Attack on Sri Chinmoy is totally unjustified
Sue
Sri_Chinmoy_Information
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sri_Chinmoy_Information
The people who set up this group were once disciples of Spiritual
Leader Sri Chinmoy, but many of them were expelled from the group. The
founders of the group say the chat is not intended to damage the Sri
Chinmoy name or the Sri Chinmoy center. Although the founders say that
most of the people who participate in this chat still feel positively
about the Sri Chinmoy center in general and struggle constantly not to
make this group overtly "negative" towards the Sri Chinmoy center, a
large majority of the 2,100 postings to date have attacked Sri Chinmoy
with such venom, that occasionally, people who have a more balanced
view of Sri Chinmoy, have felt compelled to give readers the benefit
of their more positive feelings.
However, recently, the founders of this Board have changed its status
from "unmoderated" to "moderated". This change was, no doubt, prompted
because the founders did not like any positive views about Sri Chinmoy
being posted on this Board, and recent messages in support of Sri
Chinmoy have been excluded. In particular, one critic of Sri Chinmoy,
Anne Carlton, who has also posted under the names of Phulela, Betty,
Lady Liberty, and Penny 1300, changed her testimony from that given in
Message 73 dated Oct 29, 2001, so that it presented a more damaging
case against Sri Chinmoy (see Message 1806 dated Mar 18, 2002). I had
been questioning Anne about why she did this, but Anne remained silent
on this issue, and the founders saw fit to exclude any further
postings that questioned Anne on this issue.
In my view, without the postings of people who support Sri Chinmoy,
the Board has totally lost all its credibility. The Board is clearly
in violation of the rules of Yahoo, which prevent its Groups from
being used to defame or harass an individual or group of people. Even
a committed anti-cult person would reject the views expressed by the
founders of this Board because of the extreme, almost violent way in
which their views are put forward. The attitude shown towards the
people who have posted messages in support of Sri Chinmoy has been so
intimidating and disgraceful that Sri Chinmoy would have now gained
the support of all reasonable people who have read their postings. In
my opinion, it is a real pity that a fanatical group of people has
been permitted to use the facilities of Yahoo Groups to continually
denigrate and harass Sri Chinmoy.
Even if the allegations made on this Board were true (which they are
definitely not), two or three weeks discussion would have sufficed. To
keep repeating the allegations week after week amounts to harassment,
and even a gentle soul like Sri Chinmoy should surely take immediate
legal steps to stop this totally unjustified public denigration of his
life.
Sue D
jody
[snip]
> Even if the allegations made on this Board were true (which they are
> definitely not), two or three weeks discussion would have sufficed. To
> keep repeating the allegations week after week amounts to harassment,
> and even a gentle soul like Sri Chinmoy should surely take immediate
> legal steps to stop this totally unjustified public denigration of his
> life.
>
> Sue D
Spoken like a true(ly brainwashed) devotee.
Sue
If I am brainwashed, my brain has been washed clean and I can now see
more clearly than previously. I am a lot happier than I was before I
came into contact with Sri Chinmoy, and I now have a strong faith and
belief in the Supreme, something that was lacking before. If this is
the effect of brainwashing, then I am glad I have been brainwashed.
Sri Chinmoy does not try to hold onto people who have lost faith in
him, so this is hardly the sign of a Guru who wants to brainwash his
disciples. It is true that Sri Chinmoy has expelled some students who
were breaking his rules and not making progress. This shows that he
keeps in his group only true seekers of enlightenment, and these are
the students who are prepared to make the sacrifices necessary for
true spiritual advancement. Again, this is not consistent with the
claim that Sri Chinmoy brainwashes his students.
All students who enroll in courses know there is a chance of failure,
particularly if they do not apply themselves diligently, or if they
break the rules. It seems that the students who are making the
allegations on the Yahoo Board are mainly those who have been
expelled from the group. It is understandable they feel disappointed,
but it shows a lack of maturity to be angry with Sri Chinmoy and blame
him for their failure. Now consider the case of Professors at
Universities. After many years of teaching, they may have been obliged
to fail hundreds of students, but these students seldom group together
on internet and have a hate session against their Professors and try
to defame them. Instead, they look at their own deficiencies and get
on with their chosen careers.
Over the years, Sri Chinmoy has been loved and respected by thousands
of his students, who have often reported how he inspired them.
However, there is only a small handful of people on the Yahoo Board
who are complaining about Sri Chinmoy, and they are relying on the
negative testimonies of about three former disciples. That is why I
decided I would look at one of these testimonies and ask some further
questions about it. In Anne Carlton's testimony, she alleges that she
had an affair with Sri Chinmoy, but I have concluded that Sri Chinmoy
was probably never intimate with Anne, and that he did the correct
thing by rejecting Anne's advances towards him and subsequently
expelling her from the group.
All my key postings about Anne Carlton's testimonies have since been
deleted from the Board (for example, my messages 2065, 2050, 2036,
2005, 2004, 1954, 1893, 1890, 1884, 1883, 1877, 1823, 1821, and 1816
are no longer on the Board). Therefore, it is clear that the new
moderators of the Board will not tolerate anyone questioning Anne
about her alleged affair with Sri Chinmoy because such questions are
likely to indicate that no affair ever took place. For example, in
Message 2050 dated Mar 23, 2002, I pointed out that, in Message 73,
Anne said that although she was shocked, she was happy not angry, and
she thought the idea of having an affair with Sri Chinmoy was cool.
Anne said that she started having a strong attraction for Sri Chinmoy
and even wrote him a letter to express her desire for him. However,
later, in Message 1806, Anne said that she agreed to have an affair
with Sri Chinmoy because, after 10 years of adoration, she could not
even consider displeasing or disobeying him in a seemingly
compassionate request. The fact that Anne was prepared to alter her
testimony in this way illustrates to me that the alleged affair was
mere fiction in the first place, and that the alterations were made in
an effort to say that she was, in effect, coerced into an affair with
Sri Chinmoy. The most likely scenario is that Anne wanted to have an
affair with Sri Chinmoy, but he would not let this happen because he
is an Avatar who strongly believes in celibacy.
Sue D
root
S# If I am brainwashed, my brain has been washed clean and I can now see
S# more clearly than previously. I am a lot happier than I was before I
S# came into contact with Sri Chinmoy, and I now have a strong faith and
S# belief in the Supreme, something that was lacking before. If this is
S# the effect of brainwashing, then I am glad I have been brainwashed.
S# Sri Chinmoy does not try to hold onto people who have lost faith in
S# him, so this is hardly the sign of a Guru who wants to brainwash his
S# disciples. It is true that Sri Chinmoy has expelled some students who
S# were breaking his rules and not making progress. This shows that he
S# keeps in his group only true seekers of enlightenment, and these are
S# the students who are prepared to make the sacrifices necessary for
S# true spiritual advancement. Again, this is not consistent with the
S# claim that Sri Chinmoy brainwashes his students.
To us non true believers, however, the above
sounds like you have been brainwashed (I prefer
the word conditioned). If it works for you
though, go for it. I personally think you could
have gotten the same results out of a few change
sessions with a good guide. And you still haven't
let go of Sue, so whatever has happened to you
seems to have been ineffective.
...
S# Over the years, Sri Chinmoy has been loved and respected by thousands
S# of his students, who have often reported how he inspired them.
The same holds true for the Pope and Ayatollah
Khameini and Hyung Sun Moon. When Stalin died
there were people who tore their hair and wept. I
note that inspiration usually comes from within
the inspired.
S# However, there is only a small handful of people on the Yahoo Board
S# who are complaining about Sri Chinmoy, and they are relying on the
S# negative testimonies of about three former disciples. That is why I
S# decided I would look at one of these testimonies and ask some further
S# questions about it. In Anne Carlton's testimony, she alleges that she
S# had an affair with Sri Chinmoy, but I have concluded that Sri Chinmoy
S# was probably never intimate with Anne, and that he did the correct
S# thing by rejecting Anne's advances towards him and subsequently
S# expelling her from the group.
And you are welcome to your opinion. Why does
it matter to you what other people believe or
think? Can an avatar take care of etself?
...
S# affair with Sri Chinmoy, but he would not let this happen because he
S# is an Avatar who strongly believes in celibacy.
As you say above, this is your belief. Whether
it is truth or not is unknown to you or me.
S# Sue D
I am not commenting on Sri Chinmoy, I know him not. I am commenting
on what you have written here, and what it says about you.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Sue
> S# affair with Sri Chinmoy, but he would not let this happen because he
> S# is an Avatar who strongly believes in celibacy.
>
> As you say above, this is your belief. Whether
> it is truth or not is unknown to you or me.
It is very easy to say that a Guru has not been celibate, but people
who believe this without further enquiry are somewhat naive. In the
case of Sri Chinmoy, I think people should take into account that it
is mainly ex-disciples who have been expelled from the group who have
alleged that Sri Chinmoy has had affairs with his disciples. It is
obvious these people have an axe to grind and cannot be regarded as
reliable witnesses.
The Yahoo Sri Chinmoy Information group started off as an unmoderated
group and the founders of the group appeared to welcome contributions
from people who supported Sri Chinmoy. However, it soon became
apparent that positive comments about Sri Chinmoy were not at all
welcome, and group members suggested that anyone who made such
contributions would be looked on most unfavorably by Sri Chinmoy. In
Message 2057, one of the founders of the group, who calls herself
"btranscend", suggested that, by throwing some doubt on the veracity
of the testimonials, I was "covering up the crime" and acting as an
"accomplice after the fact", just as someone who drives the car away
in a bank heist is aiding and abetting the thief. She said "karmically
this is not a cool thing, why would you want to do that?" She
concluded that "many of the church officials who covered up the
actions of the priests who have been sexually molesting children are
also under severe scrutiny and may have to answer to charges."
Now this sort of intimidation merely serves to prove that it is most
unlikely that the testimonials alleging sexual misconduct by Sri
Chinmoy are true. The main aim of the founders of the Board has been
to actively discourage positive comments about Sri Chinmoy, and even
to delete some of these messages from the Board. If the ex-disciples
are so certain that the testimonials are true, why would they delete
most of my messages and attempt to intimidate people who cast doubt on
the truthfulness of the testimonies. The change from an unmoderated
Board to a moderated one, and the censorship of most of my postings,
is a further indication that the people making the allegations have
something to hide because they dislike being questioned in any way.
This is a very strong indication that the allegations are likely to be
untrue.
One of the "star witnesses", Anne Carlton, appeared to post her
messages to the Board from a computer at the United Nations (IP
157.150.194.10). When I asked Anne whether the United Nations was
somehow behind the allegations, "btranscend" advised Anne not to
answer the question. Despite this advice, Anne said that the United
Nations was not involved with the group. However, several times,
Anne's friends advised her not to answer my questions.
In Message 1878 dated Mar 19, 2002, Anne Carlton said that Sri Chinmoy
was not circumcised. However, my review of the literature indicates
that it is most likely that for cultural and religious reasons, an
Avatar would be circumcised. An Avatar regards circumcision as a
sacrifice of "sinful" human enjoyment in this earthly life for the
sake of holiness in the afterlife.
One of the main internet supporters of Sri Chinmoy over the years has
been a person who posts under the name of outca...@aol.com (and
latterly Peace Courier and Peace Diplomat). Outcast 125 has had
several confrontations on newsgroups with a person known as
jsan...@aol.com. Jsananda (Jill Siegel) is a persistent critic of Sri
Chinmoy, and she has also posted a lot of messages to newsgroups
advertising a hotel built among Amazon treetops:
http://www.ariauamazontowers.com. In Message 1968 dated Mar 21, 2002
(on the Yahoo Sri Chinmoy Information Group), ssteve576 refers to
these confrontations when he suggested that I had been "battling it
out with btranscend for years". However, I have made it clear that I
have never posted under the name of "outcast", and I haven't
previously had confrontations with "btranscend" either, so the
information given on this Yahoo Board is very unreliable. It is
interesting to note that, it is only quite recently that the anti-Sri
Chinmoy people have alleged that Sri Chinmoy has had affairs with
three of his disciples. But in Message 73 dated Oct 29, 2001, Anne
Carlton said that she had an affair with Sri Chinmoy in 1991. If the
allegations about these affairs was true, I am sure they would have
surfaced a long time ago in the exchanges between Jsananda and
Outcast125, but nothing was said about these alleged affairs during
these exchanges in 1999 and earlier.
In Message 2131 dated Mar 28, 2002, "btranscend" said that "if you
know of an act of censorship you believe is deserving of a Jefferson
Muzzle, the Center encourages and invites your nomination." I intend
to nominate the people behind the Yahoo Sri Chinmoy Information Group
for this award due to their current censorship of information that may
be favourable to Sri Chinmoy's case. I hope that any reporter who is
considering writing an article on the alleged allegations against Sri
Chinmoy will, in the interests of balanced reporting, take into
account the points I have made above.
Incidentally, I am not "conditioned" or "brainwashed", but I feel
compelled to record my personal opinion on these matters because the
people posting to the Yahoo Board have completely forgotten all the
great things Sri Chinmoy did for them while they were his disciples. I
would suggest that the founders of the Yahoo Board should add to their
recently published posting rules: "In accordance with Yahoo Rules,
please do not post any messages that could be harmful to Sri Chinmoy
or members of his group."
I would like to make it clear that I am only expressing my personal
opinion, and that I have not been in contact with Sri Chinmoy over
these matters and I do not speak on his behalf or any of the Sri
Chinmoy centers.
Sue D
Anne Carlton
hide. I have shared my experiences in the Sri Chinmoy Center because
I feel that others will benefit from what I have learned. Read my
full story on http://aboutsrichinmoy.com. This is not an attack on
Sri Chinmoy but an offering of truth. False masters abound in the
spiritual life and the signs are clear. When your master tells you
that you will be purified and make tremendous progress if you submit
to him sexually, you can be sure that something is not right. There
is nothing that can make it right.
Sue
In Message 73 on the Yahoo Board dated Oct. 29, 2001, Anne Carlton
explained that, prior to being in the Center, she had been very open
minded about sexual matters, so she was happy, not angry when Sri
Chinmoy wanted to be intimate with her. Anne also said that the idea
of having sex with Chinmoy was cool and that she started having a
strong attraction for him and even wrote him a letter to express her
desire for him.
However, later, in Message 1806 (dated Mar 18, 2002) Anne said that
she agreed to have an affair with Sri Chinmoy because, after 10 years
of adoration, she could not even consider displeasing or disobeying
him in a seemingly compassionate request. In Message 1806, Anne said
that Sri Chinmoy asked her to write him a letter that set out details
of her desire for him.
Now it is significant that it is the version of events in Message 1806
that was (amazingly) distributed to close to 1,500 of Sri Chinmoy's
disciples on a world-wide basis. I would like to ask Anne why she
changed her testimony in this way. The revised testimony made it sound
as though Anne, was in effect, coerced into an affair with Sri
Chinmoy, whereas Anne's original statement in Message 73 made it clear
that she was strongly attracted to Sri Chinmoy and had no objection to
an intimate relationship with him. Anne, could you please also explain
why you changed your position about the letter you say you wrote to
Sri Chinmoy.
These inconsistencies between Anne's testimonies are of concern and in
my opinion they indicate that Anne probably wanted an affair with Sri
Chinmoy, but he rightly rejected her advances and later expelled her
from the Center. Anne says this is an offering of truth, but
accusations of sexual misconduct are always easy to make, but
extremely difficult to prove.
Sue D
jody
[snip]
> These inconsistencies between Anne's testimonies are of concern and in
> my opinion they indicate that Anne probably wanted an affair with Sri
> Chinmoy, but he rightly rejected her advances and later expelled her
> from the Center. Anne says this is an offering of truth, but
> accusations of sexual misconduct are always easy to make, but
> extremely difficult to prove.
>
> Sue D
Sue, your defense of Chinmoy is really a defense of your
projection of Chinmoy. You are trying to protect your idea
about him and his status as a spiritual master, as well as
your concept of spiritual mastery in general.
From what I've been able to gather, Chinmoy is a corrupted
guru. Does that mean that he doesn't have the understanding
his students seek from him? Not necessarily. He may very
well be the spiritual master they think of him as, but he
may also be held sway by his repressed sexual desire, which
he allows to manifest in these twisted power plays with
these disciples.
Anne isn't the only one to come forward with these kind of
stories about Chinmoy. There is a whole community of folk
who have had these kind of experiences with him. It may not
fit well in the world you have constructed, but the real
world rarely does. Get ready for a dose of reality Sue,
and you'll be a lot better off in every respect.
larry
Perhaps Anne was especially chosen by Sri Chinmoy because he knew that
she could be easily discredited. Perhaps the whole situation was
confusing to her. I think it would confuse anyone. Obviously she
feels now that the whole thing was a mistake that she made in her
life. It still does not mean that she did NOT have sex with Chinmoy.
It actually makes the whole thing more credible. If someone were to
make something like that up, I am sure that they would be very careful
about not confusing anything. Anne seems like a totally credible
person who has gone through a lot!
All of your arguments seem to prove rather than to disprove that she
was taken advantage of.
There are also 2 other women on the aboutsrichinmoy.com site that also
tell their sexual history with Chinmoy. Why do you seem to only pick
on this woman Anne? The other two testimonies seem to support Anne's
story pretty well.
It does not appear that these woman were "expelled" from the group
either.
After investigating these allegations myself, I have come to the
conclusion that Chinmoy is certainly not for me. I also read a few of
his books.....nothing there very enlightening or new. Larry
Sue
>> suedf...@yahoo.com (Sue) wrote in message news:<d08a3110.02041...@posting.google.com>...
> > Now it is significant that it is the version of events in Message 1806
> > that was (amazingly) distributed to close to 1,500 of Sri Chinmoy's
> > disciples on a world-wide basis. I would like to ask Anne why she
> > changed her testimony in this way. The revised testimony made it sound
> > as though Anne, was in effect, coerced into an affair with Sri
> > Chinmoy, whereas Anne's original statement in Message 73 made it clear
> > that she was strongly attracted to Sri Chinmoy and had no objection to
> > an intimate relationship with him. Anne, could you please also explain
> > why you changed your position about the letter you say you wrote to
> > Sri Chinmoy.
> >
> > These inconsistencies between Anne's testimonies are of concern and in
> > my opinion they indicate that Anne probably wanted an affair with Sri
> > Chinmoy, but he rightly rejected her advances and later expelled her
> > from the Center. Anne says this is an offering of truth, but
> > accusations of sexual misconduct are always easy to make, but
> > extremely difficult to prove.
> >
> > Sue D
>
> Perhaps Anne was especially chosen by Sri Chinmoy because he knew that
> she could be easily discredited. Perhaps the whole situation was
> confusing to her. I think it would confuse anyone.
This is the second time I have asked Anne if she would explain why she
altered her original statement, but so far she has not replied.
Although Anne's friends are again willing to reply on her behalf and
suggest she may be confused, this is not good enough and merely serves
to confirm my opinion that Anne is not a credible witness. Jody said
there is a whole community of folk who have had these kinds of
experiences with Sri Chinmoy, yet Larry correctly says there are only
two other women who have made such testimonies. Jody asks me to get
ready for a dose of reality, but she is prepared to exaggerate to such
an extent that her sense of reality and fairness is sadly lacking.
Sue D
outcast
must be corrupt. It's also obviously false.
It's obviously true to the person who knows relatively little about
Sri Chinmoy, the person who has studied him only casually, or who has
approached the subject with an ideological bias, or from the
standpoint of wild apostasy. It's obviously false to the person who
has studied Sri Chinmoy more carefully and more objectively, and who
is also more familiar with the tactics of the anti-cult movement
(whose fingerprints are all over the present smear campaign). But
wait! We're getting ahead of ourselves.
Alt.meditation and alt.yoga are intensely populist forums. Most issues
which are debated here are decided according to popular beliefs rather
than rigorous research. Generally speaking, when there is a choice of
having faith in psychologists or having faith in gurus, these forums
show greater faith in psychologists. There's nothing wrong with that,
as long as we recognize it as an underlying ideological bias. Also,
the average person in alt.meditation and alt.yoga is, I would guess,
inclined toward self-directed spiritual practice rather than anything
resembling monastic practice. This too is fine, as long as we
understand that here too there will be ideological and cultural
biases. For example, even though people may be into some form of
meditation or Yoga, they may tend toward rugged individualism and
secular humanism. That's all perfectly fine. They may want to lead
statistically average lives which are yet graced by a little bit of
something spiritual from the East. Fine and fine.
From our easy chair, rumors reach us now and then of people who have
donned the garb of a particular sect -- they have become disciples of
Sri Chinmoy, or Sai Baba, or Guru Bawa, or the Dalai Lama of Tibet or
some such. Who are the people who go off on these spiritual journeys
when we in our wisdom know that everything is to be found within? The
answer is simple: They are "brainwashed cultists." But I wonder if
this answer is not too simple. Perhaps there is more to it than
that...
The populist perspective at times seems almost inescapable. From that
perspective it is obvious that:
- Sri Chinmoy is an abuser.
- Sri Ramakrishna was a lunatic.
- The Christ was just an ordinary human being.
All these things are obviously true, and yet they are wrong. So I
encourage my friends to reject the obvious truth and seek the subtle
wisdom. The truth is often hidden from view. We have to search for it,
sometimes even in a hailstorm -- that is, if we care even a little.
There is no necessity. But sometimes these little problems of telling
truth from falsehood can help us develop the quality of viveka, or
spiritual discrimination. Contrary to what some people might tell us,
spiritual discrimination does not mean doubting everything. We develop
viveka through the practice of Yoga, not the practice of doubt. Yoga
means "union," so to develop viveka we have to unite with some higher
truth, not remain aloof and doubting. Again, this is only for those
who care.
Someone comes before us playing the role of a victim. They say, "Sri
Chinmoy abused me as he is abusing many others. He is very bad, very
corrupt." I think from a populist point of view, this kind of story is
almost irresistible, especially when a group of people have joined
together in telling it -- which is probably why it's used so much by
the anti-cult movement. For example, here is a very telling quote from
Sri Chinmoy Information, an anti Sri Chinmoy message board:
"Mind control is powerful folks. Look at Sai Baba, he has millions who
adore him, no one wants to even look into the widely published facts
that he is molesting many young children. If we modeled our
testimonials after what I read on the Sai Baba sites, we would be in
much better shape. Some of the documents are even in handwritten
format, available to see. Do a search on this Yahoo group for Sai
Baba, and you can take a look. ***SEEKER***"
[I have not studied Sai Baba, but the above statements about him seem
absurd on their face.]
This quote is just a little something to think about, something to
ponder. I confess that I have been doing a lot of writing lately. I
may or may not post a long (truly long) article expressing my views
about the recent attacks on Sri Chinmoy Centres. Perhaps I can save
you the trouble of reading it by saying quickly that I think these
attacks come from apostates, alarmists and exit counselors, and do not
represent an accurate portrayal of Sri Chinmoy Centres. Of course, I
doubt you will just take my word for it.
If I post on this subject, I will do so knowing that the populist view
is likely to carry the day, and that dissenting views such as mine
will probably be trolled. No matter. I like to think that maybe one
person is struggling to understand the truth. That person might be
helped by hearing a minority view.
Those who have followed my posts know that I try to steer clear of
recommending any particular teacher. I prefer to discuss high
principles (as I see them) and leave it to each person to apply those
principles in their own way. However, where some teachers have been
criticized, I have shared my personal experience that they are good.
There have been cases where people posted things about the Christ,
Swami Vivekananda, Paramahansa Yogananda, Mother Kali, or Sri Chinmoy
which I felt were unkind or untrue. I have spoken up on those
occasions. There have been other cases where the teacher in question
was someone of whom I had no knowledge, so I remained silent. There
are also such topics as "meditation is dangerous," "Yoga turns people
insane," and "never eat at a vegetarian restaurant because it might be
a front for a dangerous anti-Christian cult," etc. I have been
outspoken in such threads because generally the people who start them
are like griffins one must get past in order to do serious spiritual
work. In fact, upon close inspection I think you will find that these
are the same people currently attacking Sri Chinmoy Centres, using
apostates as proxies.
In Sri Chinmoy Information one often sees a familiar pattern: atrocity
stories followed by referrals to exit counselors, atrocity stories
followed by referrals to exit counselors... This "one-two punch"
raises the specter of corruption in the anti-cult movement. For more
on this, please see:
http://www.cesnur.org/2001/CAN.htm
Just what are atrocity stories? They are stories told by apostates
depicting the alleged horrors of membership in a religious movement.
But are such stories true? Often they are not. Experts caution the
media and the public to treat atrocity stories told by ex-members with
some skepticism. Dr. Bryan Wilson is an Oxford University sociologist
who specializes in the study of religion. I quote from his 1999 letter
to the Evangelical Times of Darlington, which letter may be read in
its entirety at:
http://pub28.ezboard.com/fexaminingprotestantismfrm2.showMessage?topicID=420.topic
"The first duty of those who wish to present a fair picture of a
religious fellowship is to seek the views of those who are faithfully
committed to it and to undertake a first-hand study of their
lifestyle."
"The disaffected and the apostate are in particular informants whose
evidence has to be used with circumspection. The apostate is generally
in need of self-justification. He seeks to reconstruct his own past,
to excuse his former affiliations, and to blame those who were
formerly his closest associates. Not uncommonly the apostate learns to
rehearse an 'atrocity story' to explain how, by manipulation,
trickery, coercion, or deceit, he was induced to join or to remain
within an organization that he now forswears and condemns."
