "freedom
>to believe whatever you like as long as it doesn't conflict with
>what I believe."
>That's a start, at any rate.
And an excellent basis.
Thanks Judy. I cross posted my two answers to you in
alt.religion.scientology as well, since this thread originated
there, and his highly interesting in the light of lengthy
discussion that have been carried on there.
Bernie
Bernie
Judy Stein <jst...@zip1.ziplink.net> wrote:
>In article <33750A...@worldnet.att.net>, "P.Fitz" <p.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> Judy Stein wrote:
>> > In article <33728B...@worldnet.att.net>, "P.Fitz" <p.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> > > Judy Stein wrote:
[snip]
>> What you consider benign can be destructive to an individual.
>I'm not sure you know what I consider benign, first. Second, all
>kinds of things that are inherently benign can be destructive to
>an individual who overdoes them. That's one of the distinctions
>I think need to be made.
>> But you are looking for group consensis. I'm not.
>Well, we were talking about a *campaign*, which I assume would be
>a group campaign, not an individual campaign. To have a group
>campaign, you pretty much have to have *some* kind of consensus,
>wouldn't you say?
[snip]
>> The ACLU is not interested in those that have had their rights
>> violated by a group or an individual that could be considered a
>> cult. That is much more defined by the laws and business world.
>> Because there were no chains in my imprisonment...I wasn't a
>> victim of having my rights violated. The ACLU has some rather
>> questionable ways of looking at the world from my point of view...
The ACLU certainly knows how to balance and determine what is a
violation of one's right and what isn't. That's their main job,
and they certainly have excelled in it so far, IMO.
>Yes, again, that was my point, to get some balance in the mix.
>(I'm not sure the ACLU is not interested in violation of the
>rights of those who have joined cults. But the ACLU usually does
>an excellent job of examining all sides of a human rights issue;
>that's pretty much its raison d'etre.)
Oops, that's what I just said (haven't looked at your answer
before I made mine, I swear). We seem to be of the same mind :-)
>> That is why you will never get a list of destructive cults. It is
>> individual in nature, not the group IMO.
>Interesting formulation. I'm not sure I totally agree, but we
>can discuss it if you like.
The cult mindset is certainly an individual matter. It can be
found in cults and anticults, but also within mainstream
religion, or no-religionists at all.
>The difficulty I see is how one
>determines the responsibility for a person being harmed by
>membership in a cult. From some of the stories I've read, it
>looks to me as though at least in some cases the individual needs
>to take at least some of the responsibility.
That's the key issue, and one I have been arguing my lungs out.
To admit that they have at least *some* responsibility would run
counter to the central mind-control/hypnosis argument. They
can't admit that, and to this day, not one of the anticultist
did. If you bring up this point, they will say that you are
"blaming the victim". They just seem unable to make the
distinction between the two concepts.
>As to my being a critic, on the other
>hand, I *have* seen a number of presentations of how to distinguish
>between destructive cults and benign ones, and I have found all
>of them flawed in one respect or another. I'm not sure why you
>don't think I have the right to express my opinions about this.
Anticults proponents are afraid of contradictory opinions. It
runs counter the indoctrination they are trying to install. In
addition of deciding what is a cult and what isn't, they would
like to rule as well who has the right to express their opinions
and who hasn't. The principle is simple: any opinions are
allowed..., as long as it doesn't contradict what they are
saying.
>> Oh, I'm not in the business of labeling groups as cults, I have
>> no financial interest in this matter and definately no political
>> interest. But you would disagree with me on all points.
>> Stalemate.
>You haven't really presented much in the way of points yet in
>terms of the issue as it was originally raised. Of those you
>have made, I've agreed with you on some, disagreed with you on
>others, and expressed uncertainty about still others (see above).
>So it seems you've made yet another assumption based on your
>preconceived idea of who I am.
Bernie
P.Fitz
Bernie wrote:
newsgroups deleted
Bernie,
Just to set the record straight -- I'm not one of those anti-cultists. I
know what I went through. I don't agree with some of what those that
campaign against cults do and/or say. I'm not going to tell you that you
have no right to believe what you do -- but I *do* not like myself being
lumped in with a group of people just because I post what happened to me,
I point out doublethink/speak, jargon, misconceptions and the like. I do
not like being told that I don't accept responsibility for what I did
because I'm against cults and I blame the organization and person I was
involved with. You don't know me at all -- trust me, I've accepted *way*
too much personal responsiblity for what happened to me. The person that
abused the technology on me doesn't think that he has done one thing
wrong and the organization (no longer in business under the name when I
was involved) doesn't seem to think that they did anything wrong. I'm not
sitting here in my misery -- as some would like to project on the
newsgroups -- I have a life and I have moved on. But the cult and
relationship have left their scars on me (like other things that have
happened in my life) and how I choose to deal with this is my business.
Maybe someone will learn from what I do tell on the newsgroup -- I don't
expect that to be something you would be intersted in, but then maybe you
would be. That's up to you -- not for me to decide, how is Judy or Bernie
going to respond. God knows if that is what I would have to consider
every time that I post I would never post.
>
> Judy Stein <jst...@zip1.ziplink.net> wrote:
> >> > In article <33765a13...@news.primenet.com>, inF...@primenet.com (Rev. Dennis L Erlich) wrote:
> >> > > >Judith Stein <jst...@zip1.ziplink.net>:
>
> [snip]
>
> >But you don't appear to like the idea of spending any time
> >working on a good, clear, consistent definition. Do I take it
> >you're perfectly content to include in an anticult campaign
> >groups that are actually benign, just because it's too much
> >trouble to make the distinctions?