"Academics have come to recognize the 'atrocity story' as a
distinctive response of those who abandon a former allegiance. Such a
defector typically represents himself as having been especially
vulnerable, and under coercive pressure to conform to the requirements
of his former religion and as having 'come to his senses' when he
abandoned it. By such a representation of the case, he relocates
responsibility for his earlier affiliations, and seeks to reintegrate
with the wider society which he now seeks to influence, and perhaps to
mobilize, against the group that he has lately abandoned."
"It is well known that one atrocity story tends to generate others.
They become a distinctive genre, particularly when seized upon by the
mass media. Newspapers readily recapitulate earlier sensationalist
accounts when locating new allegations in similar vein about
particular movements. By this means, the dramatic import of each
apostate's story is reinforced, to the detriment of objective and
ethically neutral enquiry[.]"
"Neither the objective sociological researcher nor the court of law
can readily regard a defector as a credible or reliable source of
evidence. He must always be seen as one whose personal history
predisposes him to bias against both his previous religious commitment
and his former associates. If he is anxious to testify against his
former allegiances and affiliations, the suspicion must arise that he
acts from a personal motivation to vindicate himself and to re-gain
his self-esteem, by showing himself to have been a victim who has
subsequently become a redeemed crusader."
In The Social Dimensions of Sectarianism, Wilson writes:
"The press, the anti-cult organizations, and the de-programmers
virtually rehearse reclaimed converts in these reinterpretations of
their earlier religious choice."
Someone might want to take Wilson up on his excellent advice to "seek
the views of those who are faithfully committed to [a religious
fellowship] and to undertake a first-hand study of their lifestyle."
In that case, the Sri Chinmoy Centres web site is not a bad place to
start:
Hinduism Today has also published many articles on Sri Chinmoy
Centres. The Hindu community is a bit more guru savvy than the average
American, and seeing Sri Chinmoy through their eyes can be a helpful
"reality check." One such article may be found at:
http://www.hinduismtoday.com/2000/11/#gen436
A striking feature of the cult/anti-cult debate is that of the
thousands of people who have left spiritual groups, only a handful who
have been exposed to anti-cult ideology believe that they were
"brainwashed" or "abused." Where direct and fair-minded study of a
group reveals no pattern of abuse, one seems justified in discounting
"information" to the contrary circulated by ex-members and
anti-cultists. Of course, it is our duty to always remain sensitive to
genuine issues of abuse. But we must remain equally sensitive to the
possibility that alarmists may play upon our fears by injecting
spurious data into the debate -- since this has been the history of
the anti-cult movement.
It is curious that some people would make accusations of brainwashing
when most scholars from psychology, sociology, and religious studies
agree that brainwashing (or coercive persuasion) is a myth. Here are
two good links on this and related issues:
http://www.cesnur.org/testi/melton.htm
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/cultsect/brainwash/davis.htm
Some of the material is a bit technical, but it may help readers to
separate the wheat from the chaff in discussions concerning spiritual
groups. Of course, if we are spiritual people, I hope we have more
tools at our disposal than reason alone. I consider faith, prayer,
meditation and deep soul-searching to be powerful, proactive tools for
finding the truth. Far from hiding one's head in the sand, to use such
methods is to do the difficult and courageous thing. The pre-digested
popular opinion is that God is dead, all gurus are fakes and abusers,
and self-interest is true interest. We do not need to lift a finger to
arrive at this conclusion. It is ready made, like burgers at
McDonald's. It's what we get by default if we cannot think for
ourselves. Only through faith, effort and God's Grace can we raise
ourselves up from this worm's eye view and discover the peace, light
and love which beckon from beyond. For those who make it past the
screaming banshees, the rewards are great.
--outcast235
larry
<snipe> <snip> <snip>
>
> --outcast235
Jody was right!
It is obvious that you are a sycophantic brainwashed lacky of
Chinmoy's.
Sounds like you and Suedforsure are the very same lacky....just taking
two different angles of attack on Chinmoy's critics.
Thanks for helping me make my decision definitive. I say NO! to
Chinmoy.
There was a time I might have chosen to study with him. If you are
one of his followers....than it has become pretty clear what type of
path Chinmoy has. You can pretty much judge a tree by the fruit that
it produces.
What kind of fruit is this?
Very strange fruit indeed! Larry
jody
> What Anne, Jody and Larry are saying is obviously true. Sri Chinmoy
> must be corrupt. It's also obviously false.
[snip]
Extremely long-winded rhetoric aside, it is worth noting that
the Sri Chinmoy Ex-Disciples mailing list has 25 members, all
of whom are actual ex-disciples of the group. It is reasonable
to assume that there are at least three times that many who
choose not to come forward at this time.
It is as easy to attack an ex-cult member as it is a cult leader,
and that's the primary strategy of most cults. Casting aspersions
on those who leave is a way to insure that other members don't
pay heed as to why, thereby preserving the illusion of propriety
within the cult.
larry
Actually The Sri Chinmoy Information site has 75 members. Most of
whom appear to be ex-disciples. Larry
Anne Carlton
left a sect (renounced former beliefs), is by nature a person who has
taken and accepted a wider world view. It is the person, who remains
caged within the confines of an idealogogy, that holds biases against
the outside world.
Only someone who has objectively examined and tested the held belief
system has the strength to become an apostate. Therefore, the apostate
is more likely to be truthful and have an objective view of their own
experiences. Thus they are in a position to honestly advise others,
as I am doing, and warn them of the pitfalls of a particular belief
system, in this case the framework established by Sri Chinmoy.
Ken
"outcast" <outca...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:95aaad3a.0204...@posting.google.com...
> What Anne, Jody and Larry are saying is obviously true. Sri Chinmoy
> must be corrupt. It's also obviously false.
>
> It's obviously true to the person who knows relatively little about
> Sri Chinmoy, the person who has studied him only casually, or who has
> approached the subject with an ideological bias, or from the
> standpoint of wild apostasy. It's obviously false to the person who
> has studied Sri Chinmoy more carefully and more objectively, and who
> is also more familiar with the tactics of the anti-cult movement
> (whose fingerprints are all over the present smear campaign). But
> wait! We're getting ahead of ourselves.
A great essay Outcast, you could almost publish this as a book! However,
quite apart from the debate over whether Sri Chinmoy has had inappropriate
affairs with his disciples, there is the debate over whether Sri Chinmoy has
lifted massive weights, such as 7063 pounds overhead with one arm. Because
the official world record for a two-armed lift is about 600 pounds, I would
suggest that Sri Chinmoy has been very naughty in pretending that he is so
much better than any other weightlifter who has ever lived. Experts say all
his lifts are shams because they are lever assisted, so to say the least Sri
Chinmoy has been rather devious in putting these claims forward don't you
think? Your views please Outcast.
Ken
rajish
> stories followed by referrals to exit counselors, atrocity stories
> followed by referrals to exit counselors... This "one-two punch"
> raises the specter of corruption in the anti-cult movement. For more
> on this, please see:
>
I have read through the posts on the Sri Chinmoy Information site, and
there doesn't seem to be any referrals to exit counselors. It also
does not appear to be membership in any "anti-cult movement". I have
read there sad testimonials that are totally credible regarding
involvement with a corrupt so-called guru named Sri Chinmoy. In
India, we know how to avoid this type of situation. Perhaps because
we have a history with Gurus. I am so sorry to see this Indian fellow
coming to America and taking advantage of so many innocent spiritual
seekers. Raj
outcast
The thesis has been posed that Sri Chinmoy may be the realized
spiritual master that his students take him to be, and yet also be an
abuser. To me, this thesis contains the fallacy of the "demon who
enlightens." There are thousands of people whose lives have been
changed for the better by meeting Sri Chinmoy -- not because they
projected something onto him, but because he acted directly to open
their hearts. He helped them discover their own inner divinity. His
students, whom I admire greatly, are not brainwashed cultists, they
are sincere seekers. They are not the abused, they are the aspiring.
Sri Chinmoy Centres is a group of quiet, dedicated, peace-loving
people who pose no threat to society and are not themselves in any
danger. They try to lead lives based on spiritual ideals because this
is what they feel will bring them joy and progress. I have tremendous
respect for them. The fruit that they bear is sweet through and
through. I don't find it credible that Sri Chinmoy can be the saint
whom thousands have verified through personal experience, and yet also
the ogre described by some people on the Internet.
I think Sue correctly perceived that there's a slanderous attack on
Sri Chinmoy Centres going on. She thought she would get support from
people in alt.meditation and alt.yoga. In the best of possible worlds,
maybe she would. But although the people in alt.meditation and
alt.yoga are good people, I think they are more into self-directed
spiritual practice, and may share the world's cynicism toward guru
figures. Since Sue has not gotten much support, I'm adding my views to
the mix. I am not a member of Sri Chinmoy Centres and do not speak for
Sri Chinmoy or his students, whose silence in all this shows great
strength of character.
It has been implied that there is a whole "community" of people
claiming to have had sex with Sri Chinmoy. If three screen names make
a community, then so be it. Recent attacks on Sri Chinmoy Centres have
been launched by a small cabal of about 15 people, virtually all of
whom admit that they have never personally witnessed *any* sexual
activity by Sri Chinmoy. Indeed, although they have adopted the
classic apostate stance of bitterness and recrimination, they also say
they studied with Sri Chinmoy for 5, 10 or 15 years and *never* saw
him act in a sexual way. There are at most 3 people on the Internet
who have posted first person accounts alleging otherwise -- which
accounts are highly dubious. Other messages are reactions to reactions
of people who didn't witness the alleged events. One person even
encouraged others to "start posting variations of this same type of
message on the net in many places... on a number of sites and message
boards." What is the material to be posted with variations in many
places on the net? It's a story captioned "I Aborted Sri Chinmoy's
Child." This is known as an Internet smear campaign. The person urging
that such material be cross-posted claims no firsthand knowledge of
its truth or falsity. The number of actual persons criticizing Sri
Chinmoy Centres remains unaudited, though it would appear to be less
than 1% of those who have studied there. Given the stated
cross-posting policy of the critics, one should not assume that all
screen names represent distinct persons.
This whole pattern is consistent with the "scare" as a social
phenomenon. It's a case of "Monsters On Maple Street." The purpose of
the scare is to get people who have never even heard of Sri Chinmoy to
start spreading the idea that he is an abuser. Anyone who spreads such
gossip without firsthand knowledge is, in my opinion, no friend to the
Yoga community, and no lover of truth.
While Sri Chinmoy has thousands of admirers around the world, he also
has a few detractors. It's helpful to distinguish between people only
mildly disaffected from Sri Chinmoy Centres -- and the small cabal
which has become downright hostile, has joined up with the anti-cult
movement, and is busy trying to make whatever mischief they can. Some
people who drift into Sri Chinmoy Information are somewhat doubting,
disaffected and lonely. They are good people, but out of loneliness
they are willing to pay the price of admission, which is that you have
to speak ill of Sri Chinmoy. If you do so, core members with exit
counseling experience will say, "Oh, Sri Chinmoy lost his realization?
That's a GOOD thought. Aren't you brave! Now who's next? This is a
great group!" There is tremendous peer pressure to adopt the
(psychotic) belief that Sri Chinmoy is an abuser. Anyone who questions
this is subject to verbal violence, strings of four and seven-letter
words (thank you, Anne), taunts that they are "brainwashed zombies,"
and recision of posting rights. Atrocity stories arising from such
so-called "support groups" are considered worthless by serious
researchers, for reasons best explained by poster "BTranscend," one of
the most vocal critics of Sri Chinmoy Centres:
"We are supporting our friends here, haven't you noticed? Kind of like
a support group. Kind of like THERAPY! OK? So you can go away now. You
heard the word 'therapy' and since you despise vulnerable people who
admit to needing help, just leave the group, get up, walk out, and
quietly shut the door behind you." --BTranscend
I do not despise vulnerable people who admit to needing help, and
indeed count myself among them. But when the anti-cult movement
thoughtlessly uses such people to wage an organized hate campaign, it
may become necessary to draw attention to the true facts. It is out of
"tough love" that I do so, for when the truth is known, this has the
power to liberate people presently being kept in a state of perpetual
victimhood by anti-cult psychologists, who use disaffected spiritual
seekers as soldiers in the anti-cult war.
Within the victim/abuser paradigm rigidly enforced by anti-cultists,
aggressive actions taken against one's former religion are seen as
signs of "self-esteem" and "rehabilitation." Less ideologically-driven
therapists might recognize that bitterness, hatred and revenge are not
successful coping strategies; but anti-cult counselors are apt to tell
their clients that anger is a *good* thing, and to egg them on in
public displays of cruelty toward their former religion, which
religion may be wholly innocent of wrongdoing. An unbiased counselor
might help the client identify weaknesses in their own personality
which may have led to failure; but the anti-cult counselor proceeds
from a bedrock assumption that any difficulties experienced along the
spiritual path are the fault of the path itself. In this respect,
anti-cult counselors and ex-members often collude in presenting a
false picture of the group in question. Such collusion may be
conscious and intentional, or it may arise from a socially constructed
version of reality in which demonization of the group serves some
mutual purpose, and "memories" of abuse are "reconstructed" to fill an
implicit need.
On anti-cult message boards where atrocity stories alternate with
articles defining the participants as being "in recovery from
spiritual abuse," the investigator must ask whether these stories of
abuse have any objective correlation in the real world or whether
they arise solely in the context of a pop psychology regimen -- as
factitious symptoms. Where the stated aim of the founder of the
message board is to discredit a person or group, and to depict them in
a manner similar to other leaders of religious movements who have
received negative publicity, apostates have shown a remarkable ability
to reconstruct their past experiences to fit the agenda. When the
founder of Sri Chinmoy Information writes, "I predict within the next
5 years Sri Chinmoy will be viewed by the world as another Muktananda
or Rajneesh," and when numerous articles attacking Muktananda and
Rajneesh are presented as the appropriate models for discussing Sri
Chinmoy, it's not surprising that posts by former Chinmoy students
begin to resemble exit counselor Dan Shaw's critiques of Siddha Yoga.
One can only post so many links to Shaw and other exit counselors,
only so many reprints of articles on thought reform, brainwashing and
spiritual abuse, and only so many "testimonials" from people who have
been exit counseled, before one creates a rather blatant feedback
loop. In a prior article, I quoted this passage from Sri Chinmoy
Information:
"Mind control is powerful folks. Look at Sai Baba, he has millions who
adore him, no one wants to even look into the widely published facts
that he is molesting many young children. If we modeled our
testimonials after what I read on the Sai Baba sites, we would be in
much better shape. Some of the documents are even in handwritten
format, available to see. Do a search on this Yahoo group for Sai
Baba, and you can take a look. ***SEEKER***"
I have not studied Sai Baba, but the above statements about him seem
absurd on their face, and the invitation to create copycat slurs
against Sri Chinmoy is tantamount to subornation of perjury. I will
not quote other posts from Sri Chinmoy Information attacking the Dalai
Lama of Tibet, Swami Vivekananda, and the Catholic clergy. However,
the subtext of such bigoted attacks is that most gurus are bad, most
religions are bad, so Sri Chinmoy Centres must be bad. Case not
proven.
One should understand that the mere existence of hostile ex-members
does not imply any wrongdoing by the group in question. Doubt and
faith are the daily stuff of spiritual life, and when people lose
their faith, this often seems to bring about a loss of love and good
fellowship. Apostasy is common to all religious movements, and the
classic apostate stance is one which draws every circle
counterclockwise. If one listens to apostates, their former religion
was always bad to the core, never did a single thing right, is a
threat to apple pie and motherhood, and should be investigated by
every government agency from the FBI to the EPA. Once one identifies
this all-condemning mindset, one should attempt to gently pry the
speaker's hands loose from one's collar -- and move on. This is not to
say one can't have tremendous sympathy for people who have become
troubled in this way. But the lesson to be learned from them is not
that meditation is dangerous (Joe Szimhart), but rather that faith is
something valuable yet fragile. We should carry it as if carrying
prize crystal, and not assume that it can be easily replaced if
broken.
When people leave a spiritual group, they may find salvation in the
cult of victimhood, and may take a certain perverse pride in trying to
prove that their guru was the worst ever. For the person who courts
victimhood, tales of abuse can become like war stories, relished in
the telling, and embellished in successive iterations (as Sue has
pointed out). There is no question that in ex-cult support groups, the
person who takes the most aggressive action against her former
religion and offers the most compelling story of abuse gets the most
attention and prestige. Anne Carlton is a moderator in Sri Chinmoy
Information, which allows her to delete any of her own posts which
come under scrutiny, and to delete the posts of others who question
her story. She conducts "official polls" in which members are reminded
to vote on whether or not they believe her. She has also designed a
"sex calendar" which alleges to give approximate dates of sexual
activity. I do not find all this credible.
Another poster who has written a "testimonial" attacking Sri Chinmoy
Centres writes elsewhere that she has "helped" deprogrammer Joe
Szimhart with a couple of "interventions." She quotes an unnamed
psychologist as saying that the writings of Sri Chinmoy are similar to
those of "Rev. Sung Yung Moon" [sic]. Few religious scholars would
agree. Indeed, it is this attempt to conflate all guru figures into a
single archetypal bogeyman which has caused many persons of conscience
to distance themselves from the anti-cult movement and to dismiss its
findings. Jeffrey Davis writes:
"[James Lewis] observes how the anti-cult movement uses the subset of
former members who have been deprogrammed with anti-cult ideology to
self-generate evidence for that same ideology. Through this circular
process, the anti-cult movement 'proves' its accusations."
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/cultsect/brainwash/davis.htm
If there's a cabal that wants to plant false stories in the press,
they don't announce something called the "Disinformation Times," and
brag that it will contain only propaganda. Their campaign will be more
effective if they can get the false stories to sit alongside more
moderate opinion pieces. The technique of Sri Chinmoy Information is
to use people only mildly disaffected from Sri Chinmoy Centres to
create a backdrop against which more militant members can plant
scurrilous material claiming sexual abuse and other atrocities. The
owner of the board then "cherry picks" message content for use on her
anti Sri Chinmoy web site. This creates a closed information loop in
which the same person both facilitates the slander in one forum, and
points to it as proof that Sri Chinmoy is bad in another forum. (The
web site has ready links to deprogrammer Rick Ross, the American
Family Foundation, and other veterans of the anti-cult wars.) Sites
like Sri Chinmoy Information and About Sri Chinmoy masquerade as
"support groups," but really function as attack groups and recruiting
stands for exit counselors. They serve up a friendly, supportive
facade, and allege to be neutral or even positive about the groups
they oppose -- merely as a tactic to pull in new recruits. Once
inside, visitors are hit with shock material designed to provoke an
immediate emotional response and drive them straight into the arms of
deprogrammers and exit counselors, whose URLs are (conveniently)
provided. Anyone who has begun to fall for these thoroughly
discreditable tactics -- please wake up!
--outcast235
Wade Humeniuk
> This whole pattern is consistent with the "scare" as a social
> phenomenon. It's a case of "Monsters On Maple Street." The purpose of
> the scare is to get people who have never even heard of Sri Chinmoy to
> start spreading the idea that he is an abuser. Anyone who spreads such
> gossip without firsthand knowledge is, in my opinion, no friend to the
> Yoga community, and no lover of truth.
>
But here you are, saying you have no first hand knowledge, either by being involved
directly in Chinmoy's center, or by sayng that you have actually been involved with a cult
and know the signs. Yet you are offering your opinion and judgements (gossip) about those
making allegations against Chinmoy. You seem to be trying to make monsters out of the
other side and seemingly dismissing the people by treating them as an group of
psychologically disturbed people instead of individuals.
If you have no first hand knowledge, why are you getting involved?
Wade
rajish
with Sri Chinmoy Centres. What nonsense you write! Rajish (delhi)
outca...@yahoo.com (outcast) wrote in message news:<95aaad3a.02042...@posting.google.com>...
jody
> On Cabals, Copycats and Propaganda
>
> The thesis has been posed that Sri Chinmoy may be the realized
> spiritual master that his students take him to be, and yet also be an
> abuser. To me, this thesis contains the fallacy of the "demon who
> enlightens."
Only if you consider sexually active people to be demons.
> There are thousands of people whose lives have been
> changed for the better by meeting Sri Chinmoy -- not because they
> projected something onto him, but because he acted directly to open
> their hearts.
This is only your belief and is not an established fact.
> He helped them discover their own inner divinity.
He apparently also used some of them for his sexual release.
> His
> students, whom I admire greatly, are not brainwashed cultists, they
> are sincere seekers. They are not the abused, they are the aspiring.
What about his abused former students? Are they the formerly
aspiring? It was their aspiration that led them to leave Chinmoy's
group, not their lack of aspiration.
> Sri Chinmoy Centres is a group of quiet, dedicated, peace-loving
> people who pose no threat to society and are not themselves in any
> danger. They try to lead lives based on spiritual ideals because this
> is what they feel will bring them joy and progress. I have tremendous
> respect for them. The fruit that they bear is sweet through and
> through. I don't find it credible that Sri Chinmoy can be the saint
> whom thousands have verified through personal experience, and yet also
> the ogre described by some people on the Internet.
Classic cultic propaganda and manipulation. Lionize the group and
those who lead it, marginalize those who have left.
[snipped propaganda]
outcast
Wade wrote:
>But here you are, saying you have no first hand knowledge, either
>by being involved directly in Chinmoy's center, or by sayng that
>you have actually been involved with a cult and know the signs.
>Yet you are offering your opinion and judgements (gossip) about
>those making allegations against Chinmoy. You seem to be trying
>to make monsters out of the other side and seemingly dismissing
>the people by treating them as an group of psychologically
>disturbed people instead of individuals. If you have no first
>hand knowledge, why are you getting involved?
Wade, I apologize if I've left some readers mystified as to the larger
context in which this debate occurs. If you want to understand my
motivations more deeply, you can always look at some of the old
threads where I've participated in discussions about such spiritual
figures as Sri Chinmoy, Paramahansa Yogananda, Swami Vivekananda, the
Christ, etc. -- as well as threads where I tried to hold the
"meditation is dangerous" crowd at bay for as long as my patience held
out.
I think you might be drawing some incorrect conclusions from the post
you read. My analysis (which was not "gossip") was based on reading,
fact-finding, dialogue, firsthand experience, and deep soul-searching.
Of course, I respect your right to reach different conclusions --
though it's not clear that you've looked deeply into these matters. I
would share with you that things are rarely what they seem in this
world, and that one sometimes has to work quite hard to get at the
truth. It's wonderful that you have a sympathetic and trusting nature
and are inclined to accept at face value such stories as people tell
on the Internet. What you may not have understood is that many
spiritual teachers are ruthlessly attacked by their former students --
not because they are very bad teachers, but because they are very good
teachers. I would urge you to exercise great care when someone comes
before you playing the role of a victim. Extend your empathy equally
in *all* directions and what you find may surprise you.
--outcast
jody
[snip]
> I think you might be drawing some incorrect conclusions from the post
> you read. My analysis (which was not "gossip") was based on reading,
> fact-finding, dialogue, firsthand experience, and deep soul-searching.
> Of course, I respect your right to reach different conclusions --
> though it's not clear that you've looked deeply into these matters.
Your proliferate rhetoric makes you no more knowledgeable than
anyone else.
> I
> would share with you that things are rarely what they seem in this
> world, and that one sometimes has to work quite hard to get at the
> truth.
I would share that sometimes some work quite hard to obscure
the truth, whether or not they do so intentionally.
> It's wonderful that you have a sympathetic and trusting nature
> and are inclined to accept at face value such stories as people tell
> on the Internet. What you may not have understood is that many
> spiritual teachers are ruthlessly attacked by their former students --
> not because they are very bad teachers, but because they are very good
> teachers.
And just as many or many more times, teachers are exposed as
being corrupt by their students.
> I would urge you to exercise great care when someone comes
> before you playing the role of a victim. Extend your empathy equally
> in *all* directions and what you find may surprise you.
So what you're saying is to distrust the victim in favor
of the accused. Once again you make the perfect cult
propagandist.
You must be a lawyer.
Wade Humeniuk
And here I have to explain myself. Its not that I trust people and accept what they say
is true. Firstly, I accept what they say, it may or not be true, a person may be
sincerely esposing what they think is true, when in fact it is wrong, other lying on
purpose. Many people are untruthful, most unknowingly so. What I trust in is that things
will work out, I trust (have hope and faith) in the big picture. Whether Chinmoy actually
used his position as a Guru to have sex with (un)willing disciples, for me it is not so
important. That the people who are going and have gone through the situation, have
learned something, and will eventually put it all behind them, is what I have trust in.
(Even the ones who are untrustworthy, and in this case, even Chinmoy himself). Also I
have trust that the part I play is part of those things working out.
Wade
William
Chinmoy is hoodwinking everyone he comes into contact with. He
presents himself as an avatar (savior), and the gullible eat it up.
Anyone who is a true avatar certainly would not be sexually abusing
people. There are those in the Sri Chinmoy Centre who have absolutely
no idea that Chinmoy is involved with his inner circle sexually. They
believe he is celibate as he proclaims he is. They believe that he is
taking care of their souls and that he will take them to "the golden
shore." They live their lives trying to follow his rigid set of
rules - no talking to the opposite sex, no listening to music that is
not composed by Chinmoy himself, no reading of books that are not
written by Chinmoy, no reading newspapers, no TV, no socializing with
people outside of the Centre except to recruit them into the
centre.....there are so many of these authoritarian types of rules.
These disciples believe that they are being purified by following
these rules. They believe that by meditating only on the picture of
Sri Chinmoy and establishing an iron-clad inner connection with
Chinmoy will they be able to go to "the golden shore."
By restricting information available to the disciples and by
eliminating and forbidding communication with disciples who leave the
centre, Chinmoy creates the perfect mind-control environment. After a
few years the minds of these disciples atrophy. They no longer have
the ability to discern right from wrong in a socially conscious way
and they no longer have the ability to self-actualize. It seems to
be a perfect description of a zombie or someone who has undergone a
lobotomy. Many of them previously had good educations. Some even
graduated from Harvard and other ivy league schools. Some of the went
to Medical School until Chinmoy demanded that they give up this
education nonsense and follow only him.
The ones with this higher level of education become adept at using
their intellects to spread propaganda and do public relations work for
Chinmoy. Some run "divine enterprises" like vegatarian restaurants for
Chinmoy. Their intellects are kept busy, but their ability to discern
right from wrong atrophies. They talk about how they are peace loving
and helping guru with his mission of spreading peace in the world. But
all they ever really do is spread propaganda and try to recruit new
followers. They are admonished by Chinmoy if they do not bring in a
certain quota of "fresh meat" every month.
They are convinced that by surrendering themselves and by becoming a
slave to Chinmoy they are purifying themselves and only by becoming as
pure as Chinmoy will they be able to go "to the Golden Shore".
Now the disciples are hearing about the truth. They are being told
about Chinmoy's sexual activities and many of the disciples atrophied
minds are going into over drive - "we must deny, deny, deny!" Because
if they do not deny, their entire world will fall apart. That is
where we are now with this story. The Truth about Chinmoy has been
revealed first hand by some disciples who found their social
conscience and felt responsible enough to tell their stories.
But as we can see on this message board, there will be those who will
stay in a state of rock-solid denial because to allow the truth to
come in would mean they would have to give up everything that they
believed in for many years. Some over 20 even 30 years of their
lives. They would have to give up running their restaurants, give up
jet setting around the world with Chinmoy every year, give up the
entire pretense of power and the whole mind set that they are superior
to everyone else.
Wade Humeniuk
news:1d6d8ed0.0204...@posting.google.com...
>
> Chinmoy is hoodwinking everyone he comes into contact with. He
> presents himself as an avatar (savior), and the gullible eat it up.
> Anyone who is a true avatar certainly would not be sexually abusing
> people. There are those in the Sri Chinmoy Centre who have absolutely
> no idea that Chinmoy is involved with his inner circle sexually. They
> believe he is celibate as he proclaims he is. They believe that he is
> taking care of their souls and that he will take them to "the golden
> shore." They live their lives trying to follow his rigid set of
> rules - no talking to the opposite sex, no listening to music that is
> not composed by Chinmoy himself, no reading of books that are not
> written by Chinmoy, no reading newspapers, no TV, no socializing with
> people outside of the Centre except to recruit them into the
> centre.....there are so many of these authoritarian types of rules.
> These disciples believe that they are being purified by following
> these rules. They believe that by meditating only on the picture of
> Sri Chinmoy and establishing an iron-clad inner connection with
> Chinmoy will they be able to go to "the golden shore."
I agree that the curtains of deceipt should be drawn back and an honest look should be
taken.
It seems that there is a part of me that is intensely worshipful. Perhaps that is the
same for other people. Its a part I take careful care not to kill and not to let it
ground into a lesser light. I think cults take advantage of that and that the worshippers
and the worshipped are both caught in a trap. Perhaps its not that people are gullible
but are satisfying their worshipping needs.
Why are there people who take advantage of this situation? What is a yoga teacher
supposed to do with gullible/worshipful students? I have my own thoughts, but am curious
what others think. As a yoga teacher you cannot let a student put you on that pedestal
and collapse at your feet. Nor should you put yourself into that position of authority.
I know how grateful I am of my yoga teacher, but you have to realize that it was yoga that
did it (with your own effort) and not the teacher.
Wade
larry
Chinmoy also claims to a great poet! He writes thousands of
Poems....well, I don't know if I would call them poems....here is an
actual example of one of his "poems"
My Lord, did You ever
Enjoy a vacation,
Even before You began
Your creation?
Yes! Chinmoy actually wrote this poem! This is from the so called
Avatar of the Ages! I read he also believes he was Thomas Jefferson
in a Past Life!
outcast
to insult and ridicule a spiritual teacher of whom you have no
knowledge, and if they talk about "mind control" and "zombies," you
may eventually realize that these are not friends of the Yoga
community and there is no need to support their agenda. This has to do
with a topic we once discussed: spiritual self-protection. A
clear-minded person will recognize the motivations of others. He will
act only with kindness, and will not join with others in speaking ill.
There are many branches of Yoga. You may feel that your Okido Yoga is
very good and that the people who practice Bhakti Yoga are all
"cultists." But if you have not studied this Yoga, perhaps there is
some wisdom in remaining silent. Otherwise, who knows? Today, this
group is a "cult," tomorrow that group is a "cult," the next day maybe
your group will be called a "cult."
Spiritual self-protection means that if someone places a brick in your
hand and points at a target, you have the presence of mind to refrain
from throwing it. You are polite, but only up to a point. You do not
raise your hand against a stranger just because another stranger has
filled your ears with poison. I'm sure you know all this -- I'm just
reminding you. You once wrote:
>>Here is something from the Dhammapada, an anthology of of
>>Buddhist sayings...
>>
>>Even when he is doing evil, the fool does not realise it. The
>>idiot is punished by his own deeds, like one is scorched by
>>fire. 136
>>
>>He who does violence to the peaceful and harmless soon
>>encounters one of ten things - He may experience cruel pain,
>>disaster, physical injury, severe illness, or insanity, or else
>>trouble with the authorities, grave accusation, bereavement, or
>>loss of property, or else destruction of his house by fire, and
>>on the death of his body the fool goes to hell. 137, 138, 139,
>>140
In connection with the Dhammapada, I would like to share this passage
with you. Maybe it will help "draw back the curtains of deceit":
IMPACT OF BUDDHISM ON AMERICA
Vesak Speech, 1994
by Dr. Ananda W. P. Guruge
A Mini-case study of an American Youth
in Search of Spiritual Guidance
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I have a very close friend in Chicago who thirty years ago found
himself (a young man of early twenties) dying in a New York hospital
as a result of drug overdose . He was a student at a University in
Chicago and did not even recall how he found himself in a hospital in
New York. When he was released from the hospital, he realized that an
incredibly great tragedy had overtaken him. He decided to find a way
to get out of his drug problem. Where did he look for answers?
Curiously, this intelligent young man looked for answers in the
religions of the East. He wanted to find anybody who could give him
some guidance so that the causes that led him to experiment with drugs
could be eliminated from his life.
What are the causes he identified by himself? Simple things, indeed;
such as frustration, boredom, tension, stress, inability to cope with
the daily traffic and pressures on his time. It could be the amount of
required reading that had been prescribed in the classroom. It could
be the competitive aggressiveness that was considered necessary to
ensure a slight gain in his grade point average. It was this type of
tension or stress that he thought he could solve very easily with a
little something injected with a little syringe right into his system.
He found that as long as he returned to a life in which the same
things were going to be confronting him, he was never going to find a
solution. Someone suggested that he should try meditation.
He went to various reputed meditation masters. Apparently there are a
lot of people who come to the U.S.A. to "sell meditation" like the
proverbial vendor of "snake oil". Every one of the meditation masters
whom this young man met had a beard as he himself had and wanted an
exorbitant fee that he could not afford. They told him, "I can give
you exactly the little mantra, the magic word or expression, that will
rescue you, but at a fee".
Given his circumstances, this young man had to go about looking for
help until he found a very different kind of meditation master -- one
who believed that meditation was the key to world peace and played a
major role in inculcating this message to international diplomats in
the United Nations. The doctrinal underpinnings of his form of
meditation, which combined physical activity, art, music and poetry,
was as much Hindu as it was Buddhist or, for that matter, universal.
To the young seeker, there were several surprises: The first was that
this meditation master did not have a beard or long hair. So, at least
in this external detail, there was a distinction between him and his
chosen guru. The second thing was he did not ask him for a fee. The
third surprise was that he had no secret formula to meditate on. All
he said was, "Young man, all nature, all actions begin in the mind.
Train it. Control it. Purify it".
The first discussion, as was narrated to me, was nothing but a lucid
explanation of the contents of first stanza of the Dhammapada, even
though the text was at no point mentioned. By the time the discussion
was over the young man said to himself, "Now I understand. It is my
mind that is really causing all these problems." He became a devout
disciple of this meditation master, who is none other than Sri Chinmoy
whose reputation for saving the lives of thousands of such young men
and women remains unparalleled. This young man was truly "reborn" and
now pursues a very successful career in computers while devoting his
entire leisure for the promotion of the spiritual mission that saved
him. We are in frequent contact as his guru is my most revered friend.
I described this case in detail as this young man appears to be a
typical representative of the American youth of today. Having gone
through some critical experiences and come to the discovery that all
problems begin in the mind, they look for practical guidance to live a
more satisfying spiritual life.
Buddhism, which begins with the statement that keeping the mind pure,
controlling the mind, taming the mind is the fundamental spiritual
practice, has proved to have all the ingredients of the solution they
seek. Being a monastic tradition where every seeker is received with
the highest possible hospitality, Buddhist institutions -- whatever be
the school or sect -- have an openness which is particularly important
to those in need of this kind of help. Many a person going through
crisis situations have found solace and fortitude in the serene
atmosphere of the Buddhist temple." --Dr. Ananda W. P. Guruge
Courtesy DharmaNet/Bhavana Society
--outcast235*
*I am not a member of Sri Chinmoy Centres and do not speak for Sri
Chinmoy .
Wade Humeniuk
> to insult and ridicule a spiritual teacher of whom you have no
> knowledge, and if they talk about "mind control" and "zombies," you
> may eventually realize that these are not friends of the Yoga
> community and there is no need to support their agenda. This has to do
> with a topic we once discussed: spiritual self-protection.
There is no need for spiritual self-protection. A spiritual path is a opening path. One
becomes defenseless, as one realizes there is nothing to defend. Its too bad that
people's judgments hurt you.
> Spiritual self-protection means that if someone places a brick in your
> hand and points at a target, you have the presence of mind to refrain
> from throwing it. You are polite, but only up to a point. You do not
> raise your hand against a stranger just because another stranger has
> filled your ears with poison. I'm sure you know all this -- I'm just
> reminding you. You once wrote:
A spiritual person with a brick just decides to use it for creative purposes. It just
does not occur to the non-violent to throw it, one is polite because that is the way one
really is, you do not hear poison because you have none within yourself. Outcast, you
aleady have all the protection that you need. You are choosing to be very unhappy.
>
> >>Here is something from the Dhammapada, an anthology of of
> >>Buddhist sayings...
> >>
> >>Even when he is doing evil, the fool does not realise it. The
> >>idiot is punished by his own deeds, like one is scorched by
> >>fire. 136
> >>
> >>He who does violence to the peaceful and harmless soon
> >>encounters one of ten things - He may experience cruel pain,
> >>disaster, physical injury, severe illness, or insanity, or else
> >>trouble with the authorities, grave accusation, bereavement, or
> >>loss of property, or else destruction of his house by fire, and
> >>on the death of his body the fool goes to hell. 137, 138, 139,
> >>140
Chinmoy seems to be having grave accusations leveled at him, as well as trouble with the
authorities.
> --outcast235*
>
> *I am not a member of Sri Chinmoy Centres and do not speak for Sri
> Chinmoy .
It would be nice is Chinmoy would actually speak for himself. Did you ever wonder why he
doesn't?
Wade
SueCast
I SUPPORT THE ABOVE VIEW. BEING A FORMER DISCIPLE, SRI CHINMOY IS NOT
ONE USUALLY PRONE TO SILENCE, ON THE CONTRARY, HIS PHILOSOPHY IS ALL
ABOUT DYNAMISM, AND I ONCE HEARD HIM STATE THAT HIS PHILOSOPHY IS
UNLIKE THAT OF JESUS CHRIST, IN THAT ONE SHOULD NOT "TURN THE OTHER
CHEEK". ALSO HE HAS OFTEN MADE RATHER UNFLATTERING REMARKS ABOUT OTHER
POLITICAL AND SPIRITUAL FIGURES, AND SUCH AS THE DALAI LAMA, ALLUDING
TO THEIR SUPPOSED DECEITFULNESS. (TAKES ONE TO KNOW ONE!) (OUT OF A
MODICUM OF RESPECT, I DO NOT NEED TO QUOTE THESE UTTERANCES)SO ONE
MUST ASK ONESELF: IF HE CAN HAVE ONE PERSONA FOR THE PUBLIC, AND
ANOTHER FOR HIS GENERAL DISCIPLES, IE. TELLING A DIGNITARY, OR
SPIRITUAL FIGURE HOW WONDERFUL THEY ARE,IN PUBLIC, YET TELLING HIS
DISCIPLES, BASICALLY HOW PHONEY THEY ARE, ISN'T IT JUST ANOTHER STEP
TO ACT ENTIRELY DIFFERENTLY AND INNAPROPRIATELY WITH A CAREFULLY
SELECTED GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS? IT STRIKES ME AS SOMEWHAT PECULIAR
THAT, IN LIGHT OF THESE ALLEGATIONS OF INAPROPRIATE SEXUAL CONDUCT,
AND BY ALL ACCOUNTS, FAR REACHING--THAT SRI CHINMOY SHOULD REMAIN
SILENT. OR IS HE REALLY MAINTAINING SILENCE AND EQUANIMITY? COULD
SUEDFORSURE/ OUTCAST IN FACT BE HIS MOUTHPIECES? I KNOW THAT WHEN HE
OPPOSED POLITICAL OR RELIGIOUS VIEWS IN NEWSPAPERS, HE WOULD WRITE
LETTERS TO THE EDITORS, BUT HAVE THEM EDITED AND SUBMITTED, NOT BY
HIMSELF, BUT BY A DISCIPLE WRITER (USING HIS OWN WESTERN NAME) MAYBE
SUED/OUTCAST ARE SUCH "CHOSEN INSTRUMENTS", SELECTED FOR THEIR BLIND
BELIEF AND VULNERALBILITY, AND DENIAL OF WHAT IS? ANNE'S TWO
TESTIMONIES HAVE NO INCONSISTANCIES, MUCH LESS CONTRADICTIONS. SHE
STATES THAT INITIALLY SHE WAS SHOCKED, WHICH TURNED TO ACCEPTANCE,
WHICH BECAME DEPENDENCE. A PERFECTLY NATURAL PROGRESSION IN EMOTIONAL
STATES, FOR ANY WELL-BALANCED INDIVIDUAL, GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
OVER THE YEARS, HER OWN ORIGINAL SELF-EMPOWERMENT GRADUALLY
RESURFACED, AND SHE SAW HER SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH HER GURU AS
SOMETHING UNHEALTHY AND ABHORRENT, AND AS EXDISCIPLE (FORMER SF CENTER
LEADER), BEFORE HER--SET ABOUT PUTTING AN END TO IT. THIS TAKES MUCH
COURAGE, AND FOREBEARANCE, AND I FULLY SUPPORT HER, IN HER QUEST FOR
TRUTH.
outcast
Quoting Dr. Bryan Wilson, Outcast wrote:
>"The first duty of those who wish to present a fair picture of a
>religious fellowship is to seek the views of those who are
>faithfully committed to it and to undertake a first-hand study of
>their lifestyle."
>
>"The disaffected and the apostate are in particular informants
>whose evidence has to be used with circumspection. The apostate
>is generally in need of self-justification. He seeks to
>reconstruct his own past, to excuse his former affiliations, and
>to blame those who were formerly his closest associates. Not
>uncommonly the apostate learns to rehearse an 'atrocity story' to
>explain how, by manipulation, trickery, coercion, or deceit, he
>was induced to join or to remain within an organization that he
>now forswears and condemns."
>
>"Neither the objective sociological researcher nor the court of
>law can readily regard a defector as a credible or reliable
>source of evidence. He must always be seen as one whose personal
>history predisposes him to bias against both his previous
>religious commitment and his former associates. If he is anxious
>to testify against his former allegiances and affiliations, the
>suspicion must arise that he acts from a personal motivation to
>vindicate himself and to re-gain his self-esteem, by showing
>himself to have been a victim who has subsequently become a
>redeemed crusader." [snip] For the complete Wilson text:
http://pub28.ezboard.com/fexaminingprotestantismfrm2.showMessage?topicID=420.topic
penn...@hotmail.com (Anne Carlton) wrote in message news:<853ac91d.02042...@posting.google.com>...
Anne Carlton wrote:
>>I disagree with your take on this, Outcast. An apostate, one
>>who has left a sect (renounced former beliefs), is by nature a
>>person who has taken and accepted a wider world view. It is the
>>person, who remains caged within the confines of an idealogogy
>>[sic], that holds biases against the outside world.
>>
>>Only someone who has objectively examined and tested the held
>>belief system has the strength to become an apostate. Therefore,
>>the apostate is more likely to be truthful and have an objective
>>view of their own experiences. Thus they are in a position to
>>honestly advise others, as I am doing, and warn them of the
>>pitfalls of a particular belief system, in this case the
>>framework established by Sri Chinmoy.
The word "apostate," as used by social scientists and religious
scholars, often connotes someone who has not merely left a religious
movement, but who actively opposes it, as you do. The literature on
apostasy does not support your position that apostates are "objective"
and "truthful" regarding their former religions. Rather, apostates
tend to be the most fanatical detractors -- though they sometimes
learn to disguise their outright hatred.
Bryan Wilson's point is that the *investigator* should be objective,
and should base his or her findings on direct study of the group in
question. As a hostile ex-member, you may feel that your
deconstruction of Sri Chinmoy Centres should be the regnant
interpretation; but no serious researcher would make you the focus of
their study. They would examine the group directly, then sample
apostate opinion with foreknowledge that such opinion is likely to
turn every circle counterclockwise. Where there is a "support group"
with ties to exit counselors and anti-cult organizations, it is
*assumed* that atrocity stories will be generated. Where such stories
fail to be corroborated by direct study, one may dismiss them as
anomalies -- though not as complete mysteries, since they serve the
interests of apostates, exit counselors and anti-cultists.
Of the thousands of people who leave new religious movements, it's
usually those few who have been exposed to anti-cult ideology who
claim that they were "brainwashed" or "abused." Exposure to anti-cult
ideology may come through exit counseling, or through online "support
groups" based on the writings of exit counselors. Sri Chinmoy
Information contains articles by exit counselors, advertisements for
exit counselors, links to exit counselors, and testimonials from
people who have been exit counseled or have even become assistants to
exit counselors. In one striking incident, the board owner, "SylviaL,"
got caught telling parents who wanted to kidnap their daughter to
contact Rick Ross. Since "SylviaL" is also the webmaster of a
companion anti Sri Chinmoy site with links to both Rick Ross and the
American Family Foundation (sister organization of the old Cult
Awareness Network), one senses that this is "old wine, new bottles" --
or more precisely, "new beer, old CAN." Discussing the 1995 case in
which a jury found against both CAN and deprogrammer Rick Ross, Shupe
and Darnell write:
"The jury was quite clear in its decision to award compensatory and
punitive damages to Scott. CAN's primary activity, this case and
others have revealed, was to provide false and/or inflammatory opinion
in the guise of 'information' about minority religions to the media
and other inquirers. All or virtually all such 'information' was
derogatory, consistent with CAN's goals of 'educating' the public that
various new religious movements (NRMs) are 'destructive cults,' that
all of the members thereof are 'cult victims,' are 'brainwashed,' and
are therefore at risk, possibly needing 'rescue.' The jury's decision,
under the definitions provided in Washington law, was that CAN was
truly an organized hate campaign. CAN described its activities in a
euphemistic manner to make its activities seem less outrageous from a
civil liberties perspective. The reason CAN ever became involved in
the Scott lawsuit was that, consistent with its organizational
pattern, it served as a conduit for referrals to coercive
deprogrammers (later termed by CAN 'exit counselors') who would, for a
fee, abduct and during detention harangue family members into
religious apostasy."
http://www.cesnur.org/2001/CAN.htm
The reason the presence of exit counselors sounds a warning bell to
objective researchers is that exit counselors essentially set the
terms whereby a person switches allegiance from a spiritual group to
an ex-cult support group. But since exit counselors are creatures of
the anti-cult movement, the terms which they negotiate typically
involve tests of loyalty in which the ex-member is asked to denounce
her former religion and become involved in euphemistically named
"rescue" activities which attempt to compel defection by current group
members using virtually any means necessary, including massive
disinformation about the "true nature" of the group in question. If
all goes as planned, the "rescued" members then become the new clients
of the exit counselor, with a family member hostile to the spiritual
group footing the bill, and the person who pulled in the business
getting a referral fee. I view this arrangement as fundamentally
corrupt, and any data arising from it as inadmissible in a fair-minded
study.
When anti-cult groups attempt to persuade the public that their
spokespeople would have "no reason to lie," serious researchers go
white at the knuckles, knowing that the whole literature of apostasy
shows that ex-members have *every* reason to lie. There is no more
bitter opponent of Catholicism than the ex-Catholic, and no more
scathing satirist of rabbinical culture than the secular Jew. Were it
not that so many innocent people are harmed by anti-cult campaigns, it
would be almost comical to observe the way that anti-cultists take
someone who is on record as having the blackest personal hatred for a
person or group and present them as an unblemished witness. An
Internet poster does not become more credible simply because she
invites people to call and speak with her. The "meet and greet" is
part of Exit Counseling 101. The anti-cult movement does as much "love
bombing" of new recruits as any group it opposes.
Anne, you portray the person of faith as weak, confined and
narrow-minded, while the person who attacks their former faith is
strong, liberated and progressive -- surely a caricaturized view. The
reality can be quite the opposite. Your idea that a person who leaves
a spiritual group subsequently adopts a wider world view has a certain
secular appeal, but is dubious. Spiritual practitioners sometimes
narrow the apparent focus of their lives in order to broaden their
spiritual horizons. By needing very little, they become one with
something vast. As Mother Theresa said: "The more you have, the more
you are occupied, the less you give. But the less you have, the more
free you are."
When people leave a spiritual group, they often return to a more
consumptive lifestyle, gradually reabsorbing dominant secular values
and becoming estranged from the experiences they had during a time of
more intensive spiritual practice. The apostate may feel she is
inheriting all the *things* of the world, but the Yogini, by coming
close to the soul of God, may feel she finally *understands* the world
-- by seeing it through God's eyes. Just because you now enjoy
hamburgers and dating doesn't prove that you have a wider world view
than someone who follows the Yogic Shastras. In a popularity contest,
Gidget might well beat Gandhi, but popularity isn't everything.
For my part, I've experienced many cycles of doubt and faith in my
life. I'm possessed of a rebellious nature, so I have to try and work
around that as best I can. I've been practicing on my own for the last
couple of years. I think joining a spiritual group and getting
initiation from a qualified teacher can bring faster progress, if
one's human nature will cooperate. I am not currently vegetarian or
celibate, but I think I made more progress when I tried to be. My
present path is to do what pleases me -- but it often pleases me to
pray, meditate, read spiritual books and visit spiritual places. One
of the places I've visited most often in recent years has been the
Ramakrishna and Vivekananda Temple, where I've taken a few classes.
The last time I saw Sri Chinmoy was once in 1999, and once before that
in 1996, at events held for the general public. Many years prior to
that, I studied with him, which for me was a completely positive
experience. And in taking classes more recently with a Swami of the
Ramakrishna Order, I found a very close correlation between the
teachings. From both I got the same message -- that God wants our
whole mind. Like most people, I find the whole mind so difficult to
give! I'm lucky if I give 10%, but it seems that what I get back from
God is so much vaster than my puny personal effort. I also visit
Catholic and Protestant churches, and I take special note of Christ's
teaching: "If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth
will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you
do not bring forth will destroy you." Surely a "totalist" doctrine!
It takes a great deal of strength to accept a spiritual path and to
remain committed to it. I think there's a continuous input of work
involved. Of course, people have every right to change their minds
about what kind of life they want to lead. They may become tired or
feel the pinch of human weaknesses, as has often been the case with
me. Once they stop doing the spiritual work, the spiritual vision
fades and they can easily drift into doubt and apostasy. A kind of
psychological inversion may take place, and people begin to hate what
they formerly loved -- especially if they are exposed to anti-cult
ideology, which tends to encourage this inversion. I have dialogued
extensively with the small apostate group currently attacking Sri
Chinmoy Centres, and have found that hatred, obsession and revenge are
chief among their motives. I cannot consider their apostasy a
"strength" when it entails vilifying their former associates in the
crudest possible terms. I do not find them reliable sources on Sri
Chinmoy -- indeed, in one of the great displays of apostate
curmudgeonliness, one fellow even insisted that Sri Chinmoy doesn't
teach meditation!
Anne, you assume that someone who follows a spiritual path "remains
caged within the confines of an idealogogy [sic], that holds biases
against the outside world." But I have seen Sri Chinmoy from both
inside his group and outside as well. I find no fault in him. He is a
Yoga traditionalist as well as an innovator, and his writings have
inspired not just those following his path, but those whose practice
is self-directed. As Dr. Ananda W. P. Guruge implied in his discussion
of Buddhism, the Dhammapada, American youth and Sri Chinmoy, there is
something universal about Sri Chinmoy's way of expressing the ideals
of peace which allows him to share these ideals with an international
diplomatic audience and with an otherwise alienated youth.