>
> >> > Hmm, another requirement, from my perspective, would be that the
> >> > campaign involve planners who are just as concerned about
> >> > potential infringement of human rights emanating from the
> >> > anticult side as the anticult side is concerned about
> >> > infringement of human rights instigated by cults. Couple of
> >> > seasoned folks from the ACLU might do the trick.
>
> Right on! That's the most basic point in this discussion. An
> independent body would need to be as critical towards the
> anticults as towards the cults when either abuse individual
> rights.
>
> >> > And while we're at it, the names of any of the usual anticult
> >> > suspects on the letterhead would give me serious reservations--
> >> > Singer, Lifton, Hassan, Knapp, Ehrlich, et al. I've been
> >> > distinctly underwhelmed, to say the least, by what I've seen of
> >> > their work.
>
> >> Minds on well add me to the list...it will get there eventually -- save
> >> yourself the trouble later on. And I don't mind being a part of that list
> >> -- at least they all seem to have questions about what goes on around
> >> them...
>
> >Fine, you're on. Certainly on the basis of the post I'm
> >responding to, you belong there.
>
> And you are not wrong on this one, Judy.
>
> >Integrity means excluding from participation those with a
> >financial and/or political interest in or personal agenda of
> >labeling as many groups as possible destructive cults.
>
> Exactly, and this is an increasing trend among independent
> observers and independent bodies who have found the anticults to
> be no better than the cults.
>
> >Integrity
> >means going to the trouble to make appropriate distinctions (see
> >above). Integrity means recognizing that there are VERY
> >difficult questions of freedom of belief and practice involved in
> >the anticult endeavor (see above re the ACLU).
>
> >Integrity means examining deeply one's own motivations to see
> >whether championing "psychological freedom" really means "freedom
> >to believe whatever you like as long as it doesn't conflict with
> >what I believe."
>
> >That's a start, at any rate.
>
P.Fitz
Bernie wrote:
newsgroups altered to reflect subject matter relevent to the appropriate
newsgroup IMO.
>
> Judy Stein <jst...@zip1.ziplink.net> wrote:
> >In article <33750A...@worldnet.att.net>, "P.Fitz" <p.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >> Judy Stein wrote:
> >> > In article <33728B...@worldnet.att.net>, "P.Fitz" <p.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >> > > Judy Stein wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> What you consider benign can be destructive to an individual.
>
> >I'm not sure you know what I consider benign, first. Second, all
> >kinds of things that are inherently benign can be destructive to
> >an individual who overdoes them. That's one of the distinctions
> >I think need to be made.
Well, since dear Bernie decided to point this all out...I did not over
do my cult involvement. Granted I should have gotten the hell out of my
marriage before it began, but look, if you are told that you can't keep a
relationship together and that you don't even do something as basic as
keeping your word (remember those marriage vows?) then you might tend to
stick with something a bit longer then sanity would dictate. Lets not
forget that I had some really clear isolation techniques pulled on me and
by the time the light bulb went off in my head that *something* wasn't
quite right...well, gee, no money, no where to go and I definately wasn't
go to my best friends and say "I am on a regular basis getting raped and
getting the crap beat out of me, save me" That is *not* the type of
person that I am...so, I didn't overdo -- my then spouse sure did though.
And I'm not the one that created the environment that was no longer
benign -- but then I guess I'm not accepting responsibility for what
happened to me...and I'm not too sure I should given what I know about
the person that used me as a punching bag.
>
> >> But you are looking for group consensis. I'm not.
>
> >Well, we were talking about a *campaign*, which I assume would be
> >a group campaign, not an individual campaign. To have a group
> >campaign, you pretty much have to have *some* kind of consensus,
> >wouldn't you say?
>
> [snip]
>
> >> The ACLU is not interested in those that have had their rights
> >> violated by a group or an individual that could be considered a
> >> cult. That is much more defined by the laws and business world.
> >> Because there were no chains in my imprisonment...I wasn't a
> >> victim of having my rights violated. The ACLU has some rather
> >> questionable ways of looking at the world from my point of view...
>
> The ACLU certainly knows how to balance and determine what is a
> violation of one's right and what isn't. That's their main job,
> and they certainly have excelled in it so far, IMO.
And Bernie, you have never been one to be short on opinions. As I appear
to not be short on my own life experience in a cult and a relationship
that was a cult. The ACLU is not interested in what I went through, trust
me, I called. As far as they were concerned the fact that the "business"
that I was complaining about was a "business" then I need to take my
grievence to the courts and through the Better Business Bureau. Which
interestingly enough the BBB was *very* familiar with this particular
group and their business practices...enough so that I was "coached" on
what I would be told -- interestingly enough was right on the money --
and I was able to at least have some idea of what to say to this
corporation. Because I was not physically locked up, denied water or
basic survival means, the ACLU wasn't interested. And anyone that knows
anything about ACLU will also be aware that these are severly
understaffed and underfunded organizations -- so *even* if I had a case I
would not have been represented due to lack of funding -- remember, we
*are* talking cults here...they seem to have unlimited funding, gee, I
really don't know how that could all be if they are just this benign
religion or a company that *only* offers self improvement courses
<sarcasm, since that gets missed on so many of my posts...>
>
> >Yes, again, that was my point, to get some balance in the mix.
> >(I'm not sure the ACLU is not interested in violation of the
> >rights of those who have joined cults. But the ACLU usually does
> >an excellent job of examining all sides of a human rights issue;
> >that's pretty much its raison d'etre.)
>
> Oops, that's what I just said (haven't looked at your answer
> before I made mine, I swear). We seem to be of the same mind :-)
>
> >> That is why you will never get a list of destructive cults. It is
> >> individual in nature, not the group IMO.
>
> >> Oh, I'm not in the business of labeling groups as cults, I have
> >> no financial interest in this matter and definately no political
> >> interest. But you would disagree with me on all points.
> >> Stalemate.
>