I think the Yogic view of the world is a very broad view indeed -- one
which encompasses all worlds, all beings and all religions. It's a
view which accepts the living presence of God as an authentic
experience in the heart of all spiritual seekers, whatever their
religion. However, most of those attacking Sri Chinmoy Centres appear
to have traded in that Yogic view for an anti-cult view in which
spiritual experiences are attributed to brainwashing or hypnosis --
and career, family and self-interest become the penultimate concerns.
Whether this represents a shift from the narrow to the broad is
entirely in the eye of the beholder.
Sri Chinmoy and his students go from place to place offering peace
concerts, peace runs, peace meditations, etc. They are very active in
the world and certainly do not despise it. They have their own rules
and customs, as do most spiritual groups, but I reject the notion that
they are "biased." They are a pluralistic group which has faith in its
own leader, but which also values the contributions made by other
teachers and paths, including Christianity, Buddhism, Sufism, and the
various branches of Yoga. Sri Chinmoy has written extensively in
praise of other masters. I still have many books by him, including
Drink, Drink My Mother's Nectar (a book of plays about Sri
Ramakrishna), and The Disciple and The Master (essays on Swami
Vivekananda and Sri Ramakrishna). I should add that in typical
pool-muddying fashion, some of those attacking Sri Chinmoy Centres
have tried to plant the story that Sri Chinmoy left the Sri Aurobindo
ashram due to a falling out, or that he was an ashram nobody who came
to America in 1964 to pretend he was a somebody. However, my first
edition of The Disciple and The Master contains the following front
matter:
First Edition 1970, January 1970, © Sri Chinmoy Kumar Ghose 1970
Published by Sri Aurobindo Ashram, Pondicherry
Printed at Sri Aurobindo Ashram Press, Pondicherry
PRINTED IN INDIA 1970
While this is hardly the Rosetta Stone, it does show that the Sri
Aurobindo Ashram was still publishing Sri Chinmoy's work 6 years after
he had come to America, and that they accepted him as having achieved
a high spiritual realization, as indicated by their use of the
honorific "Sri." There seems to have been no falling out or formal
schism, but rather a smooth transition.
I should also add that because I have spoken in support of Sri Chinmoy
Centres, I have come under personal attack. Because I dared to
disagree with her story, Anne Carlton has posted a message filled with
four and seven-letter words accusing me of having homosexual relations
with Sri Chinmoy. Though she has never met me, does not know me by
name and has no idea who I am, this does not deter her from posting
that "he's probably been sticking it right up that tight little ass of
yours."
Aside from verbal violence, the naysayers have also been circulating
fictitious biographical information about me. While such foolishness
deserves little notice, I would state briefly that I am not Sue D.,
Chingroup, or Aparajita, have never attended Harvard University, do
not own a vegetarian restaurant, and have never traveled around the
world with Sri Chinmoy or anyone else. From what I can observe, the
policy of Sri Chinmoy Centres is to maintain a dignified silence in
the face of recent attacks. I find this just one more reason to admire
them. However, this also creates a vacuum in which any support shown
Sri Chinmoy Centres may be misinterpreted as coming from Sri Chinmoy
Centres. Therefore, as I have been at pains to do in the past, I
remind readers that I am not a member of Sri Chinmoy Centres and do
not speak for Sri Chinmoy. If you find fault in me, you should
therefore not attribute that fault to anyone other than myself.
I see Sri Chinmoy Centres as utter non-combatants in the present
conflict, and my personal decision to post material supporting them
should in no way devolve to them. My intention in posting this
material is to try and help cooler heads prevail, not to escalate
tensions between any of the parties. I'm grateful for the opportunity
to share my views on the subject. Thank you.
--outcast
SueCast
> outca...@yahoo.com (outcast) wrote in message news:<95aaad3a.02042...@posting.google.com>...
> material out of context. The following quotation is from the
> preface by the person who posted Dr. Wilson's material at your above
> link:
>
> "IMO, Dr. Wilson's experience and expertise here also casts very
> serious doubt on the reliability and objectivity of disgruntled or
> disaffected ex-Catholics who become militant anti-Catholics,
> especially those who make all kinds of fanciful allegations of
> extravagant wrong-doing by the Church" signed the Curmudgeon
>
> You have been using examples from a discussion about Catholics. As we
> now know those so called "apostates" were telling the truth all along
> about the priests and sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. So your
> use of Dr. Bryan Wilson's theory ultimately works against your
> argument, not for it.
>
> It is absurd to say that anyone who leaves a "cult" is hostile and
> untrustworthy as an objective judge of the cult. Are those boys who
> were molested by priests untrust-worthy judges of those priests? Of
> course not. They are the ones to listen to as they have first hand
> knowledge of what went on behind closed doors. And those women who
> told their stories on the Chinmoy Information site are the best ones
> to listen to as well.
>
> What lengths you are going to Outcast, to twist the truth.
I ALSO TOTALLY SUPPORT KEN'S VERY OBSERVANT STATEMENT. THIS TWISTING
OF THE TRUTH, IDIOTIC GENERALISATION, AND HIDING OF THE TRUE FACTS
ABOUT A MATTER, IS TYPICALLY CULTISH AND DECEITFUL. THE PROBLEM WITH
THOSE IN THE CULT IS THAT THEY ARE SO CONDITIONED THAT THEY FORGET
THAT EVERYBODY ELSE IS NOT IN LA LA LAND WITH THEM. WE DO USE OUR
MINDS TO RECOGNISE DECEPTION.
SueCast
> on 4/19/02 3:58 AM, Sue wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > These inconsistencies between Anne's testimonies are of concern and in
> > my opinion they indicate that Anne probably wanted an affair with Sri
> > Chinmoy, but he rightly rejected her advances and later expelled her
> > from the Center. Anne says this is an offering of truth, but
> > accusations of sexual misconduct are always easy to make, but
> > extremely difficult to prove.
> >
> > Sue D
>
> Sue, your defense of Chinmoy is really a defense of your
> projection of Chinmoy. You are trying to protect your idea
> about him and his status as a spiritual master, as well as
> your concept of spiritual mastery in general.
>
> From what I've been able to gather, Chinmoy is a corrupted
> guru. Does that mean that he doesn't have the understanding
> his students seek from him? Not necessarily. He may very
> well be the spiritual master they think of him as, but he
> may also be held sway by his repressed sexual desire, which
> he allows to manifest in these twisted power plays with
> these disciples.
>
> Anne isn't the only one to come forward with these kind of
> stories about Chinmoy. There is a whole community of folk
> who have had these kind of experiences with him. It may not
> fit well in the world you have constructed, but the real
> world rarely does. Get ready for a dose of reality Sue,
> and you'll be a lot better off in every respect.
JODY SAID IT VERY WELL: SUE D'S DEFENCE OF SRI CHINMOY IS REALLY A
PROJECTION OF WHO SHE/HE PERCEIVES CHINMOY IS, NOT NECESSARILY AN
ACTUALITY. SUE D. REPEATEDLY SAYS THAT THESE STORIES OF SEXUAL
MISCONDUCT COME FROM BITTER PEOPLE WHO WERE EXPELLED FROM THE
GROUP--THIS IS TOTALLY NOT TRUE. ALL THREE WOMEN WHO HAVE BRAVELY COME
FORWARD, ON THE CONTRARY LEFT OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL, WITH SRI CHINMOY
BEGGING EACH OF THEM NOT TO LEAVE. EG "OUI GOOD GIRL, YOU ARE BREAKING
MY HEART" -- FROM A PHONE CONVERSATION TO THE FORMER LEADER OF THE SAN
FRANSCICO SRI CHINMOY CENTER. SO, PLEASE SUE D. - STOP TRYING TO
JUSTIFY IT TO YOURSELF -- AS JODY SAID, IT MAY NOT FIT INTO THE IDEA
YOU HAVE IN YOUR MIND, BUT UNFORTUNATELY IT'S REALITY, AND SOMETIMES
REALITY IS NOT PRETTY!
SueCast
FIRST OF ALL HOW DO EXPECT THE READERS HERE TO BELEIVE THAT YOU ARE
NOT A DISCIPLE, AND NOT CONNECTED WITH THE SRI CHINMOY CENTER IN ANY
WAY.? WHEN YOU ARE COMING FROM A PLACE OF DECEIT YOUR WORDS CANNOT BE
ACCEPTED WITH ANY CREDIBLE SINCERITY. MY GUESS, HAVING BEEN A MEMBER
OF THE SRI CHINMOY CENTER FOR 23 YEARS, IS THAT SRI CHINMOY HIMSELF
PUT YOU UP TO THIS? IS THAT NOT SO? AND YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU READ IN
THE SRI CHINMOY INFORMATION SITE CRITISISM OF THE DALAI LAMA, SWAMI
VIVEKANANDA. WELL I'VE HEARD SRI CHINMOY HIMSELF SAY DEROGATORY THINGS
ABOUT THE DALAI LAMA. AND I WAS TOLD HE SAID SOMETHING NOT VERY
FLATTERING ABOUT SWAMI VIVEKANANDA (IN PRIVATE) OUT OF RESPECT I WILL
NOT QUOTE WHAT I HEARD--ALTHOUGH I CERTAINLY WILL IF YOU CHALLENGE ME.
ALSO WHAT ABOUT ALO DEVI, WHO SRI CHINMOY ONCE SAID WAS REALISED, BUT
THEN LATER SAID THAT SHE HAD LOST HER REALISATION, (BUT EVERYONE
SHOULD KEEP PRETENDING TO HER THAT SHE STILL IS?) IS THIS COMPASSION?
OR IS IT A FORM OF DECEPTION? THESE ARE QUESTIONS THAT CANNOT BE ASKED
IN THE SRI CHINMOY CENTER DUE TO AN ATMOSPHERE OF FEAR. AFTER MANY
YEARS OF FOLLOWING HIS PHILOSOPHY OF SURRENDERING TO SRI CHINMOY AND
BUILDING ONE'S LIFE AROUND HIM, HE HOLDS THE ULTIMATE POWER OF PULLING
THE RUG FROM UNDER YOU, AND CASTING YOU BACK TO "THE SEA OF IGNORANCE"
AND HE USES THIS THREAT/POWER TO CONTROL. HAVING SAID THAT I DO NOT
REGRET MY TIME IN THE SRI CHINMOY CENTER, DESPITE HIS INTIMATION THAT
HE IS AN AVATAR, AFTER THE INITIAL YEARS OF DEPENDING AND FOCUSING ON
HIM, I NOTICED INCONSISTANCIES, AND CONTRADICTIONS, SO I REFOCUSED MY
DEVOTION BACK TO THE SUPREME INSIDE ME, INSTEAD OF HIM.HE HAS NOT
ADVERSELY AFFECTED MY LIFE IN ANY WAY -- OTHER THAN LIMITING MY
FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION, WHICH I GAVE CONSENT TO, FOR A
NUMBER OF YEARS UNTIL BECAME SELF-EMPOWERED AGAIN. ALSO I HAVE TO BE
GRATEFUL FOR THE LIFE-LONG FRIENDS I MET IN THE SRI CHINMOY CENTRE.
ALSO OUTCAST AND SUED/FORSURE MAKE NOTE THAT THE FACT THAT SRI CHINMOY
IS REMAINING SILENT THROUGH ALL THIS, PROVES HIS INNOCENCE. FROM MY
EXPERIENCE THIS IS VERY UNLIKELY, AS SRI CHINMOY IS USUALLY EXTREMELY
VOCIFEROUS IN PRIVATE. MY EXPERIENCE WAS THAT HE HAS ONE PERSONA FOR
THE PUBLIC AND ANOTHER IN PRIVATE. AND BY OTHER ACCOUNTS, STILL
ANOTHER TO A SELECT WILLING, FEW.
Sue
Group is the claim that Sri Chinmoy forbids his disciples to freely
use the internet. (Message 2289 from Truthita dated May 1, 2002).
Truthita also said that some are told not to read newspapers or watch
television. However, I know disciples who have computers and who
regularly look at the messages about Sri Chinmoy on the newsgroups.
They also read newspapers, watch television, and have jobs which
require them to use computers and the internet. It is easy to make
claims of censorship of news, but the only people who are really into
censorship are those running the Yahoo Board. I challenge them to
immediately reinstate the unmoderated status of the Yahoo Board and to
reinstate all the messages supporting Sri Chinmoy that were deleted.
It is interesting to see that Anne Carlton has not personally
responded to questions about why her testimony was altered especially
for the circular that was mailed out to hundreds of disciples. This
special "editing" of her testimony was quite inexcusable. (It is clear
from her original testimonial in Message 73 that Anne was one of the
many disciples who have become strongly attracted to Sri Chinmoy and
who wanted to have an affair with him. However, in her revised
testimony in Message 1806 Anne tried to make out that she didn't
really want the affair and wasn't really attracted to Sri Chinmoy at
all).
I do agree, however, with the statement made by Anne in Message 91
which said: "I think that all of us would agree that Chinmoy has
amazing strength". Anne said that she agreed that Chinmoy has 100%
supported some very heavy weights, at least up to 350lb. If you are
skeptical of Sri Chinmoy's lifts, try lifting 350 lb with one arm some
time and you'll soon see how strong he really is.
Sue D
jody
[snip]
> I do agree, however, with the statement made by Anne in Message 91
> which said: "I think that all of us would agree that Chinmoy has
> amazing strength". Anne said that she agreed that Chinmoy has 100%
> supported some very heavy weights, at least up to 350lb. If you are
> skeptical of Sri Chinmoy's lifts, try lifting 350 lb with one arm some
> time and you'll soon see how strong he really is.
>
> Sue D
Having great strength is no different than habitual
masturbation from the regard of the Self.
rajish
Sue D, I find your unconditional allegiance to Chinmoy fanatical to
the extreme. You may want to read the following excerpt,
ALL ABOUT GURUS
by
Dr. Ramananda Prasad, American/International Gita Society, Fremont,
California, USA
"The wise spiritual teacher disapproves the idea of blind personal
service, or the guru cult, which is so common in India,and is being
imported abroad. A Self-realized master says that God only is the only
guru, and all are His disciples. A disciple should be like a bee
seeking honey from flowers. If the bee does not get honey from one
flower, it immediately goes to another flower and stays at that flower
as long as it gets the nectar. Idolization and blind worship of a
human guru become stumbling block in the spiritual progress of both
the disciple and the guru and brings the downfall of Hinduism."
There are 95 members posting at the Chinmoy Information site. I can
only find one member that is posting anything "positive" regarding
Chinmoy and that is you. Who are the other 94 members? Do you
personally know them? How can you constantly condemn the experiences
of 94 individuals who you do not know? Does it not make sense that
there must truly be something wrong in the Chinmoy Centres if so many
people have had bad experiences?
Raj (Delhi)
SueCast
> > Group is the claim that Sri Chinmoy forbids his disciples to freely
> > use the internet. (Message 2289 from Truthita dated May 1, 2002).
>
> the one's, like yourself, that act as his mouth piece are allowed to
> use the internet. You know that!THIS IS TRUTHITA --WELL YOU ARE EITHER BEING A DISOBEDIENT DISCIPLE, OR YOU WERE ESPECIALLY APPOINTED TO LAUNCH A "COUNTER-ATTACK" BY SRI CHINMOY, HIMSELF.
> YOU ARE A DISCIPLE ARE
NT YOU? WHY TRY TO HIDE IT. ARE YOU AFRAID OF BEING EXPELLED? YOU DO
KNOW THAT YOU ARE AS INDISPENSIBLE AS ANYONE ELSE. EVEN DEFENDING SRI
CHINMOY WILL NOT GUARANTEE YOU BEING KICKED OUT. BELEIVE IT OR NOT, I
OFTEN DEFENDED HIM TO "OUTSIDERS" WHO CRITISIZED HIM, AND I WAS
DISMISSED FOR MAKING A PHONE CALL. WHICH WAS A BLESSING--BECAUSE IT
SET ME FREE FROM ALL THAT CONDITIONING INSIDE THAT PRISON OF BELEIF.
EITHER YOU ARE A DISOBEDIENT DISCIPLE, OR YOU ARE BLINDLY OBEYING YOUR
GURU'S ORDERS
> > Truthita also said that some are told not to read newspapers or watch
> > television. However, I know disciples who have computers and who
> > regularly look at the messages about Sri Chinmoy on the newsgroups.
> > They also read newspapers, watch television, and have jobs which
>
> I recall many times Chinmoy telling disciples not to read newspapers,
> or go to the movies, or watch television. Although, disciples in his
> "inner circle" are given permission to do all kinds of things - even
> have boyfriends and girlfriends - but they are told not to let others
> know. SO IT IS TRUE, EXACTLY AS I HAVE SAID.
>
> >
> > It is interesting to see that Anne Carlton has not personally
> > responded to questions about why her testimony was altered especially
> > for the circular that was mailed out to hundreds of disciples. This
> > special "editing" of her testimony was quite inexcusable. (It is clear
> > from her original testimonial in Message 73 that Anne was one of the
> > many disciples who have become strongly attracted to Sri Chinmoy and
> > who wanted to have an affair with him. However, in her revised
> > testimony in Message 1806 Anne tried to make out that she didn't
> > really want the affair and wasn't really attracted to Sri Chinmoy at
> > all).
>
> of sexual abuse. Obviously you must find the other stories credible,
> or you would be picking them apart as well. Since you must find them
> credible, what does it matter if Anne appears inconsistant or not?
> If Chinmoy is not celibate ---- end of argument. And not only are
> there testimonials from women, but there are also testimonials from
> men whose wives were sexually abused by Chinmoy.
> Obviously different disciples have different personalities and
> different levels of awareness....if Chinmoy sexually abuses 4 women
> and all 4 women tell their stories....and one of the women is somewhat
> confused or confusing.....why would you constantly attack her?
> Couldn't you understand that this is part of her humanity and have
> some compassion? Again, I repeat, the other testimonials seem to be
> consistent. Right? So why pick on Anne? So what if she is confused
> sometimes. Her confusion does not exonerate Chinmoy.
>
>
>
> > I do agree, however, with the statement made by Anne in Message 91
> > which said: "I think that all of us would agree that Chinmoy has
> > amazing strength". Anne said that she agreed that Chinmoy has 100%
> > supported some very heavy weights, at least up to 350lb. If you are
> > skeptical of Sri Chinmoy's lifts, try lifting 350 lb with one arm some
> > time and you'll soon see how strong he really is.
> >
> > Sue D
>
>
> much weight one can lift. It is measured by one's strength of
> character and integrity. Ken
I AGREE WITH KEN, THIS IS WHAT TRUE STRENGTH IS. ARNOLD SCHWARTZNEGER
HAS PHYSICAL STRENGTH, WHY DON'T YOU WORSHIP HIM?
Ian Johnson
attention away from the underlying issue here. Those of us who have
read all of Anne's messages on the aboutsrichinmoy.com site and
message boards can see clearly that her testimonies are consistent and
just as credible as those of the other women involved. Perhaps the
deleting of half the messges on the site occured as a result of strong
threats of libel against the free speech principles of the person who
started it. And perhaps suedforsure's membership of the site was
withdrawn as a result of his/her continual harassment of one of the
alleged victims of Sri Chinmoy despite not ever disclosing his/her
identity or relationship to the Sri Chinmoy organisation. All other
major contributors to the messages have freely and openly given their
names and details of their associations, even though suedforsure
tracked us all down to our origins, including our workplaces and in my
case, threatened to inform my workplace.
Now he/she is doing the same thing here. And what is the underlying
issue?
All of us who have been involved in the Sri Chinmoy centres know that
there was and is a culture of deceit. Sri Chinmoy told all of us that
his "shakti" Alo Devi was enlightened. Then, after a few years he told
us she was not. From what I have learned of true enlightenment,
someone cannot get unenlightened!! He told us this in secret and we
had to "keep the secret" from other disciples who kept on worshipping
her as enlightened. Further, we were asked to keep acting as though we
thought she was the mother of the universe and lie to her. Sri Chinmoy
seemed to find this deceit funny at times. If he had lied about her
enlightenment, then it is possible that he also lied about his own. As
far as the weight-lifting goes, why are you talking about 350 lbs??
Sri Chinmoy has claimed to have lifted 7,000 lbs!! According to
information given at the aboutsrichinmoy.com site, he asked his
disciples to doctor the photographs taken as proof of the lift. If
this is true, it is more evidence of deceit. Sri Chinmoy also claims
to have had the Buddha, and many other great figures sit on his
shoulder in the inner worlds. But of course, we mere mortals cannot
know whether this is true or not. I know what I think of it!!.
According to the messages, he promised not to have photographs taken
of his meetings with certain famous people but had cameras hidden in
the room and had photographs taken. We only have to consider one of
these situations to determine that there was a culture of deceit.
Therefore, it is reasonable to look very, very carefully at other
allegations about this man. If he claims that the allegations are
"lies" we need to weigh up our acceptance of his innocence or guilt
based on what we know of his truthfulness and honesty from past
experience. Once again, I know what I think!!
When I was a disciple, movies, TV, etc were certainly discouraged, but
then the guru started to watch TV quite often. SueCast has only
recently left the Centres and I am sure his reporting of what is not
allowed is accurate. suedforsure must remember that those of us
posting on the information site know intimately what goes on just as
he/she does, the only difference being that we are free to speak out
own minds.
suedf...@yahoo.com (Sue) wrote in message news:<d08a3110.02050...@posting.google.com>...
Sue
> > Group is the claim that Sri Chinmoy forbids his disciples to freely
> > use the internet. (Message 2289 from Truthita dated May 1, 2002).
snip
> Why do you constantly attack Anne? There are a few other testimonials
> of sexual abuse. Obviously you must find the other stories credible,
> or you would be picking them apart as well.
I don't find any of the other stories credible. For example, in
Message 162 btranscend said that Sri Chinmoy "takes young girls out of
school, makes them totally dependent on him and then he uses them
sexually." It seems that the whole aim of btranscend is to make it
look as though Sri Chinmoy is a predator who selects suitable young
women disciples as his victims and then rapes them. In Message 162
btranscend said Sri Chinmoy raped his disciples and that this was not
consensual sex. She said Sri Chinmoy has absolutely no interest in the
spirituality of his disciples and that his only interest is his own
pleasure and his enormous power trip. Yet in Message 73 Anne Carlton
made it clear that she thought the idea of having sex with Sri Chinmoy
was cool and that she had a strong attraction for Sri Chinmoy. It is
no wonder that Anne's testimony was later edited to bring it more in
line with the views expressed by btranscend. This shows that the
allegations of sexual misconduct made on the Sri Chinmoy
Disinformation Board are totally unreliable and should be ignored.
Even though btranscend was strongly reprimanded at the time by her own
colleagues for making such extreme, distorted, and untrue statements,
Message 162 has never been deleted from the Board. Therefore, the
credibility of two of the Board's leading critics has been shown to be
sadly lacking.
snip
> So why pick on Anne? So what if she is confused
> sometimes. Her confusion does not exonerate Chinmoy.
If Anne is confused, she is not a credible witness, end of story.
Because the evidence given by btranscend has been rejected even by her
own colleagues, she is not a credible witness either, end of story.
> True strength is not measured by the bulk of one's muscles or by how
> much weight one can lift. It is measured by one's strength of
> character and integrity.
I was merely pointing out that in contrast to others who have said Sri
Chinmoy's lifts are not credible, Anne Carlton, a severe critic of Sri
Chinmoy, said that he has amazing strength. Therefore, if Anne is
prepared to concede this, I think we can all safely assume that Sri
Chinmoy does indeed have amazing physical strength. I think he also
has amazing strength of character and integrity.
Sue D
SueCast
Thank you Raj for that quoted passage above. It seems that in India
most people are aware of the true nature of a self-realised master. If
there are such masters, surely they do not seek to amass disciples,
wealth, media attention and so forth.They are not slaves of the gunas,
compelled to act, to accumulate, etc. They are complete. Disciples are
attracted to them, and come to them freely, and they are
detached.These guru's that come to the West, have lawyers, public
relations people etc, and like Sri Chinmoy, have a meglomaniacal
desire to be known throughout the world (eg. to win the Nobe Peace
Prize)--JS
outcast
Ken wrote:
>Why do you constantly attack Anne? There are a few other
>testimonials of sexual abuse. Obviously you must find the other
>stories credible, or you would be picking them apart as well.
>Since you must find them credible, what does it matter if Anne
>appears inconsistant or not? If Chinmoy is not celibate ---- end
>of argument. And not only are there testimonials from women, but
>there are also testimonials from men whose wives were sexually
>abused by Chinmoy. Obviously different disciples have different
>personalities and different levels of awareness....if Chinmoy
>sexually abuses 4 women and all 4 women tell their stories....and
>one of the women is somewhat confused or confusing.....why would
>you constantly attack her? Couldn't you understand that this is
>part of her humanity and have some compassion? Again, I repeat,
>the other testimonials seem to be consistent. Right? So why pick
>on Anne? So what if she is confused sometimes. Her confusion
>does not exonerate Chinmoy.
I take note of your attempt to widen and mischaracterize the
allegations. I reject utterly your assertion that the other stories
are credible. As you well know, there are only three screen names (and
perhaps fewer actual persons) who are using the Internet as a platform
to allege firsthand knowledge of sexual activity by Sri Chinmoy. Of
those, Anne Carlton -- a.k.a. Phulela, Penny, Betty, Lady Liberty,
etc. -- was the first and the most vociferous. It is she who has been
enthusiastically pitching her ever-changing story in both anti-cult
forums and forums belonging to the Yoga/meditation community (and even
in alt.religion.christian). This whole house of cards is built around
her. Any investigator would know that if her story goes (and it will
go), the other two will follow in short order. If, as you say, she is
"confused" or "appears inconsistent," then any anti-cult organizations
which publish her story may get burned.
The anti-cult movement looks for doubting or disaffected members of
religious movements, culls them, indoctrinates them into its own
beliefs, and grooms them for new careers as exit counselors and road
show warriors (who then speak against the groups to which they lately
belonged). The anti-cult movement does not hire people who are
lukewarm about their former religion or who appear confused and
inconsistent. Applicants must prove rock steady and show that they can
whip blood to the cheeks of an audience -- whether family members who
need to be persuaded that "rescue" of a loved one is called for, or
current members of a religious group who find on visiting home that
their living room is filled with strangers with stories to tell. Anne
has emailed me her phone number, and told me she's ready to be there
for me if I "just need a person to be real with." Hee hee hee! I would
rather be exit counseled by the Easter Bunny. But I am not in Sri
Chinmoy Centres, so her attempt to get me on the hook to exit
counselors is foolish and amateurish. She can't even "keep the
conversation going," which I believe is lesson number one. In Sri
Chinmoy Information she writes:
"Chinmoy is dirty, slimy, smelly and he has bad breath too.
Plus he is ugly as hell, face all pocked up and without any
front teeth. AND his !@%# is tiny, he can't get it up properly..."
"Half the disciples are running around with herpes all over their
faces. The neigborhood is full of gossip about how Chinmoy is
getting it on. People have even spotted the boys doing it, they
have watched it through a basement window."
And yet she also writes:
"Here are the contents of the letter to the disciples, some of them
have already received it. This letter was distributed to close to 1500
people on a worldwide basis."
"We pray that you will read everything here knowing that we care, with
all our hearts, about you. As you continue your spiritual journey, we
wish for only good, enlightening and wonderful things to happen for
you. Most of all, we feel we must share what we have learned with the
other dear members of our spiritual family, who are always with us in
our hearts."
But again:
"Everyone thinks that Chinmoy is the joke of the town but not you, no,
you want to live in your little bubble. In that bubble you are
special, you are a big little 'I am so spiritual and the rest of the
world would be sh*t without my guru's light' Well the world sees
through Chinmoy's crap 1000 times better than you do."
And also:
"There recently was a spiritual group that, after learning about the
master's misconduct and misrepresentation, dethrowned [sic] him and
kept the group going... I feel that this would definitely be an
empowered way to deal with the situation. Rather than leaving
yourselves, hold a secret meeting and elect a new set of leaders and
organizers... I would be happy to facilitate this kind of endeavor and
I am willing to help in any way that I can. Please contact me
personally if you are interested in pursuing something like this."
It seems clear that Anne hates Sri Chinmoy Centres, wants to tear the
organization apart, and wants to emerge in some kind of leadership
role. Given her aggressive actions against a community which is
clean-living, peace-loving and non-threatening, I can't agree that she
has been "picked on" or "attacked." She's been questioned civilly. On
balance, she has been treated with incredible kindness.
Like many urban legends, this matter may never be resolved on the
Internet. But Sri Chinmoy has already proven himself to those who had
the courage to look with their own eyes and feel with their own
hearts. There are many people who speak of God day in and day out; but
when Sri Chinmoy folds his hands in silent prayer, God's consciousness
descends. Thousands of seekers have felt this, and whether or not they
choose to follow his path, they bow to Sri Chinmoy -- not because they
are fools or sheep, but because they have felt deep within their own
hearts that he is a true man of God. Like Sri Ramakrishna, he tells
his students, "Drink, drink my Mother's nectar." It is because they
value the experience of divine bliss that they walk with him along the
path of Yoga. This is something which can never be imparted over the
Internet, and yet it is the most crucial fact in understanding Sri
Chinmoy Centres, which is a place of peace and light in an
oft-benighted world. Many thousands have taken refuge there for as
long as their human nature would permit. Many have come in joy and
gone in joy. A few, when their nature rebelled against the daily work,
left in bitterness and now blame Sri Chinmoy Centres for all their
problems. But it is a mistake to blame the teacher and the path for
one's own failings. Those who have cursed Sri Chinmoy a thousand
times, if they take responsibility for their own lives, can once again
begin to drink the nectar which will strengthen and restore them. If
they have no taste for this nectar, whether it is offered by Sri
Chinmoy or by some other teacher, then let them find honest work and
not trouble others with their endless complaints.
I have spoken in spiritual terms, but I can also say it in terms more
familiar to the therapy community: The "presenting problem" of this
small cabal attacking Sri Chinmoy Centres is that they are "victims of
cult abuse." They are veterans of ex-cult support groups based on pop
psychology fads. They have read books telling them they are "cult
survivors," and have become fiercely protective of this new identity.
But this is only the presenting problem. In fact, Sri Chinmoy Centres
is not an "abusive cult," it's an internationally known and respected
Yoga organization. It is not a communist re-education camp (which is
the paradigm for understanding spiritual groups used by Robert Lifton
and other mind control theorists). It's a voluntary spiritual
community where people are given ample opportunity to determine their
own level of commitment. Some people remain on the periphery for years
and make only modest changes in lifestyle. I knew people who would
only put in brief, perfunctory appearances at Centre events on their
way to hockey games or rock concerts, wearing cowboy boots. They did
this for years and were not ostracized or banished. Eventually, they
either came closer to the Centres or drifted away. They chose whatever
was dearest to their hearts.
If we make a direct study of Sri Chinmoy Centres that is not based on
hearsay or apostate accounts, we will see that this is a very sincere
Yoga group with a teacher who is absolutely qualified. Once we
recognize that Sri Chinmoy Centres is not an "abusive cult," then we
can get past the presenting problem and begin to examine the actual
difficulties of those currently attacking Sri Chinmoy Centres. Their
situation is best understood in terms of a marital breakup after a
long and deeply committed relationship. Lonnie Kliever has a Masters
degree in Divinity from Union Theological Seminary, a Doctorate in
Religion and Philosophy from Duke University, and a B.A. in Psychology
from Hardin-Simmons University. Kliever writes:
"[T]here are some voluntary apostates from new religious movements who
leave deeply embittered and harshly critical of their former religious
associations and activities. Their dynamics of separation from a
once-loved religious group is analogous to an embittered marital
separation and divorce. Both marriage and religion require a
significant degree of commitment. The greater the involvement, the
more traumatic the break-up. The longer the commitment, the more
urgent the need to blame the other for the failed relationship.
Long-term and heavily involved members of new religious movements who
over time become disenchanted with their religion often throw all of
the blame on their former religious associations and activities. They
magnify small flaws into huge evils. They turn personal
disappointments into malicious betrayals. They even will tell
incredible falsehoods to harm their former religion."
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/experts/apostates/kliever/kliever.html
A good therapist might advise a "divorce survivor" to:
- Stop obsessing over the past relationship.
- Stop hating and publicly demeaning their former partner.
- Stop reconstructing memories in a way that distorts reality.
- Start looking at their own faults and weaknesses.
- Start searching for positive coping strategies.
- Do some meditation to reduce stress and harmonize their energies.
- Spend time around people who are progressive and upbeat.
- Adopt an attitude conducive to reconciliation, if reconciliation is
desired.
These same suggestions might be offered to former members of Sri
Chinmoy Centres. If they can make peace with their former teacher,
they will be in a better position to move forward to whatever awaits
them in their new lives. I would add these tips:
- Don't read books coming from the repressed memory movement.
- Don't read books on thought reform, mind control and brainwashing.
- Don't read books which equate spiritual work with rape/incest/abuse.
- Stay clear of "support groups" based on similar quackery.
- Don't go "cold turkey" with your spiritual practice. If you once did
a lot, try and continue to do at least a little. This will save you
from the kind of psychological inversion that turns some people who
have left a spiritual path into raving lunatics. As the Gita says:
"Even a little of this Yoga will shelter you from great sorrow."
- If you need a therapist, be sure and choose one who is unconnected
with the anti-cult movement and who will value your spiritual
experiences -- not tell you they were all mental hallucinations.
- If your nature will permit it, accept a new spiritual path -- one in
which you can have abundant faith.
- Don't use the teachings of your new path to torture your old path.
- Disengage from all activities which stem from a need to justify
yourself at the expense of your former affiliation.
- Have respect for the online spiritual community. Don't use it as a
forum for your personal vendettas.
- Find honest work. Don't try and earn a living by seeking to destroy
the faith of others. This is a low occupation.
Yes, it hurts to separate. People may find it difficult to leave any
spiritual group with which they've become deeply involved, not because
anyone is preventing them, but because they have built a life there.
They feel a sense of community, loyalty and commitment. If they decide
to leave or are asked to leave, they may experience the same pangs as
ex-ministers, ex-nuns, and divorcing couples. They may for a time feel
a sense of loss. Despite attempts by the anti-cult movement to portray
this as some kind of ex-cult withdrawal syndrome, the truth remains
that these are very natural feelings of loss which arise whenever a
person leaves something they once cared deeply about, and may still
care about despite leaving. This is human nature. There is nothing
sinister at work.
In my observation, Sri Chinmoy does not want anyone to stay who is not
happy and is not making progress. If people are pining for a life in
the world, he frees them from their spiritual obligations and lets the
world once again be their teacher. Then they can progress at their own
pace, and his blessings go with them. Unfortunately, some people
become hostile to Sri Chinmoy. This can happen for various reasons. I
do not believe it is the fault of the guru. His job is to bring down
peace, light and joy, and to help his disciples perfect their nature.
But sometimes human nature rebels against the spiritual light and the
spiritual path.
There is something which therapists and gurus have in common: They
both see many unhappy people who have all but wrecked their lives. A
therapist will tell you that when you start to reach the place inside
a person where all the pain and problems are, that's when they're most
likely to lash out at you.
Sri Chinmoy is a very compassionate master. He often accepts students
who end up doing him harm because they are a bit crazy. But he tries
to show them divine love and compassion in the hope that this may
change their nature. His light goes very deep inside and touches every
hidden corner of one's being. For those who are praying for this
light, it is ecstasy. But for those who are not truly ready to receive
this light, it may prompt a revolt from the part of their nature which
does not want to change. Again, this is something therapists and
social workers can tell you: If you try to help someone and they
really don't want to change, they will just attack you. Suddenly you
are the worst person on earth. This is why I sometimes joke that the
easiest way to judge the height of a master is to gauge the hate of
the ex-disciples. If there are ex-disciples plotting twenty-four hours
a day to discredit their old master, you can be sure he is an Avatar.
Why? Because only an Avatar will dare to initiate people who are not
really ready. Only one with the greatest compassion will put up with
the revolt that comes when a person who does not really want to change
receives the transforming light.
"In this the Kali Yuga, bhakti is the easiest path."
--Ramakrishna.
--outcast*
*I am not a member of Sri Chinmoy Centres and do not speak for Sri
Chinmoy.
jody
[snip]
> "In this the Kali Yuga, bhakti is the easiest path."
> --Ramakrishna.
When Ramakrishna said that, he was referring to one's own
Ishta Devata as the focus of one's bhakti, not corrupt gurus
like Chinmoy.
Sue
> I think it is likely that suedforsure is only trying to direct
> attention away from the underlying issue here. Those of us who have
> read all of Anne's messages on the aboutsrichinmoy.com site and
> message boards can see clearly that her testimonies are consistent and
> just as credible as those of the other women involved.
Even several of Anne's friends have agreed with my view that her
testimonies are inconsistent and they have put this down to Anne's
"confused" state of mind.
> Perhaps the
> deleting of half the messges on the site occured as a result of strong
> threats of libel against the free speech principles of the person who
> started it.
It is fine to have free speech principles, but when slanderous
messages are published on a daily basis for several months, this
becomes harassment and I felt it was reasonable to point this out.
> And perhaps suedforsure's membership of the site was
> withdrawn as a result of his/her continual harassment of one of the
> alleged victims of Sri Chinmoy despite not ever disclosing his/her
> identity or relationship to the Sri Chinmoy organisation.
I was not continually harassing Anne Carlton, in fact I was having
quite a reasonable exchange of views with her until people like
btranscend told her to shut up. My messages were deleted because
btranscend did not like me questioning her star witness and for
revealing inconsistencies in her testimonies. I think it was very
childish and amateurish to try and prevent a supporter of Sri Chinmoy
from seeking further information from a key witness.
> All other
> major contributors to the messages have freely and openly given their
> names and details of their associations, even though suedforsure
> tracked us all down to our origins, including our workplaces and in my
> case, threatened to inform my workplace.
This is definitely not the case. For example, Btranscend has never
volunteered such information and I invite her to do so seeing you
contend that you will all freely and openly do this. With regard to
tracking you all down to your origins, I merely pointed out who your
ISP was, something which is easily obtainable from every message you
post. I did this because btranscend was telling people that it was
safe to post to the forum because there was no way of finding out any
information about the sources of the postings. Btranscend wanted to
encourage lots of ex-disciples to come forward and provide more
manufactured slanderous information about Sri Chinmoy and tried to
convince them that their postings would be completely anonymous in
every respect. I wanted to warn people of the dangers of continually
slandering people and to point out that there are several programs
available that can track a message back to its source.
You say that I threatened to inform your workplace that you were
posting messages to the Sri Chinmoy Disinformation Board. Well Ian,
this statement shows that you are not a credible witness, along with
most of your friends. In Message 1884 dated Mar 20, 2002, I said this
about your posting: "Well then, a posting which appears to have been
sent through the Queensland University of Technology, I wonder if you
are on the academic staff? If you are, you should know that you are
trying to brainwash me into thinking like you. I thought that educated
people were quite happy to let people come to their own conclusions,
based on their own research and experiences." From this extract, you
can see that I definitely did NOT threaten to inform your workplace!
Why make a statement such as this, it does nothing for your
credibility.
> As
> far as the weight-lifting goes, why are you talking about 350 lbs??
> Sri Chinmoy has claimed to have lifted 7,000 lbs!! According to
> information given at the aboutsrichinmoy.com site, he asked his
> disciples to doctor the photographs taken as proof of the lift. If
> this is true, it is more evidence of deceit.
I have viewed videos of many of the lifts and I am sure these were not
doctored in any way. There were lots of people present when the videos
were taken. I talked about 350 lbs because this was the figure Anne
Carlton mentioned.
Sue D
rajish
I can truly see why you would not be welcome on this Chinmoy
discussion board. You call yourself "Sued for Sure", which seems like
some type of threat from the start. Then you are constantly putting
the conversation into some type of court room context, by calling
other forum participants star witnesses etc. I can see that the
forum you are referring to is to openly share experiences. Why would
people feel comfortable with you, when you are constantly trying to
intimidate others with threatening legal language, and under cover
activities trying to find out personal information about these people
even when they do not offer the information voluntarily. It seems you
violate an unwritten code of civility and respect. Raj (delhi)
outcast
signed on a few years back, it seems like you were full of love for
Mother Kali, and you showed a certain kindness and understanding
towards others. But recently you've become a real hit-and-run Harry,
prone to sniping at newbies and shooting down anyone with innocent
faith. Is this really necessary? I've cut you slack on this so many
times, but I'm finally asking: Why so mean? If you want to be a hoodoo
demigod who sits astride alt.meditation and alt.yoga, wouldn't it be
better to earn this through kindness rather than endless sniping? Has
your critical nature sabatoged your own spiritual work, and do you now
let loose that same critical nature against innocent people on the
Internet?
When did you study with Sri Chinmoy? How do you know he is corrupt? If
you ask Mother Kali about him, I think She will tell you that like Sri
Ramakrishna, he is a true child of Hers. Outcast wrote:
"In this the Kali Yuga, bhakti is the easiest path."
--Ramakrishna.
Jody wrote:
>When Ramakrishna said that, he was referring to one's own
>Ishta Devata as the focus of one's bhakti, not corrupt gurus
>like Chinmoy.
Sri Ramakrishna was clear that the Ishta Devata could be anything that
gives one inspiration. In Meditation - Monks of the Ramakrishna Order,
several Swamis offer the same advice: Choose a a spiritual figure such
as the Buddha, the Christ, or one's own spiritual preceptor.
Kali is Sri Chinmoy's family deity, and he has taught his students to
sing many beautiful bhajans to Mother Kali. They have produced some
beautiful bhajan tapes. If you heard Sri Chinmoy's soul-stirring songs
to Mother Kali, I think you might find that he expresses the same
divine intoxication as Ramprasad, Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, and
Mookerjee. Of course, you have your own spiritual interest and
affiliations. But those who love the Mother may wish to choose with
care their words about the son.
jody
> Jody, forgive me for asking, but what went wrong? When you first
> signed on a few years back, it seems like you were full of love for
> Mother Kali, and you showed a certain kindness and understanding
> towards others. But recently you've become a real hit-and-run Harry,
> prone to sniping at newbies and shooting down anyone with innocent
> faith. Is this really necessary? I've cut you slack on this so many
> times, but I'm finally asking: Why so mean? If you want to be a hoodoo
> demigod who sits astride alt.meditation and alt.yoga, wouldn't it be
> better to earn this through kindness rather than endless sniping? Has
> your critical nature sabatoged your own spiritual work, and do you now
> let loose that same critical nature against innocent people on the
> Internet?
Fair questions all Outcast.
From this end of things there's nothing wrong at all. In fact,
I've always been a "hit-and-run Harry" as you say. What I'm
hitting are ideas and concepts that occlude truth as I've come
to know it. These generally fall under a few categories.
1. One must be perfectly chaste to become realized.
2. Self realization automatically renders one a chaste saint.
3. We must rely on unseen beings for our spiritual development.
4. Unseen beings control cultural development on the Earth.
5. The "path" is very narrow and efficacious only when practiced
in a certain manner under certain ideologies.
It is my "spiritual work" to counter these bogus beliefs.
When I "let loose" it is against these ideas, not the people
expressing them, although I admit it may seem otherwise at times.
If by an innocent person or not, if an occluding concept is
expressed I will usually comment on it. My rhetorical style
may seem harsh as I don't flower it up much, but the points
I want to express are made available to the readers, who are
free to enjoy them however they wish or throw them over the
fence with the dog dirt.
Whether it's necessary or not is up to the reader. I respond
to what I perceive as ignorance about spiritual truth. This
is USENET, the Internet's noisy town square as a mentor of mine
has described it. Everyone has a soapbox and can say whatever
they'd like from it, and anyone else has an open invitation to
jump in and comment on it.
With regards to being a "hoodoo demigod," I have no such desire.
I'm really not trying to be popular and the only "work" I seek
to accomplish is to provide another point of discrimination
for the readers.
Good, bad, wise, or an idiot. They can think whatever they'd
like about me.
> When did you study with Sri Chinmoy? How do you know he is corrupt? If
> you ask Mother Kali about him, I think She will tell you that like Sri
> Ramakrishna, he is a true child of Hers.
We are all *equally* children of Mother. There is no escape
from the designation if we're alive on this planet. Chinmoy
is no more or less so.
I haven't studied with Chinmoy at all, but I can ascertain from
the existence of his large group of ex-devotees that there is
something wrong with him or his methods.
>Outcast wrote:
>
> "In this the Kali Yuga, bhakti is the easiest path."
> --Ramakrishna.
> Jody wrote:
>
>
>>When Ramakrishna said that, he was referring to one's own
>>Ishta Devata as the focus of one's bhakti, not corrupt gurus
>>like Chinmoy.
>
>
> Sri Ramakrishna was clear that the Ishta Devata could be anything that
> gives one inspiration. In Meditation - Monks of the Ramakrishna Order,
> several Swamis offer the same advice: Choose a a spiritual figure such
> as the Buddha, the Christ, or one's own spiritual preceptor.
True. A tree or a dog will do nicely too if that floats your boat.
> Kali is Sri Chinmoy's family deity, and he has taught his students to
> sing many beautiful bhajans to Mother Kali. They have produced some
> beautiful bhajan tapes. If you heard Sri Chinmoy's soul-stirring songs
> to Mother Kali, I think you might find that he expresses the same
> divine intoxication as Ramprasad, Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, and
> Mookerjee. Of course, you have your own spiritual interest and
> affiliations. But those who love the Mother may wish to choose with
> care their words about the son.
Mother loves all equally. We are all Her puppets equally. None are
more so than others. Calling it on Chinmoy is no different than
calling it on a store clerk trying to pull a fast one with the change.
If he is truly realized then he knows this at the deepest level of
his being. If he is truly realized than he doesn't see himself as
any better or higher than anyone else in his group or out. He may
just be a creep who got realized, or he may be a creep who believes
he is realized and got others to believe it too. Either way the guy
appears to be a creep as evidenced by the community of ex-devotees
that exists. It isn't what the ex-devotees say or believe about him
that counts, it's the very existence of such a group that indicts him.
Just because Chinmoy is a shakta doesn't clear him of the problems
he and his organization have. Shaktas are just as prone to human
foibles as those of any other allegiance. Ramakrishna was himself
a focus of much controversy during his life in Calcutta due to his
obvious same sex attraction for some of his devotees.
The point is this: Chinmoy's escapades don't necessarily mean he
isn't spiritually realized, despite the seeming horror of his behavior.
He's human and humans get sick sometimes. I'm sure many are helped
by their participation in his group. But when they decide to think
outside the box he provides they are ejected, and that's a bad
business practice for any guru.
ericlifter
"Sue" <suedf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d08a3110.02050...@posting.google.com...
> > As
> > far as the weight-lifting goes, why are you talking about 350 lbs??
> > Sri Chinmoy has claimed to have lifted 7,000 lbs!! According to
> > information given at the aboutsrichinmoy.com site, he asked his
> > disciples to doctor the photographs taken as proof of the lift. If
> > this is true, it is more evidence of deceit.
>
> I have viewed videos of many of the lifts and I am sure these were not
> doctored in any way. There were lots of people present when the videos
> were taken. I talked about 350 lbs because this was the figure Anne
> Carlton mentioned.
Sue, I'm sorry to have to say that Sri Chinmoy is not a miracle lifter
although this is what he set out to convince you. I've never been in a
spiritual group and I'm not part of the Sri Chinmoy Information Group but I
thought I should let you know a bit about weightlifting. Sue, both you and I
could lift with ease all the weights that your Guru claims to have lifted.
You see, all of his lifts use special equipment that no other weightlifters
ever use. This equipment uses levers so that Sri Chinmoy never lifts more
than a few pounds, certainly nothing anywhere near the 350 pounds referred
to above. He's probably never lifted more than about 20 pounds of real
weight so all the rest is play acting I'm afraid. In my humble opinion this
amounts to deception at best and fraud at worst and it contravenes the fair
trading and advertising legislation that is in place in many countries. Have
a look at the following article about the use of levers
http://www.outsidemag.com/magazine/1096/9610febls.html
In an article called "Gonzo Guru" by Paul Galloway, it is reported that
"Musclemag", a bodybuilding publication, said the 7063 pound lift was
impossible. In reply, Sri Chinmoy is reported to have said, "I don't blame
people who suspect my performance, my own mind suspects it. How can I blame
them? I know I cannot do it. When I think of 7,000 pounds, can you imagine?
I can't imagine someone can be so strong. Yet so many people have seen, and
you can show it on the video." This is no doubt the video you have seen,
but Sri Chinmoy is probably lifting only about 25 pounds in this video.
In a usenet posting dated 15 March 1997, there was a summary of the postings
made by weighlifters during the period July to August 1996. The weighlifters
were very critical of the one-armed lifts, and they questioned whether the
human frame and the weightlifting equipment could withstand the massive
pressure of a one-armed overhead 7063 pound lift. For example, it was
suggested that squatting 7,000 pounds on Sri Chinmoy's "tiny little frame"
would squash the spine into the dust, and supporting it overhead with one
arm would also ruin the shoulder and upper back. Another posting said that
one man "explosively" fractured a leg bone doing a 2,000 lb hip belt lift,
and that there is no way anybody's shoulder is going to support 7,000+
pounds.
Some weightlifters examined the photos of the equipment and suggested that,
if 7,063 pounds was being supported by the bar, it would bend a lot or
break, and the old style collars would never hold in place. One weightlifter
asserted that an Olympic bar can handle only 2,500 pounds.
In a usenet posting dated 23 August 1999, a contributor to a newsgroup, when
commenting on the claimed 7063 pound lift, said that: "What interests me
enormously is the fact that, despite the load of over 3000 lbs on either
side of that extended dumbbell that Chinmoy is 'lifting', the bar shows no
deflection or bending, despite being about 12ft long (according to scaled
measurements which I made from the photo of this lift being made by the 5'
7" guru). At least the guru could have emulated what the muscle magazines do
when bodybuilders pose with weights (they use bent bars packed with hollow
plastic discs).
This contributor went on to say that: "Since the thickness of the bar
appears to be around 1.5", it is inconceivable that such a heavy weight was
actually being raised by the central support of an arm, especially since the
entire length of the bar remains parallel to the crossbar of its overhead
supporting frame. After all, we have seen how much a bar bends during a
miserable little squat of only 1000 lbs."
Even more ridiculous are the world records that Sri Chinmoy has claimed for
extraordinary lifts using a modified standing calf raise platform, including
a helicopter (3,205 pounds), a car (4,302 pounds), an elephant (8,040
pounds) and a jet airplane with 22 passengers (31,000 pounds). These claims
should put even the most trusting of people on alert that something is
seriously wrong with Sri Chinmoy's judgement in trying to convince people
that these claims are genuine.
Sue, can you explain to us why Sri Chinmoy goes through this ridiculous
charade of pretending to lift massive weights? Do you honestly believe that
Sri Chinmoy possesses supernatural powers and that he really has established
world records for weightlifting events?
Eric
Joe Kellett
(ericlift...@hotmail.com) says...
>
> Sue, can you explain to us why Sri Chinmoy goes through this ridiculous
> charade of pretending to lift massive weights? Do you honestly believe that
> Sri Chinmoy possesses supernatural powers and that he really has established
> world records for weightlifting events?
>
> Eric
"People like to be fooled." (Phineas Taylor Barnum)
--Joe
--
Joe Kellett
tan...@MyRealBox.com
www.suggestibility.org
Ian Johnson
permission while remaining sneakily anonymous yourself. There you go
again, basing your message around Anne's testimony when I was
questioning Sri Chinmoy's deceptive behaviour about Alo Devi. Thank
you to Rajish and others for pointing out the other inconsistencies in
your reply but the real issue I was pointing out is deliberate
deception from Sri Chinmoy in relation to Alo Devi (leaving aside the
weightlifting and hidden cameras) and his pressure on his disciples to
also be deceptive towards Alo Devi. Is this what we should expect from
a "spiritual master?" Is this the behaviour of "an avatar?" If it is
possible for someone to lose their enlightenment (and I question this
- perhaps Rajish could comment) then why couldn't the great avatar
save her? Can you answer my questions or will you evade the issue
again? Have any other disciples of Sri Chinmoy become enlightened in
the more than 40 years he has been teaching as a great avatar in the
west?
suedf...@yahoo.com (Sue) wrote in message news:<d08a3110.02050...@posting.google.com>...
SueCast
> > > I think it is likely that suedforsure is only trying to direct
> > > attention away from the underlying issue here. Those of us who have
> > > read all of Anne's messages on the aboutsrichinmoy.com site and
> > > message boards can see clearly that her testimonies are consistent and
> > > just as credible as those of the other women involved.
> >
> > Even several of Anne's friends have agreed with my view that her
> > testimonies are inconsistent and they have put this down to Anne's
> > "confused" state of mind.
>
> sexual relationship with Chinmoy. The only confusion that I can see
> is the understandable emotional confusion of the circumstances. When
> Anne wrote her testimonial, she had just left a most disturbing
> situation. Anyone under those circumstances would be upset. She
> expressed herself emotionally and for some reason you find reason to
> attack her.
>
> >
> > > Perhaps the
> > > deleting of half the messges on the site occured as a result of strong
> > > threats of libel against the free speech principles of the person who
> > > started it.
> >
> > It is fine to have free speech principles, but when slanderous
> > messages are published on a daily basis for several months, this
> > becomes harassment and I felt it was reasonable to point this out.
>
> perhaps it is reasonable for these ex-disciples to point it out.
>
> >
> > > And perhaps suedforsure's membership of the site was
> > > withdrawn as a result of his/her continual harassment of one of the
> > > alleged victims of Sri Chinmoy despite not ever disclosing his/her
> > > identity or relationship to the Sri Chinmoy organisation.
> >
> > I was not continually harassing Anne Carlton, in fact I was having
> > quite a reasonable exchange of views with her until people like
> > btranscend told her to shut up. My messages were deleted because
> > btranscend did not like me questioning her star witness and for
> > revealing inconsistencies in her testimonies. I think it was very
> > childish and amateurish to try and prevent a supporter of Sri Chinmoy
> > from seeking further information from a key witness.
>
> case is going on. Has this been taken to court?
>
>
> >
> > > All other
> > > major contributors to the messages have freely and openly given their
> > > names and details of their associations, even though suedforsure
> > > tracked us all down to our origins, including our workplaces and in my
> > > case, threatened to inform my workplace.
> >
> > This is definitely not the case. For example, Btranscend has never
> > volunteered such information and I invite her to do so seeing you
> > contend that you will all freely and openly do this. With regard to
> > tracking you all down to your origins, I merely pointed out who your
> > ISP was, something which is easily obtainable from every message you
> > post. I did this because btranscend was telling people that it was
> > safe to post to the forum because there was no way of finding out any
> > information about the sources of the postings. Btranscend wanted to
> > encourage lots of ex-disciples to come forward and provide more
> > manufactured slanderous information about Sri Chinmoy and tried to
> > convince them that their postings would be completely anonymous in
> > every respect. I wanted to warn people of the dangers of continually
> > slandering people and to point out that there are several programs
> > available that can track a message back to its source.
> >
>
> anyone else's right to privacy and anonymity. I don't recall
> Btranscend or anyone else on the message boards encouraging anyone to
> "manufacture slanderous information". I do believe that people are
> encouraged to tell their truthful stories, for which there appears to
> be many with allegations of abuse by Chinmoy. It seems that you want
> to continually attack victims of Chinmoy and yet you deny any
> involvement with Chinmoy Centres.
>
>
>
> > You say that I threatened to inform your workplace that you were
> > posting messages to the Sri Chinmoy Disinformation Board. Well Ian,
> > this statement shows that you are not a credible witness, along with
> > most of your friends. In Message 1884 dated Mar 20, 2002, I said this
> > about your posting: "Well then, a posting which appears to have been
> > sent through the Queensland University of Technology, I wonder if you
> > are on the academic staff? If you are, you should know that you are
> > trying to brainwash me into thinking like you. I thought that educated
> > people were quite happy to let people come to their own conclusions,
> > based on their own research and experiences." From this extract, you
> > can see that I definitely did NOT threaten to inform your workplace!
> > Why make a statement such as this, it does nothing for your
> > credibility.
>
> interesting for the companies and institutions that these ex-disciples
> worked for to know that their employees were using computers at work
> to post messages on the forum. I think you did craftily intimidate
> these ex-disciples.
>
>
>
> > > As
> > > far as the weight-lifting goes, why are you talking about 350 lbs??
> > > Sri Chinmoy has claimed to have lifted 7,000 lbs!! According to
> > > information given at the aboutsrichinmoy.com site, he asked his
> > > disciples to doctor the photographs taken as proof of the lift. If
> > > this is true, it is more evidence of deceit.
> >
> > I have viewed videos of many of the lifts and I am sure these were not
> > doctored in any way. There were lots of people present when the videos
> > were taken. I talked about 350 lbs because this was the figure Anne
> > Carlton mentioned.
> >
> > Sue D
SUE D WHY ARE YOU CONTINUOUSLY IN DENIAL? YOU DEFINITELY TRIED TO
CREATE AN ATMOSPHERE OF FEAR, WITH YOUR SUBTLE THREATS AND
INTIMIDATION,OF THE PEOPLE POSTING ON THE www.aboutsrichinmoy.com
SITE, BY SAYING THAT YOU CAN EASILY TRACK DOWN WHERE THEY ARE POSTING
FROM. THIS KIND OF TACTIC IS PRACTICED BY THE MAFIA OR THE
INTELLIGENCE ORGANISATIONS. YOU TRIED TO INTIMIDATE ANNE BY ASKING HER
IF THE UNITED NATIONS KNEW ABOUT AND SUPPORTED THE WEBSITE? AND THEN
YOU TRIED THE SAME KIND OF INTIMIDATION WITH IAN--IT SEEMED LIKE YOU
WERE TRYING TO WARN THEM:, "BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU SAY, BECAUSE WE CAN
TRACK YOU DOWN" READING BETWEEN THE LINES YOU WERE SAYING, "IF YOU
DON'T SHUT UP, I'M GOING TO TELL YOUR EMPLOYERES YOUR'E SPENDING TIME
ON THE INTERNET WHEN YOU SHOULD BE WORKING" THESE ARE VERY LOW
TACTICS, BUT WHAT'S IMPORTANT IS YOU DID'NT SUCCEED. BECAUSE THOSE
TELLING THE TRUTH, ARE NOT GUILTY AND HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE, UNLIKE YOU
WHO ARE HIDING YOUR TRUE IDENTITY, AND INSISTING THAT YOU ARE AN
IMPARTIAL OBSERVER, NOT CONNECTED TO THE SRI CHINMOY CENTRE IN ANY
WAY. WHY ARE YOU CONTINUALLY AVOIDING IAN'S QUESTIONS ON ALO DEVI? YOU
KNOW SO MUCH ABOUT EVERY OTHER DETAIL OF THE SRI CHINMOY CENTER, YET
YOU REMAIN SILENT ON ALO DEVI. OR HAVE YOU BEEN TOLD BY SRI CHINMOY
NOT TO MENTION HER NAME? WHY, ALSO DO YOU NOT QUESTION SEVIKA'S
TESTIMONY, OR RUPAVATI'S, OR THE AUSTRALIAN BOY DISCIPLE WHO WAS
MOLESTED BY AN ADULT MALE SRI CHINMOY DISCIPLE, WHEN HE WAS 13YRS, I
ALSO KNOW OF A FORMER WOMAN DISCIPLE WHO WAS SEXUALLY TAKEN ADVANTAGE
OF IN THE SRI CHINMOY CENTER BY AN ADULT MALE DISCIPLE WHEN SHE WAS
14YRS OLD. BOTH THESE DISCIPLE CHILDREN REPORTED THE INCIDENTS TO SRI
CHINMOY, WHO DID NOTHING TO THE PERPERTRATORS, AND IN THE GIRL'S CASE,
HE PUT THE BLAME ON HER. IN THE BOYS CASE, HE REMAINED SILENT.BOTH
THESE ABUSERS ARE STILL IN THE SRI CHINMOY CENTER. TO ME, THIS SPEAKS
VOLUMES OF SRI CHINMOY'S ATTITUDE TOWARDS SEXUAL MATTERS. IF YOU READ
THE TESTIMONY BY THE FORMER SAN FRANSISCO CENTER LEADER, AND HER
FORMER HUSBAND, YOU WILL SEE HOW TRAUMATIC THE WHOLE EXPERIENCE WAS
FOR HER. SHE UNDERWENT THERAPY WITH A PSYCHOLOGIST, WHO TOLD HER THAT
IT WAS HER RELATIONSHIP WITH SRI CHINMOY, HER SPIRITUAL FATHER, WAS
INCESTUAL--AND BEFORE SHE LEFT, SRI CHINMOY MADE HER AGREE NOT TO TELL
ANYONE. SHE AGREED ON CONDITION THAT HE NOT CONTACT HER IN ANY
WAY--BUT HE BROKE THAT PROMISE A NUMBER OF TIMES, BY SENDING HER
MONEY, AND CALLING HER TO HIS HOTEL ROOM WHEN HE VISITED SF A FEW
YEARS LATER. SO SHE SHOULD NOT FEEL GUILTY ABOUT BREAKING HER PROMISE,
WHEN HE WAS THE FIRST ONE TO BREAK HIS AGREEMENT NOT TO CONTACT HER.
IT IS SOMETHING THESE WOMEN WANT TO FORGET, AND I CAN UNDERSTAND HOW
PAINFUL IT IS TO REHASH THEIR EXPERIENCES. ANNE HAD BEEN EXTREMELY
BRAVE IN THIS ASPECT, AND I HAVE WITNESSED HER HONESTY, AND
DETERMINATION IN GETTING THIS TRUTH OUT, SO THAT OTHERS WILL NOT HAVE
TO UNDERGO THESE UNFORTUNATE EXPERIENCES. ROSE, ALSO IS MAKING A BRAVE
EFFORT TO LET PEOPLE KNOW WHAT SHE WENT THROUGH, AND AS LONG AS SRI
CHINMOY HAS DISCIPLES, AND CONTINUES TO RECRUIT NEW DISCIPLES, THOSE
OF US WHO KNOW THE TRUTH, FEEL THE OBLIGATION TO MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO
THE PUBLIC, AND THE SPIRITUAL COMMUNINITY OF THE WORLD.-JAMES.
Sue
> There you go again, revealing my workplace to the world without my
> permission while remaining sneakily anonymous yourself.
Ian, perhaps you haven't noticed, but the e-mail address you are using
seems to be that of your workplace. So if you are trying to hide your
workplace, why are you using this e-mail address?
You say that Sri Chinmoy told you in secret that Alo Devi was no
longer enlightened. Now you and James say that I am staying silent on
this issue. The truth is I have never heard of this before, so how can
I possibly know whether it is true or not? If Sri Chinmoy did tell you
something in secret, why are you blurting it out on internet? Do you
always betray the secrets people tell you? This is another example of
how easy it is to denigrate a Guru without anything but hearsay
evidence to go on. Based on the quality of your other contributions, I
would say that people should assume that your comments about Alo Devi
are untrue.
> snip
> Have any other disciples of Sri Chinmoy become enlightened in
> the more than 40 years he has been teaching as a great avatar in the
> west?
I am sure many disciples have become enlightened, so they will be
quietly going about the world doing the great work of the Supreme
without trying to tell the world about it. I suggest the people on the
Sri Chinmoy Disinformation Group should put their disappointments
behind them and stop trying to denigrate a harmless and peaceful man
who tried to help them on their journey at a time in their lives when
he willingly gave them the peace and guidance in their lives they were
looking for.
Sue D
outcast
become filled with trash. Try to gradually open up once again to the
spiritual light -- whether as offered by Sri Chinmoy or by some other
teacher or path. Then you will find that your mind is filled with
truth, peace and light, and the dark demons you conjure up will lose
their hold on you, like dust mites which look like evil monsters at
midnight, but which are shown to be harmless and unreal when bright
morning dawns.
I have heard people like you shouting that chlorinated water is a
Communist plot. They have names, dates and biographies of the
perpetrators. Richard Nixon and Elvis met on an alien spaceship with
Brezhnev, and they all decided to enslave the human race by
undermining its precious bodily fluids. But even people who tell such
stories need a break from their obsessions once in a while...
--outcast*
*I am not a member of Sri Chinmoy Centres and do not speak for Sri
Chinmoy.
outcast
Ian, your posts attempt to conflate two very different issues: One
issue is whether you personally have faith in Sri Chinmoy now that you
have converted to Buddhism and set yourself up as both a meditation
teacher and an exit counselor. There are many Western lay Buddhists
who reject the concept of guru devotion; but of course that concept
remains very strong in monastic practice. I have seen disciples of the
Dalai Lama bowing to his throne for several minutes after he has left
it.
The second issue is your ex-cult group's use of the Internet to level
wild charges of sexual misconduct against Sri Chinmoy Centres. These
two issues are so different that they cannot possibly be debated
concurrently. Indeed, it has been the position of past posters that
any serious allegations of sexual misconduct would certainly not be
handled over the Internet but rather through channels where strict and
careful evidentiary standards would be applied. As it stands, any
potential witnesses have been thoroughly contaminated by their
participation in a forum where there is constant group pressure to
tell so-called "atrocity stories," and to re-interpret their earlier
religious choice using terms drawn from the repressed memory movement
-- highly charged terms such as "rape" and "incest" which, by their
mere mention, suggest heinous wrongdoing and portray Sri Chinmoy
Centres in a completely false and negative light. There is no rape,
incest or sexual abuse going on in Sri Chinmoy Centres, and posts
describing "how to fill out a rape report" or "proliferation of STDs
amongst disciples" are intended to create a public scare about a group
which has always enjoyed a justifiably good reputation among its
neighbors. Such tactics are the lowest of the low; and while I
personally try to keep debate on a high level, I cannot much blame Sue
D. if she seeks to put the fear of God in people who front for such
hateful nonsense. If you don't want the Queensland University of
Technology to be implicated in your nefarious acts, then do like
others in your group: get an AOL account and may your screen names be
fruitful and multiply.
That you practice bigotry in the name of Buddhism disgusts me. I have
spent many hours with Buddhist friends, some of whom have read and
been deeply moved by Sri Chinmoy's plays about the life of the Buddha.
I have never known serious and enlightened Buddhists to attack Sri
Chinmoy Centres or to throw in their lot with the various
deprogrammers turned exit counselors advertised on Sri Chinmoy
Information. I used to spend quite a bit of time hanging out with
Buddhists and Taoists on AOL; and often a fundamentalist youth would
enter our chat room and announce in big red capital letters that we
were all going to hell because we worshipped "that fat guy." Stripped
of all its pretensions, your own attack on your former religious
affiliation is no less self-serving or ignominious.
If you can learn to make your heart as wide as the ocean, you may find
that it's possible to love Buddhism without having to torture your old
Yoga group. What I have learned from Sri Chinmoy, from monks of the
Ramakrishna Order, and from Taoist teacher Hua-Ching Ni is that God,
Goddess or Truth is One. Each seeker chooses a path which suits their
own nature, disposition and interests. If you have found a path that
works better for you than Sri Chinmoy Centres, that is wonderful! But
you disgrace the high and noble path of Buddhism by acting as if it
were a harlot whom you had but lately hired to throw in the face of
your ex-wife. That you have gone to the length of sending reams of
junk mail to current members of Sri Chinmoy Centres proselytizing on
behalf of your new world view suggests a continued need on your part
for self-justification. Like virtually everyone in Sri Chinmoy
Information, you admit that you have never witnessed *any* sexual
activity by Sri Chinmoy; yet you are all too eager to sign on to
efforts to discredit him. As with so many detractors, the ax you use
to chop down Sri Chinmoy is the same one you yourself are grinding.
The Buddha would turn over in his grave.
--outcast*
*I am not a member of Sri Chinmoy Centres and do not speak for Sri
Chinmoy.
rajish
> To Ian Johnson - Part I
>
> Ian, your posts attempt to conflate two very different issues: One
> issue is whether you personally have faith in Sri Chinmoy now that you
> have converted to Buddhism and set yourself up as both a meditation
> teacher and an exit counselor. There are many Western lay Buddhists
> who reject the concept of guru devotion; but of course that concept
> remains very strong in monastic practice. I have seen disciples of the
> Dalai Lama bowing to his throne for several minutes after he has left
> it.
>
> The second issue is your ex-cult group's use of the Internet to level
> wild charges of sexual misconduct against Sri Chinmoy Centres. These
> two issues are so different that they cannot possibly be debated
> concurrently. Indeed, it has been the position of past posters that
> any serious allegations of sexual misconduct would certainly not be
> handled over the Internet but rather through channels where strict and
> careful evidentiary standards would be applied. As it stands, any
> potential witnesses have been thoroughly contaminated by their
> participation in a forum where there is constant group pressure to
> tell so-called "atrocity stories," and to re-interpret their earlier
> religious choice using terms drawn from the repressed memory movement
> --
I have read through the posts on the Chinmoy Information Site, and I
have yet to see any "group pressure to tell so-called atrocity
stories". I have found sincere individuals who appear to be warning
the rest of the world regarding the unfortunate behavior of this
self-appointed Guru.
It is rather curious that you proclaim to not be a member of the
Chinmoy Centres and yet you spend such a great deal of time and effort
attacking strangers on the internet. Raj
SueCast
WHEN SRI CHINMOY SAID THAT ALO DEVI HAD "LOST HER REALISATION" IN
1978, (I BELEIVE,) IT WAS'NT A SECRET REGARDING THE WORLD, BECAUSE
MOST OF THE WORLD HAS NEVER HEARD OF ALO DEVI. THE SECRET WAS FOR HER
NOT TO FIND OUT. IN OTHER WORDS, SRI CHINMOY WANTED HIS DISCIPLES TO
PRETEND THAT SHE WAS STILL THE "MOTHER OF THE UNIVERSE" AS SHE THINKS
SHE IS. SO, UNTIL THIS DAY, AT SRI CHINMOY'S REQUEST, HIS DISCIPLES
WILL ADORE, WORSHIP,REVERE, PAMPER, FLATTER, REGALE, AND SERVE HER
HAND AND FOOT. EVERY TIME SHE VISITS NEW YORK, HER COMFY LOUNGE CHAIR
IS SET UP ALONGSIDE HIS. I PERSONALLY FEEL SAD FOR THIS WOMAN, BECAUSE
OVER THE YEARS, AT SRI CHINMOY'S REQUEST (ORDERS), DISCIPLES HAVE
EXTOLLED HER TO THE SKIES, WHILE BEHIND HER BACK THEY HAVE MADE HER
THE BUTT OF ALL THEIR JOKES.HER BIRTHDAY IS EVEN CELEBRATED WITH
ALMOST AS MUCH POMP AND SPLENDOUR AS SRI CHINMOY'S HIMSELF, YET THERE
IS THIS TERRIBLE AND CRUEL DECEPTION-- SHE THINKS SHE IS LOVED AND
RESPECTED BY ALL, YET PEOPLE ARE LAUGHING AT HER BEHIND HER BACK, AND
EVEN WORSE, SOME ARE EXTREMELY ENVIOUS, AND ARE WISHING FOR HER
DEMISE. THIS IS ALL BECAUSE, ONE DAY, BEHIND HER BACK, SRI CHINMOY
TOLD ALL HIS DISCIPLES WORLDWIDE THAT SHE HAD FALLEN--LOST HER
REALISATION--THE ONLY PERSON HE DID'NT TELL WAS HER. WHY NOT? MAYBE
SHE IS ALSO PRIVY TO HIS VERY PRIVATE LIFE? SHE HAS WRITTEN AND TOLD
HOW THEY HAD SHARED APARTMENTS TOGETHER WHEN THEY FIRST ARRIVED IN NY.
SHE STILL HAS A BEDROOM IN HIS HOUSE IN JAMAICA, QUEENS, WHEN SHE
VISITS NY. PEOPLE WHO CAME TO THE SRI CHINMOY CENTER IN THE SEVENTIES
WERE TOLD BY SRI CHINMOY THAT ALO DEVI WAS HIS EQUAL, HIS SHAKTI, AND
THEY SHOULD RESPECT HER AND MEDITATE ON HER, AS THEY DO ON HIM. EVERY
DISCIPLE HAD HER PICTURE, NEXT TO SRI CHINMOY'S ON THEIR SHRINES. BUT
SUDDENLY IN 1978 THAT ALL CHANGED. I HAVE ALSO WITNESSED MANY OF THEIR
ARGUMENTS IN FRONT OF THE DISCIPLES. AN AVATAR AND HIS SHAKTI ARGUING
BACK AND FORTH? IF ONE LISTENS TO THEIR INTUITION, THIS IS WHAT FIRST
CAUSES ONE TO FEEL, SOMETHING IS NOT RIGHT, THEN MORE AND MORE
INCONSITANCIES ARE DETECTED AS ONE STAYS ON THE "PATH". WHEN ALO DEVI
IS IN QUEENS AT THE SRI CHINMOY'S TENNIS COURT (ASPIRATION GROUND) AND
THERE IS A WALK PAST MEDITATION, SRI CHINMOY INSTRUCTS HIS GUARDS TO
WHISPER TO EVERY DISCIPE TO LOOK AT ALO DEVI TOO, AS THEY FILE PAST.
THIS IS SO SHE WILL NOT BE ANGRY WITH THE DISCIPLES. TELL ME, SUE D
AND OUTCAST THAT THIS WHOLE FIASCO WITH ALO DEVI, IS NOT A FORM OF
DECEPTION? JAMES.
shakti
stories here and on the Yahoo Chinmoy Information groups list. I took
a free meditation class at my University given by Chinmoy Disciples
and they have been trying to convince me to become a disciple. After
finding this web site and message board, it is so clear that something
is not right in the Chinmoy Centres. I will definitely stay clear of
the Centre and and I won't be taking any more "free" meditation
classes. My mother always said "There's no such thing as a free
lunch."
gulabja...@yahoo.com (rajish) wrote in message news:<bce98d8f.02050...@posting.google.com>...
Sue
> SUE D WHY ARE YOU CONTINUOUSLY IN DENIAL? YOU DEFINITELY TRIED TO
> CREATE AN ATMOSPHERE OF FEAR, WITH YOUR SUBTLE THREATS AND
> INTIMIDATION,OF THE PEOPLE POSTING ON THE www.aboutsrichinmoy.com
> SITE, BY SAYING THAT YOU CAN EASILY TRACK DOWN WHERE THEY ARE POSTING
> FROM.
I have not tried to create an atmosphere of fear, but one of reality.
Surely you must realize it is an extremely dangerous business to
continually slander and harass a named person who has established an
excellent reputation in the community over several decades. If your
good name was continually being publicly denigrated on internet,
wouldn't you take steps to defend yourself? For example, the
Scientology organization has been very successful in defending itself
against the type of attacks you are making against Sri Chinmoy, and
the damages involved can run into millions of dollars.
You have been strongly encouraging ex-disciples of Sri Chinmoy to come
forward and anonymously accuse Sri Chinmoy of sexual misconduct.
However, you have told these people it is quite safe to post such
messages because they can't be traced back to their source and because
your Yahoo group is in a very quiet corner of the internet. However,
these messages can easily be traced and because of links between
sites, there are very few genuine "quiet" corners of internet. For
example, you have been active in promoting your internet site in the
search engines and in providing links to the Yahoo Group messages on
your site, so this Yahoo Disinformation Group is now quite public.
It is well known that exit counselors and the owners of anti-cult web
sites pay substantial amounts to take out insurance against liability
for defamation, but have you done this to protect your members?
Instead of saying I am intimidating you by telling you these things,
you should be grateful that I am pointing out to you the substantial
commercial risks of continually denigrating a person's good name. If a
person in your group is successfully sued for damages, will you all
share the cost of this equally?
You keep asking why I refer only to Anne Carlton's testimony. You will
recall that you started blocking my messages as soon as Anne started
answering my questions. Because you directed Anne to keep quiet, it
was clear that you would not permit me to question the other accusers.
To make sure of this, you altered the status of the group from an
unmoderated one to a moderated one and you blocked all my messages, a
very democratic step indeed for those who are crying out for freedom
of speech!
I believe it is very unfair and libelous to make public and anonymous
claims of sexual misconduct against a person when this information has
not been verified as true by a Court or other independent
organization. I am not in contact with Sri Chinmoy or his Centers over
these matters and I am expressing only my personal opinion.
Incidentally Truthita, the use of caps throughout your messages is
most distracting and is taken to mean you are shouting. Please post
this reply on your Yahoo Board in response to your Message 2312 dated
May 6, 2002.
Sue D
outcast
different issues. The first issue is whether you personally have faith
in Sri Chinmoy's spiritual realization; the second issue is your
ex-cult group's use of the Internet to level wild charges of sexual
of one person -- who identifies herself variously as Anne Carlton,
Phulela, Penny, Betty, Lady Liberty, etc. As one of the members of
your own group said: without the sex stuff, nobody's especially
interested. Recently it has come out that Anne's story changes
drastically from post to post, and she has even deleted some of her
own posts to try and give the impression of consistency. Now Anne
seems to have been sent into retirement and Rose is being groomed as
the new anointed storyteller. You guys never run out of stories, but
the real shockers are tainted with a certain Elvis-and-aliens quality
by which the discriminating reader will associate them with false
memories of satanic ritual abuse "uncovered" by enterprising
therapists.
What happened to the "absolute proof" Steve Stevens said he had that I
was a certain person whom he, Anne and BTranscend repeatedly named?
That turned out to be a total sham, didn't it? But you don't care,
you'll just latch onto the next story -- maybe you can get some
mileage out of that one... Pathetic! Truly pathetic!
Subala asked Steve to identify the alleged "computer virus" that led
to him shutting down all debate -- putting the board into full
moderation and restricting membership. Can anyone name that computer
virus? The anti-virus software always gives the name of the virus, but
your virus doesn't have a name, does it? Why is that? Steve has proof
of this, proof of that... yet he now posts as "Seeker," entirely via
anonymous remailer. Someone is making a confused kid feel like a big
man. It is all so tragic.
I know you are good people, but you have gone horribly wrong. There is
no need to follow Sri Chinmoy's path if you have no faith in him. But
to allow yourselves to be orchestrated in a campaign to destroy Sri
Chinmoy Centres is unimaginably foolish. You will never find healing
in your own lives by attacking Sri Chinmoy Centres, and any
"counselor" who tells you otherwise is only abusing you. Please wake
up and do something positive with your lives. You will be so much
happier.
Ian Johnson
Outcast. I remember getting very strong reaction last time I asked
about the deceit in the Sri Chinmoy Centres associated with the
treatment of Alo Devi, but oh, I forgot, you are not associated with
the Sri Chinmoy Centres!! Why are you so upset about this question? I
am not an exit counsellor and I am not a member of any group sending
mail to disciples of Sri Chinmoy. I also am not part of any Buddhist
organisation or school of Buddhism, although I have explored that and
many other areas of spiritual interest, as you have, although I do not
make pronouncements on their behalf as you have done, so I guess I am
not as knowledgebale about Buddhism and spiritual paths as you are. I
repeat, I am not part of any ex-cult group. As far as I know, the
people posting on the srichinmoyinformation site are all individuals,
like me, who feel it is important to support those who have been
abused sexually and psychologically by their association with someone
professing to be a spiritual master. It is tragic and outrageous
whichever tradition you come from, Buddhist, Hindu, Christian, Islam,
Judaism. If there is doubt about someone who claims extremely lofty
spiritual realisations, they should be open to the most extreme
scrutiny, as the Buddha said in one of his discourses (I'm sure you
will know it) he/she should be scrutinised very carefully over a long
period of time, in respect of his/her public behaviour and private
behaviour, in terms of the consistency of behaviour and consistency of
teaching.
outca...@yahoo.com (outcast) wrote in message news:<95aaad3a.02050...@posting.google.com>...
root
...
o# --outcast*
o# *I am not a member of Sri Chinmoy Centres and do not speak for Sri
o# Chinmoy.
Why are you so vehement in your defence of Chinmoy if you have no
association with him? How can you possibly know your viewpoint is
correct? It would be as if I decided to defend Sai Baba, never
seeing him or observing his behavior. Completely ridiculous.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
root
e# Sue, can you explain to us why Sri Chinmoy goes through this ridiculous
e# charade of pretending to lift massive weights? Do you honestly believe that
e# Sri Chinmoy possesses supernatural powers and that he really has established
e# world records for weightlifting events?
e# Eric
My question exactly. What is the spiritual purpose of claiming to
be a weightlifter? I could as easily claim to lick maggots from dead dogs.
Does that have some amazing spiritual ramifications?
Don't understand.
outcast
> I would like to thank all the ex-disciples who have been writing their
> stories here and on the Yahoo Chinmoy Information groups list. I took
> a free meditation class at my University given by Chinmoy Disciples
> and they have been trying to convince me to become a disciple. After
> finding this web site and message board, it is so clear that something
> is not right in the Chinmoy Centres. I will definitely stay clear of
> the Centre and and I won't be taking any more "free" meditation
> classes. My mother always said "There's no such thing as a free
> lunch."
I often imagine that at the gates of Heaven there is a special angel
who sorts through people's AOL screen names and checks to see if they
have told any lies. My heart tells me that you would not pass this
test. However, I welcome you to the growing list of people who have
trolled me using AOL accounts. That list currently includes:
Jsan...@aol.com
Sereni...@aol.com
Justi...@aol.com
BTran...@aol.com
Chrst...@aol.com
India...@aol.com
LBe...@aol.com
opend...@aol.com
kensin...@yahoo.com
gulabja...@yahoo.com
Welcome to the Jill Motel!
As to your suggestion that "something is not right in the Chinmoy
Centres," to me it is like ants and sugar. If you open the sugar bowl
and see ants crawling around inside you will say: "Oh, the sugar is
bad!" But is it really the sugar which is bad, or is the problem with
the ants? Fortunately, in this case there is an infinite supply of
sugar, and not very many ants. The problem will soon be set right.
Ian Johnson
>
> > There you go again, revealing my workplace to the world without my
> > permission while remaining sneakily anonymous yourself.
>
> Ian, perhaps you haven't noticed, but the e-mail address you are using
> seems to be that of your workplace. So if you are trying to hide your
> workplace, why are you using this e-mail address?
>
> You say that Sri Chinmoy told you in secret that Alo Devi was no
> longer enlightened. Now you and James say that I am staying silent on
> this issue.
The truth is I have never heard of this before, so how can
> I possibly know whether it is true or not?
Is this really the truth? If you have never heard of this before, then
you don't know anything about the Sri Chinmoy Centres and your
comments on all of this can be ignored. The other possibility is the
one I have been bringing to the fore - there is deception going on,
particularly in respect to Alo Devi. If there is deception in one
area, especially a culture of it involving hundreds of disciples,
there are most likely deceptions in other areas, which means that
allegations of sexual and psychological abuse should be thoroughly
aired so that others with information will come forward. Then, over
time, we can all make our decisions based on a large amount of public
information from those who DO know about the inside of the Sri Chinmoy
Centres. Sri Chinmoy has laboured to become a famous public figure for
decades. He has used the media fully to promote his name and feats. He
is using the internet to do the same. Therefore it is quite reasonable
for his detractors to give voice to their experiences through the same
channels. Those who are not interested in Sri Chinmoy's name and feats
will not bother reading about them and those who do not wish to
investigate his authenticity will not bother reading this information
either. So what's the problem? If a person makes public claims, they
should be investigated in public.
The validity of the claims made by the women who allege abuse are
certainly at least as valid as Sri Chinmoy's public claims to have
lifted 7,000 lbs and to have had Buddha sit on his shoulder. He also
publically claims not to charge his disciples any money. Let all
claims and allegations be talked about openly and freely by those who
have knowledge to offer. Like air, information should be free, not
controlled.
Joe Kellett
(suedf...@yahoo.com) says...
> trut...@hotmail.com (SueCast) wrote in message news:<a8bd31a2.02050...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > SUE D WHY ARE YOU CONTINUOUSLY IN DENIAL? YOU DEFINITELY TRIED TO
> > CREATE AN ATMOSPHERE OF FEAR, WITH YOUR SUBTLE THREATS AND
> > INTIMIDATION,OF THE PEOPLE POSTING ON THE www.aboutsrichinmoy.com
> > SITE, BY SAYING THAT YOU CAN EASILY TRACK DOWN WHERE THEY ARE POSTING
> > FROM.
>
> I have not tried to create an atmosphere of fear, but one of reality.
> Surely you must realize it is an extremely dangerous business to
> continually slander and harass a named person who has established an
> excellent reputation in the community over several decades. If your
> good name was continually being publicly denigrated on internet,
> wouldn't you take steps to defend yourself?
FWIW, here's one opinion on that <http://injury-
law.freeadvice.com/libel_and_slander/public_figure_lawsuit.htm>:
CAN LIBEL SUITS BE BROUGHT BY A PUBLIC FIGURE?
These suits are a bit dicer for the public figure. A public figure may
be an elected or appointed (a politician) or someone who has stepped
into a public controversy (e.g., movie stars and TV stars, star
athletes). Public figures have a "harder road to toll" than the average
person since they must prove that the party defaming them knew the
statements were false, made them with actual malice, or was negligent in
saying or writing them. Proving these elements makes the chance of a
successful lawsuit slim.
> For example, the
> Scientology organization has been very successful in defending itself
> against the type of attacks you are making against Sri Chinmoy, and
> the damages involved can run into millions of dollars.
Interesting comparison. You are comparing Chinmoy to an organization
that does things like this <http://www.demon.co.uk/castle/xenu/xenu-
11.html>. You can read the whole story at "The Road to Xenu"
<http://www.demon.co.uk/castle/xenu/xenu.html>.
More information on Scientology: <http://www.xenu.net>.
An unflattering comparison, IMO.
<...>
>
> I believe it is very unfair and libelous to make public and anonymous
> claims of sexual misconduct against a person when this information has
> not been verified as true by a Court or other independent
> organization.
No, you don't have to get permission from a court to make allegations of
sexual misconduct. And what "independent organization" could you
possibly be referring to? That's just silly.
Legally, it's not libel or slander if it's true, even for a non-public-
figure. No, I'm not a lawyer, but that's what one told me.
Chill out. You can tell a lot about a spiritual organization from the
people who advocate/defend it. I find you to be just a teensy-weensy
bit scary.
<...>
>
> Sue D
>
--Joe
shakti
Dear outcast: I cannot begin to tell you how wrong you are.
Nothing could be more compassionate than what these ex-disciples are
doing. I myself have been looking for a bonafide spiritual path /
guide, and these message boards have saved me a lot of time and
heartache. I do not believe that you are not a member of the Sri
Chinmoy Centres as you state at the end of all your posts. I also see
how you constantly twist what other people say here. Since you are
defending Sri Chinmoy Centres it is easy to see that you are a part of
that organization. I don't think I would join a spiritual path where
current members belittle and harass ex-members so vicously.
Especially, since there is no possible way you could know what their
experiences were while in the Chinmoy Centre. They have a right to
express themselves, and as I mentioned before they have saved me a lot
of time and heartache.
outcast
On Slander, Hatred and Bad Therapy
[This post discusses Sri Chinmoy Information, a message board which
publishes material attacking Sri Chinmoy Centres.]
Q: When critics of the tactics used by Sri Chinmoy Information cite
the slander laws, are they attempting to limit freedom of speech or
prevent valuable information from being disseminated?
A: No. Freedom of speech and accurate information are essential to
public debate. But when hateful and derogatory opinion is used to try
and harm innocent people, the slander laws are there as a protection.
In a just society, freedom of speech is balanced with protection of
minority faiths. Sri Chinmoy and his students have a right to pursue
their spiritual work without being subjected to an organized hate
campaign which compares them to Al Qaeda and seeks to end public
toleration of their lawful activities.
Sri Chinmoy Information uses atrocity stories to create a lynch
mentality. This is their main method. They discourage fair-minded
enquiry, and instead try to pound home a negative view of Sri Chinmoy
Centres by relentlessly reposting the same scare material designed to
provoke an immediate emotional response. There is no standard of truth
or decency applied. Under the rubric of "open forum," they have
declared "open season" on Sri Chinmoy, handed out pop guns, and urged
everyone to plug away with total abandon. Board founder "Steve
Stevens" even brags that a slanderous web site registered in his
pseudonym "was started under a dummy account" to evade prosecution. He
then renews the call for anonymous atrocity stories, assuring posters
that they cannot be traced "unless the government is involved" or
unless there is a "court order." (Of course, such eventualities are
possible.) Curiously, while he attempts to whip the general public
into a frenzy over the gentle folk of Sri Chinmoy Centres, he also
claims to dislike bullies. He has admitted under careful questioning
that he has never witnessed *any* sexual activity by Sri Chinmoy. Yet
the number of posts in which he tries to give the opposite impression
would fill a thick legal binder.
Sri Chinmoy Information panders to populist stereotypes about new
religious movements and Eastern gurus. It also serves as a lightning
rod for general anti-religious sentiment. (There is one member who
divides his time between bashing Sri Chinmoy and the Dalai Lama of
Tibet, though curiously he has never studied with either.) The fact
that the average person may react with both belief and horror to
atrocity stories in no way legitimates such stories. It merely shows
that apostates and anti-cultists know how to orchestrate a good hate
campaign. But is there really such a thing as a "good" hate campaign?
When hate material succeeds in producing a public scare and
scapegoating minority religions, it may be helpful to analyze the
means used to create the scare in order to restore a state of calm and
heal the wounds which have been thoughtlessly inflicted. One cannot
always hold back a lynch mob, but one can at least throw a spotlight
on those pouring gasoline on the flames and handing out sawed-off
shotguns. In this sense, my posts are intended as part of a cleanup
effort.
I do not blame "Steve Stevens" overmuch for his destructive behavior.
I think he's just a confused kid who is being used, and who doesn't
really know what's going on. But there's still an element of personal
responsibility which none of us can escape. If his wrong actions have
been instigated by the promptings of crooked counselors, it is those
counselors I would most like to see brought to justice.
Like so many people in Sri Chinmoy Information, "Steve Stevens" seems
to be a victim of bad therapy -- therapy which tells the client that
she is a victim, and that her cure lies in identifying an "abuser"
against whom accusations are to be hurled. In a June, 1996 position
paper, the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry wrote:
"[P]oorly trained or misguided therapists have been urging patients,
as a specific part of their therapy, to confront and accuse the
alleged perpetrators of the abuse once they have been identified. As a
consequence of this type of therapy, members of the patient's family
are most often identified and accused. When recovered memories are
found to be false, family relationships are unnecessarily and often
permanently disrupted. Furthermore, such therapists have been sued for
malpractice."
(Of course, each of us probably has a friend who is a walking
encyclopedia of pop psychology knowledge, but who is sufficiently
troubled that we know they would make a bad counselor to a confused
and suggestible person.)
It is common for people to say: "I hurt. Who can I blame?" The first
Noble Truth of Buddhism tells us that suffering exists -- it is
omnipresent. But the Dhammapada blames the mind for suffering, not any
third party. We should therefore understand that there can be
suffering without there being a "victim" and an "abuser." After the
cult of victimhood which emerged in the early 90's, people are now
beginning to realize that human suffering is not as simple as reading
Trauma and Recovery at a friend's urging, picking an "abuser," and
letting the accusations fly.
Ian, the people in your ex-cult support group are not victims, they
are sufferers who have become attackers, and who find that playing the
role of the victim makes a bully pulpit for spiteful comments about
their former spiritual path -- about which they have various
grievances which would best be examined outside the contaminating
influence of wild sex rumors. I have come to sympathize with their
suffering, while rejecting utterly the nexus of motives which cause
them to blame their former teacher and path. I sympathize with them
because I believe that at a vulnerable time, they were taught to blame
those whom they now blame -- by certain exit counselors and pop
psychology authors who themselves are bitter apostates, and who
consciously or unconsciously seek to replicate their own state of
apostasy in their clients. (This is sometimes known as "suggestive
therapy," "advocacy therapy," or simply "bad therapy.")
From exit counselors, pop psychology authors, and converts to other
religions, disaffected devotees learn to play the role of the victim,
and to wield their victimhood like an oozie -- attacking the "cult,"
which has now been redefined for them as some kind of cross between a
communist POW camp and a traumatic abuse factory. But this is not Sri
Chinmoy Centres. Maybe it is some group, somewhere -- but it's not Sri
Chinmoy Centres, no matter how many daughters of CAN officials write
grudge pieces to the contrary, after they have been kidnapped and
forcibly deprogrammed, brought back into the fold, participated in
forcible deprogrammings themselves, and given awards by the American
Family Foundation. (How many posts in Sri Chinmoy Information by Robyn
Kliger, Sarah Edmonds, "BTranscend," "SylviaL," and other Joe Szimhart
boosters does it take before I have proved my point that this is an
exit counselor forum?)
Sri Chinmoy Centres is a Yoga-based group, and allowing for variances
between different branches of Yoga and different schools, its actual
teachings are fairly non-controversial. Sri Chinmoy describes his path
as "the path of the heart" or "the path of love, devotion, surrender."
Comparative religionists would describe it as a cross between Bhakti
Yoga (the Yoga of devotion), Karma Yoga (the Yoga of selfless work),
and Integral Yoga (Sri Aurobindo's unique modern contribution). Within
that context, Sri Chinmoy's teachings appear to be both internally
consistent, and consistent with the relevant traditions. Sri Chinmoy
is seen by experts in his field as a qualified teacher of Yoga and an
upstanding member of the Yoga community. He has written prolifically
on Yoga and the spiritual life, and for the last thirty years has led
bi-weekly meditations at the United Nations for staff and delegates,
acting in a non-sectarian, non-governmental capacity.
Sri Chinmoy Centres is a group of quiet, dedicated, peace-loving
people who pose no threat to society and are not themselves in any
danger. They are ardent believers in prayer, meditation, service, and
world peace initiatives. However, some apostates, anti-cultists and
converts to other religions have tried to impose their hostile view of
Sri Chinmoy Centres on the public mind. In Sri Chinmoy Information,
constant linking to and posting of material by Robert Lifton, Maragret
Singer, Steve Hassan, Dan Shaw, Robyn Kliger, Joe Szimhart, Judith
Herman, etc., is one of the methods used to drive home a radical
deconstruction of Sri Chinmoy Centres. Such material equates the
time-honored Hindu practice of guru devotion with totalitarianism,
psychological domination, terrorism, and rape. This is a rarefied
interpretation coming from a small inbred group of veteran
anti-cultists who endlessly quote each other's studies in an attempt
to gain legitimacy for views not shared by the academy. In the free
marketplace of ideas, they have a right to their opinions; but to the
extent that some of them engage in efforts to hang the "sexual abuse"
label on Sri Chinmoy Centres, they are crossing the line of decent and
civilized behavior. One hopes that the professional associations which
govern their activities can be prevailed upon to curb such excesses.
There are many sincere people in the anti-cult movement who see
themselves as protectors of traditional values -- whether
Judeo-Christian, secular humanist or scientific rationalist. Some of
them are even lay practitioners of minority religions such as
Buddhism. One can admire their commitment, and yet be troubled by the
extent to which they seek to regulate the faith of others. I have
always felt that my faith is my own, to place in myself or in another
if I so choose. Recently, those who choose to place their faith in Sri
Chinmoy Centres have come under grievous attack. Those doing the
attacking naturally see themselves as helpers and counselors.
Unfortunately, they are using fear, hatred, misinformation and
coercion. I question their methods, and I question whether any genuine
good can come from their muckraking. Surely traditional values can be
protected without invoking the names of Hitler and Bin Laden, and
without propagating lurid fictional accounts of sexual depravity. I
call upon those launching such attacks to make peace with the gentle
folk of Sri Chinmoy Centres, and with people like myself who have
spent time with Sri Chinmoy and his disciples, and who know them to be
good citizens.
Joe Kellett
(outca...@yahoo.com) says...
Almost this entire posting begs the question
<http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html> of
whether the charges are accurate or not.
If the charges are accurate, then these are valiant people bravely
trying to warn others, and it is your own comments below that would then
seem slanderous or libelous.
I am suspicious of the level of extremely emotional ad hominem
argumentation in your posting. I am suspicious whenever anyone seems to
be trying really, really hard to shut someone else up. If you think
that the charges are false, why not just stick with asserting that?
--Joe
I am not a member of anything, and don't speak for anybody. But I
seriously doubt that Chinmoy can lift 7000 pounds or whatever. And if
he can't do that, then presumptions of ethical behavior are not
warranted.
Ian Johnson
Thank you for going to so much trouble to NOT ANSWER the main issue I
have been posting about. Your erudite essays are nicely constucted and
I do appreciate the work you have put into them. Some of the points
you make are also quite reasonable. However, the work does have the
flavour of originating from the Sri Chinmoy "manifestation committee,"
rather than from an outside, non-associated individual. In this light
I can quite understand that the committee really needs to try and
discredit those, like me, who may be being read by Disciples inside
the organisation. Your essays seem to be directed to them rather than
to me as you do not address the very embarrassing issue of the culture
of deceit in respect to Alo Devi and the implications of this as to
the integrity of Sri Chinmoy and his "spiritual path." Whenever this
issue arises, all kinds of efforts are made to deflect attention away
from it and to place it rather aggressively onto individuals asking
quite reasonable questions.
It is perfectly reasonable for the committee to do this although
disciples have been warned NOT TO READ the aboutsrichinmoy.com site
(and this one too no doubt) or they will be expelled from the group.
However, some have already read the information, have decided without
any harassment from the mythical group of deprogrammers you talk
about, to leave Sri Chinmoy and have later joined the message boards
or emailed their old friends individually and thanked them profusely.
Someone has even posted such a message here. So it would seem that
many are gaining benefit from the discussion. I hope disciples are
reading your posts as well as the others so they can make their own
judgements. That is all I for one, am interested in - the freedom for
anyone to seek and find information relevant to their lives - to read
it without pressure or threat and to make their own decisions based on
that. I do know some of you on that committee and I know you are
highly educated with doctorates, etc, and I still have genuine
affection for you. I am not in any group or organised team that is out
to destroy Sri Chinmoy and I have not said or thought anything
particularly negative about him or you over the many years since I
left. It is only through having known two particular former disciples
from Sanfransisco as very noble, true and honest spiritual people and
finding out the terrible things they say they endured, that has
prompted me to even be interested in this debate.
You people on the mainifestation committee knew them also and you must
know they have tremendous credibility. Of course, there was another
very close female disciple at that time as well. She and her famous
husband left very suddenly in rather strange circumstances. I was in
NY at the time. It is unlikely that they would come forward. They
would have a lot to protect by remaining silent. But you never know?
I will not go through all your allegations as to my affiliations point
by point. It really is a waste of time and it is obviously really not
directed at me. It also does not offend me in any way. It is all
pretty irrelevant. You are fond of quoting from Buddhist sources and
you used the first noble truth of Dukkha but this needs to be seen in
association with all four noble truths which show the way out of
suffering through the development of wisdom. Wisdom is not given by
someone else. It arises naturally through mindfulness, investigation
and right effort. Perhaps "investigation" is one of the key elements
here.
I have said enough. It is not my intention to spend any more time
debating the issue of deceit when you won't address it. I have brought
it up for those who are interested to think about and especially for
those who know the truth of this matter, whether they admit it or not.
I wish you well, whether you are a group of people in Jamaica Hills or
an anonymous individual somewhere whom I may have met in the 70's or
80's!!
Signing out of google for now,
Ian Johnson
Joe Kellett <3ajcyv...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.17422352c...@netnews.attbi.com>...
Wade Humeniuk
"outcast" <outca...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:95aaad3a.02050...@posting.google.com...
>
> Sri Chinmoy Centres is a group of quiet, dedicated, peace-loving
> people who pose no threat to society and are not themselves in any
> danger. They are ardent believers in prayer, meditation, service, and
> world peace initiatives. However, some apostates, anti-cultists and
> converts to other religions have tried to impose their hostile view of
> Sri Chinmoy Centres on the public mind.
This comment does not have any bearing on whether something is a cult. I read an
interview with the restaurant owner who served the Heavens Gate members who committed
suicide the next day. His comment was that there were the quietest, most polite people he
had met. Yet, they were still in a cult and committed mass suicide the next day.
When one thinks of a cult usually the image is of "nice" people, point me to a cult where
the people are not nice.
Wade
outcast
I would like to understand your story better. I'm hoping that if I ask
you a few questions, I can get to the bottom of some things.
You mentioned that you took a free meditation class given by students
of Sri Chinmoy. Approximately when was this class held, and in what
state?
What were the things that drew you to take a meditation class with
students of Sri Chinmoy? Did the people seem to be of good character?
Did they seem knowledgeable about spiritual matters? Was the class you
took helpful? Did you learn how to meditate, and do you still
meditate?
Prior to seeing negative things on the Internet, had you heard good
things about Sri Chinmoy Centres? Did they seem to you like
peace-loving people who are dedicated to their particular cause and
lifestyle? Did they strike you as clean-living and physically fit?
On the negative side, you mentioned that "they have been trying to
convince me to become a disciple." Can you elaborate on this? Can you
give the name of a person you spoke to? What did they say to try and
get you to join, and what did you say in response?
When you first met them, did they pretend they were from some other
organization -- say, Up With People? Or was it pretty clear the
classes were being given under the auspices of Sri Chinmoy Centres?
What were your goals when you took the meditation class, and in what
way did the class help or hinder those goals?
You mentioned that after seeing negative material on the Internet, you
decided that Sri Chinmoy Centres is not the right path for you. What
other options are you exploring? Have you taken classes with any other
spiritual organizations? If so, did you find those classes more
helpful/less helpful than those offered by students of Sri Chinmoy?
In the course of speaking with students of Sri Chinmoy, did they ever
criticize other spiritual organizations? Did they ever say you would
go to hell if you didn't join their path? Did they ever try to
frighten you or coerce you into joining?
After you took the free class, did they ever tell you about any paid
classes? Did they try to sell you any products or services other than
books? If they offered books for sale, were the books reasonably
priced?
When you took the class, was it held in a secluded place, or in a
community center or university hall? Was the class fairly short in
duration -- say, under two hours? Did anyone try and limit your access
to bathroom facilities or insist that you stay longer than you
planned?
Did there come a time when you told these people clearly that you were
not interested in taking further classes? If so, what was their
reaction? Have they called you on the phone? Did you ask them not to
call? If you ever asked them not to call, have they persisted in
calling?
In your association with these people, did they ever try to initiate
you in any secret rituals, ever offer you drugs or alcohol, or ever
try to make a date with you?
If there came a definitive point where you broke off contact with
these people, were they cordial in your last meeting with them? Did
they insist that you were wrong not to join their group, or did they
fully accept your decision?
What is it that makes you believe that the critics on the Internet,
rather than the students of Sri Chinmoy you have met personally, are
telling the truth about their organization?
Is it fair to say that you show more sympathy for ex-disciples of Sri
Chinmoy posting on the Internet than for the people you actually met?
Here's a hypothetical question: Let's say you're having lunch with a
few friends and acquaintances. One of them criticizes the Berklee
College of Music and says it's a very bad school. Another friend says:
"No, you are completely wrong. Berklee is the best!!!" He then goes on
to defend the school at length. Do you conclude:
a. That he is a current Berklee student.
b. That he is a paid public relations person for Berklee College.
c. That he is under some form of mind control from Berklee College.
d. All of the above.
e. That he once attended Berklee, was very happy with the education he
got there, and is loyal to his old alma mater.
Looking back to your school days, did you ever have a teacher who was
tough but fair -- one who made the kids work really hard, but who
helped mold and shape their personalities and made sure they passed
their exams? If so, was that teacher loved by some and hated by
others? Did the kids who loved him do so because they felt he really
cared about them and that's why he made them work hard and learn
everything correctly? If so, did any of those students ever cry and
hug him on graduation day? Did anyone ever say "He saved my life"
about that kind of teacher?
Have you ever known two people who were really close, and then after
they broke up one of them said completely horrible things about the
other which you knew weren't true?
One last question: You post under the name "Shakti." Is there any
special reason why you chose that name?
I apologize for asking so many questions. Of course, you are under no
obligation to answer any of them. Thank you for your time.
outcast
On Suffering, True Compassion and Tolerance
Doubt and faith are the daily stuff of spiritual life. People
following a spiritual path often experience great joy when their
consciousness soars into the heavens on the wings of faith. They can
also experience a loss of faith or a period of dryness and depression.
Some aspect of their being may revolt against the daily routine of
spiritual practice. They may even become so sick with doubt and
worldly desire that they will be asked to leave a spiritual community
so that they do not harm themselves or others. Certainly there is
suffering in this, but such suffering is not explained by the
victim/abuser paradigm rigidly enforced by anti-cultists. This
suffering is part of the universal suffering which exists in the world
of Samsara -- part of the process by which a caterpillar gradually
becomes a butterfly. It does not help at all when exit counselors try
to get ex-devotees to publicly denounce their former teacher and to
"rescue" current Centre members. This only adds to suffering all
around.
Even a suffering person still has a duty not to harm others. If
someone acts with willful cruelty, they hurt themselves in the
process. By obsessively hating and blaming Sri Chinmoy Centres for
their suffering, some people in Sri Chinmoy Information have grown
quite mad. Any compassionate teacher, therapist or counselor would
urge them to stop the "blame game" and begin the true healing process.
Some members of Sri Chinmoy Information may be suffering from
confusion and identity crisis -- not because they are "victims of cult
brainwashing," but because they have tried to do a sudden about-face
in their lives. The volte-face is always a difficult maneuver, and
those who attempt it often find themselves contorted by the effort.
The sane approach to leaving a religious movement is to try and move
from point A to point B in a gradual way, rather than opting for the
"radical guru-ectomy" advocated by deprogrammers. Better to leave a
religious movement in joy than to try and burn it to the ground. That
is the act of a barbarian.
Ian, if you are a Buddhist, a meditation teacher, and an exit
counselor, (as you claim on Sri Chinmoy Information), then you have a
special responsibility to act with non-hurtfulness. In how many
different places have your people published Sri Chinmoy's home
address? How many times have they compared him to Osama Bin Laden? How
many instances of verbal violence, or even incitement to physical
violence (references to "crucifixion" and "kicking ass") are found in
Sri Chinmoy Information? Just as some would say "physician heal
thyself," I would say to you: "Buddhist, where is thy compassion?" Do
you not understand that there are thousands of people who love Sri
Chinmoy because he gave them initiation, took their barbs and arrows,
dried their tears, and showed them unimaginable kindness? How many
times have such people been ridiculed in Sri Chinmoy Information? How
many times has someone suspected of being a current Centre member been
sexually taunted? When we see ex-members mocking current members,
calling them "brainwashed zombies," belittling their attempts at faith
or celibacy, and urging them to "go see a porn film" (a comment made
by both group founder "Steve Stevens" and group owner "SylviaL"), this
represents a type of psychological inversion which is pathological in
nature. Were it not so, former members would feel genuine empathy
(rather than feigned concern) for current members, and would not taunt
them with the same terms of abuse which they too had to endure when
they followed Sri Chinmoy's path. I know that somewhere in their
hearts there is nobility, but in this matter they are acting very
badly.
Even if one's own house has come to ruin, still better not to tear
down the house of others. Or if one feels that one has found a much
better house, still perhaps others prefer the house in which they were
born. You may feel that you are a much better meditation teacher than
Sri Chinmoy, but it is wrong and hurtful for you to attack Sri Chinmoy
Centres. I call upon you to cease such attacks, and to end support for
the people who issue challenges to Sue and I in a forum where they
know we are gagged by the moderator and cannot possibly respond.
suedf...@yahoo.com (Sue) wrote in message news:<d08a3110.02050...@posting.google.com>...
>>It is easy to make claims of censorship of news, but the only
>>people who are really into censorship are those running the
>>Yahoo Board. I challenge them to immediately reinstate the
>>unmoderated status of the Yahoo Board and to reinstate all
>>the messages supporting Sri Chinmoy that were deleted.
ii.jo...@qut.edu.au (Ian Johnson) wrote in message news:<4703311.02050...@posting.google.com>...
>Perhaps the deleting of half the messges on the site occured
>as a result of strong threats of libel against the free speech
>principles of the person who started it.
Ian, the tactic of Sri Chinmoy Information is to discourage
fair-minded enquiry, and instead to pound home a negative view of Sri
Chinmoy Centres by relentlessly reposting the same scare material
designed to provoke an immediate emotional response. There is no
standard of truth or decency applied. Under the rubric of "open
forum," they have declared "open season" on a religious minority,
handed out pop guns, and urged everyone to plug away with total
abandon. This is not free speech, it is bigotry and persecution -- by
people who have, in the main, returned to the majoritarian view, and
who now seek to demonstrate their recovery from "cultic mind control"
by treating their former associates with astonishing cruelty.
If any principles have been threatened, it is the principles of "fair
play" and "innocent until proven guilty." Many of the messages deleted
by your people were gentle affirmations of faith in Sri Chinmoy
Centres. Many of the messages not deleted openly slander Sri Chinmoy
Centres using a variety of colorful expletives. When "Steve Stevens"
says he has "absolute proof" of someone's identity, and this turns out
to be a complete sham, isn't that the reason some messages are deleted
-- to try and get the toothpaste back in the tube? When Anne Carlton's
story changes dramatically from post to post, isn't that why some of
her messages are deleted -- to give the appearance of consistency?
When messages that show faith and love toward Sri Chinmoy are deleted,
isn't that on the advice of exit counselors, who don't want their
clients "relapsing" into faith -- a "condition" such counselors have
been paid to "cure"?
But let's assume you're right: If half the messages on the site were
deleted due to libel exposure, doesn't this say a lot about the
"information" found on Sri Chinmoy Information? Doesn't it confirm
that Sri Chinmoy Information is similar to the old Cult Awareness
Network? When the board owner, "SylviaL," tells parents who want to
kidnap their daughter to contact Rick Ross, does this strike a
familiar chord? Discussing the 1995 case in which a jury found against
both CAN and Rick Ross, Shupe and Darnell write:
"The jury was quite clear in its decision to award compensatory and
punitive damages to Scott. CAN's primary activity, this case and
others have revealed, was to provide false and/or inflammatory opinion
in the guise of 'information' about minority religions to the media
and other inquirers. All or virtually all such 'information' was
derogatory, consistent with CAN's goals of 'educating' the public that
various new religious movements (NRMs) are 'destructive cults,' that
all of the members thereof are 'cult victims,' are 'brainwashed,' and
are therefore at risk, possibly needing 'rescue.' The jury's decision,
under the definitions provided in Washington law, was that CAN was
truly an organized hate campaign. CAN described its activities in a
euphemistic manner to make its activities seem less outrageous from a
civil liberties perspective. The reason CAN ever became involved in
the Scott lawsuit was that, consistent with its organizational
pattern, it served as a conduit for referrals to coercive
deprogrammers (later termed by CAN 'exit counselors') who would, for a
fee, abduct and during detention harangue family members into
religious apostasy."
http://www.cesnur.org/2001/CAN.htm
When false and inflammatory opinion about religious minorities is
spread over the Internet, the consequences are that people will be
harmed. Real people, innocent people may be taunted, assaulted or even
killed. After 9/11, you cannot compare an Eastern group to Al Qaeda
and say that they are abusing women or children without creating the
real possibility of bias attacks. Although Sri Chinmoy Centres is a
small organization of only two or three thousand people worldwide, it
does have Centres in some places where religious freedom is far from
secure. Some people in Sri Chinmoy Information think it's funny to say
there is child abuse going on. But in some parts of the world, Sri
Chinmoy's disciples get shots fired at them. They are peace-loving
people, but just because they choose a different way, the way of Yoga,
they are subject to violence and discrimination. Those who lend their
names to a hate campaign, whether or not a court ever finds them
guilty, will know in their hearts that they are guilty of harming the
innocent.
Q: But how can I know they are innocent?
A: You can close your ears to apostates and alarmists, and make your
own calm, thoughtful study of Sri Chinmoy Centres. You can read Sri
Chinmoy's writings, visit one of his Centres, and speak with his
students. Then you will see that they are quiet, dedicated,
peace-loving people who pose no threat to society and are not
themselves in any danger. Moreover, they are not living in seclusion,
cut off from the world. They lead very active lives and adopt an
attitude of service to the world. They are easily approachable by
anyone doing direct research.
Q: Are you trying to get the whole world to follow Sri Chinmoy's path?
A: Since I myself do not follow his path, that would be the height of
folly. I'm making a plea for religious tolerance. Each person has a
right to their own faith, whether faith in science, psychology, a
mainstream religion, or an Eastern path. I am begging people to see
that waging a campaign of hatred and misinformation against a minority
faith is a low, mean thing to do. It does not advance any public good,
and indeed can do much harm. What we need is tolerance. Everyone is
for tolerance in the abstract, but in the particular tolerance means
closing one's ears to hateful stereotypes and misinformation about
spiritual groups. All groups have some full-time detractors, but we
should base our opinions on a direct study of the group in question
rather than reacting emotionally to apostate horror stories.
Q: Are you a brainwashed cultist who thinks that Sri Chinmoy's
disciples are all perfect?
A: People become spiritual seekers because they wish to transform
their nature, not because it has already been transformed. At times,
spiritual seekers may do absurd and unthinkable things. In its 35 year
history, Sri Chinmoy Centres has expelled many members. Researchers
familiar with the group know that far from hiding these incidents, Sri
Chinmoy has written several volumes of short stories chronicling the
misadventures of his own disciples. With titles such as Lightless
Soldiers Fail, The Master's Self-Appointed Emissary, and They Came
Only To Go, these or similar volumes discussing the pitfalls of
spiritual practice have been available to the general public for over
25 years. I applaud Sri Chinmoy Centres for publishing such volumes,
which I view as part of the earnest housecleaning which any bona fide
spiritual group does in order to root out corruption and retain only
those members who are both sincere and fit.
Sri Chinmoy is a qualified spiritual teacher. He cannot do everything
alone, so he has to rely on those who come to him to run many aspects
of day-to-day Centre life. These people are not saints; they are just
ordinary human beings who are trying to learn how to lead the
spiritual life. I have more respect for them and their occasional
foibles and blind spots than I do for the people who only throw rocks
from a distance. I find Sri Chinmoy's own writings on his disciples'
shortcomings to be more constructive, compassionate, fair-minded and
humorous than those of his critics.
Q: Should religious tolerance extend to dangerous mind control cults?
A: Yoga as taught by Sri Chinmoy has nothing to do with brainwashing,
mind control, hypnosis, coercion or deception, so arguments of that
type are non-starters here. People come to Sri Chinmoy because they
see something in him which inspires them, something divine which they
wish to grow into. His rules are not imposed by force and are not for
society in general. They are only for those who out of love wish to
follow his teachings. Acceptance of Sri Chinmoy's path is clearly a
faith-based decision. The door is always open.
The word "cult" is seen as a term of abuse by much of the Yoga
community and beyond. "Mind control" (or "brainwashing") is considered
a myth by most social scientists and religious scholars. J. Gordon
Melton writes:
"Since the late 1980s, though a significant public belief in
cult-brainwashing remains, the academic community -- including
scholars from psychology, sociology, and religious studies -- have
shared an almost unanimous consensus that the coercive
persuasion/brainwashing thesis proposed by Margaret Singer and her
colleagues in the 1980s is without scientific merit... Through the
1990s, it has been difficult to locate any scholar in the
English-speaking world who has been willing to attempt a defense of
it, and even Singer herself has appeared to back away from her earlier
position. After the fall of the Cult Awareness Network, only one
American organization, the American Family Foundation, continued to
offer any support for the coercive persuasion argument."
"During the last generation, the Western world has made a quantum leap
beyond Christendom and the secular society that has replaced it toward
the development of a new religious order that includes significant
Islamic, Buddhist, and Hindu communities joining the older Jewish and
Western Esoteric groupings. The future task for cultural leaders is
the creation of structures in which these very different religious
communities, some large, some small, can live and work with the older
Christian Churches and mutually contribute to the welfare of the
nations in which they find themselves. In such a context, freeing
ourselves from labels such as 'brainwashing' and the suspicions it
arouses seems a necessary component of arriving at a harmonious
future."
http://www.cesnur.org/testi/melton.htm
http://www.ramakrishna.org/Father_Judge.htm
http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Jan1997/feature1.asp#F1
http://www.queenscourier.com/archives/1998/lead01198.htm
Ian Johnson
deceitful. But when he and Alo Devi started their mission and
respectively reinforced the notion that each of them was fully
enlightened and subsequently, Sri Chinmoy told the disciples that she
actually wasn't and that we should pretend devotion towards her and
that other disciples should be kept from this new information,
creating a group of those who knew and those who didn't, and when he
encouraged us to falsely flatter her at all times, doesn't this
concern you? Should not faith be balanced with wisdom (the Buddha's
words)? Is it not dangerous just to have blind faith? Doesn't it open
people up for exploitation if they are not allowed to develop wisdom
with which to balance their faith? Wisdom comes from knowledge and
knowledge rests on asking questions and getting honest answers.
Resting on the deceit that this one example illustrates (and their are
suspicions of others such as the weight-lifting, the secret
photography, the amazing stories of Sri Chinmoy's height in the "inner
worlds" and his previous incarnations, etc) shouldn't we be concerned
for our brothers and sisters who are unaware of the allegations of
further deception involving sexual relations with several female
disciples? I do not speak for any group or any other individual and I
am not reponsible for what anyone else has written or will write. I
agree that angry words and verbal abuse serve no positive purpose but
compassion, which you have mentioned several times, is owed to all,
not to one.
Information of possible importance to people, should not be forcefully
kept from them. The compassionate response in light of new information
about possible deceit, which together with other well-known examples
represents potentially vital information for people inside the Sri
Chinmoy organisation, is to at least attempt to inform, although given
the iron-clad censorship operating at present, this is extremely
difficult.
My intention was to stop this one-sided debate, as you keep shying
away from it and once again, you have not addressed the issue.
However, I hope that this will be my last post on this site. I have
said all I wanted to say many times now. I trust you will consider it
in its intended context. I hope P will come home soon (in more ways
than one).
outca...@yahoo.com (outcast) wrote in message news:<95aaad3a.02050...@posting.google.com>...
SueCast
Does'nt the above posting seem ridiculous, imbibed with a sense of
fanaticism? This is typical of Sri Chinmoy's most ardent
disciples--although they do not, or refuse not to see themselves in
this way. When I was a disciple, I tried hard not to fall into this
over-zealousness, despite the climate of conditioning.But ask Outcast
or Sued about the woman, who brought Sri Chinmy to America, called Alo
Devi, who disciples have been asked to worship as the "Mother of the
Universe", yet have also been told by Sri Chinmoy that she has "lost"
her realisation, then you will only get silence, as opposed to the
above rambling diatribe.
Joe Kellett
>
> On Suffering, True Compassion and Tolerance
>
> Doubt and faith are the daily stuff of spiritual life. People
> following a spiritual path often experience great joy when their
> consciousness soars into the heavens on the wings of faith. They can
> also experience a loss of faith or a period of dryness and depression.
> Some aspect of their being may revolt against the daily routine of
> spiritual practice. They may even become so sick with doubt and
> worldly desire that they will be asked to leave a spiritual community
> so that they do not harm themselves or others. Certainly there is
> suffering in this, but such suffering is not explained by the
> victim/abuser paradigm rigidly enforced by anti-cultists. This
> suffering is part of the universal suffering which exists in the world
> of Samsara -- part of the process by which a caterpillar gradually
> becomes a butterfly. It does not help at all when exit counselors try
> to get ex-devotees to publicly denounce their former teacher and to
> "rescue" current Centre members. This only adds to suffering all
> around.
Not if the allegations are correct. In that case it is useful and kind
to alert current and potential future victims.
>
> Even a suffering person still has a duty not to harm others. If
> someone acts with willful cruelty, they hurt themselves in the
> process. By obsessively hating and blaming Sri Chinmoy Centres for
> their suffering, some people in Sri Chinmoy Information have grown
> quite mad. Any compassionate teacher, therapist or counselor would
> urge them to stop the "blame game" and begin the true healing process.
Yes it if one has been victimized by a rapist who is still in the
neighborhood, it is an act of kindness to warn the neighbors.
Again, you distract from the true issue, which is only whether the
charges are valid or not.
>
> Some members of Sri Chinmoy Information may be suffering from
> confusion and identity crisis -- not because they are "victims of cult
> brainwashing," but because they have tried to do a sudden about-face
> in their lives. The volte-face is always a difficult maneuver, and
> those who attempt it often find themselves contorted by the effort.
> The sane approach to leaving a religious movement is to try and move
> from point A to point B in a gradual way, rather than opting for the
> "radical guru-ectomy" advocated by deprogrammers. Better to leave a
> religious movement in joy than to try and burn it to the ground. That
> is the act of a barbarian.
Only if the allegations are false. If true, then it might be an act of
kindness.
Which distracts from the issue of whether *Chinmoy* is acting badly,
which is rather of more interest. If the allegations are true, then
some emotionalism on the part of these people can be understandable.
>
> Even if one's own house has come to ruin, still better not to tear
> down the house of others. Or if one feels that one has found a much
> better house, still perhaps others prefer the house in which they were
> born. You may feel that you are a much better meditation teacher than
> Sri Chinmoy, but it is wrong and hurtful for you to attack Sri Chinmoy
> Centres.
Only if the allegations are false.
I think that you practice a rhetorical technique called "begging the
question" <http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-
question.html>.
Your argument goes something like this (it's kind of twisted but I'll
give it a whirl):
(1) These people attack Sri Chinmoy's spiritual status as an authentic
spiritual teacher. (Observation of fact.)
(2) Yet Sri Chinmoy is an authentic spiritual teacher. (Your unspoken
and unproven assumption.)
(3) Therefore it is wrong for them to attack Chinmoy because he is an
authentic spiritual teacher. (Your conclusion.)
This is "begging the question" because you pretend to be *proving* in
(3) the very thing that you are silently *assuming* in (2).
But (2) is the very essence of the controversy, and cannot be assumed at
all! As far as (3) goes, if the allegations are correct, then it is
best that everyone knows about it.
Your same arguments could just as easily be used to silence RCC
pedophilia victims. As a matter of fact, it *was* used to silence RCC
pedophilia victims, who were silenced for decades so that the holiness
of the Church wouldn't be besmirched.
There, as well as here, the only issue is whether each of individual is
or is not a victim of a social predator.
> I call upon you to cease such attacks, and to end support for
> the people who issue challenges to Sue and I in a forum where they
> know we are gagged by the moderator and cannot possibly respond.
I can see how they might feel a little overwhelmed by you if this is the
kind of response they would get. Ad hominem arguments, begging the
question...
<...>
--Joe
Sue
> In alt.meditation ericlifter <ericlift...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> e# Sue, can you explain to us why Sri Chinmoy goes through this ridiculous
> e# charade of pretending to lift massive weights? Do you honestly believe that
> e# Sri Chinmoy possesses supernatural powers and that he really has established
> e# world records for weightlifting events?
>
> e# Eric
>
> My question exactly. What is the spiritual purpose of claiming to
> be a weightlifter? I could as easily claim to lick maggots from dead dogs.
> Does that have some amazing spiritual ramifications?
>
> Don't understand.
I don't think Sri Chinmoy started weightlifting with a view to
breaking established world records or to show that he possesses
supernatural powers. Part of Sri Chinmoy's philosophy is to promote
the idea of "self-transcendence" and I think he was putting this into
practice when he took up weightlifting. I know it would be impossible
for a weightlifter to lift above his head a jet airplane with 22
passengers. However, from the video I have seen, Sri Chinmoy lifted
the plane off the ground by only an inch or so. To me, whether Sri
Chinmoy exerted a force of 30,000 pounds or 30 pounds to lift the
aircraft, is of no real consequence. Although Sri Chinmoy is very
strong and probably did exert considerable force to lift the aircraft,
the main purpose of the lift was to illustrate that sometimes the
seemingly impossible can be achieved if we put our minds to it. After
watching the video, I was certainly inspired to think like that, and
remembering this philosophy has helped me to try and keep improving on
my previous achievements. I am not in contact with Sri Chinmoy or his
Centers over this matter, so I am only expressing my personal opinion.
Sue D
jody
Very oily Outcast. Very slippery indeed.
outcast
>>>Dear Shakti,
>>>
>>>I would like to understand your story better. I'm hoping that
>>>if I ask you a few questions, I can get to the bottom of some
>>>things.
>>>
>>>You mentioned that you took a free meditation class given by
>>>students of Sri Chinmoy. Approximately when was this class
>>>held, and in what state? [snip]
jody <jo...@atman.net> wrote in message news:<B8FFE695.606F%jo...@atman.net>...
>>Very oily Outcast. Very slippery indeed.
LOL! Why thank you, Jody! From you I'll take any compliments I can
get, even backhanded ones. You once defended me when
Sereni...@aol.com accused me of being a "recruiter" for Sri Chinmoy
(which I am not). Here is what you wrote:
jody <jod...@home.com> wrote in message news:<3B6437E9...@home.com>...
>While Outcast is obviously highly intelligent and learned in the
>yoga shastras, it is completely irrelevant as to which group he
>is associated with, as he has *never* tried to "recruit" for his
>or any other group on USENET as far as I've seen.
>
>He is a respected poster on the alt.yoga newsgroup, and
>regardless of which organization he is associated with, he
>usually offers much in the way of knowledge and understanding
>each time he writes there.
>
>The content of Outcast's posts are consistent with that of a
>yogic traditionalist who is learned in the informational content
>of the shastras, and while he may not have the experiential
>knowledge necessary for a complete understanding, few who post to
>USENET do.
>
>Your (Serenity9978) paranoid diatribe and facile attempt to
>discredit him has only discredited yourself. If you want to save
>people from cult manipulation, go to the alt.religion newsgroups
>and save people from coming under the sway of christian
>fundamentalism; that is where the real cult fanaticism lives.
Believe it or not, I almost posted a message thanking you, but I
couldn't quite hit the send button. It seemed to me that somewhere in
distant memory I had experienced something, perhaps a twinge around my
heart centre -- though it could just have been indigestion. Also,
since I'm into Christianity (though not the fundamentalist brand), it
was hard to sign on to that part of your message. But in retrospect, I
really should have thanked you. I do so now.
As to my oiliness, I do try and preen my coat regularly. But when the
hounds are after the fox, the fox must turn any wit to good advantage.
;-)
--outcast
ericlifter
news:d08a3110.02050...@posting.google.com...
> I don't think Sri Chinmoy started weightlifting with a view to
> breaking established world records or to show that he possesses
> supernatural powers. Part of Sri Chinmoy's philosophy is to promote
> the idea of "self-transcendence" and I think he was putting this into
> practice when he took up weightlifting.
I find it very strange that you could be inspired by Sri Chinmoy PRETENDING
to lift heavy weights. To demonstrate the principle of self-transcendence, I
would have thought Sri Chinmoy needed to lift 100% of the weight he claimed
he was lifting, not some miniscule proportion. In my opinion, Sri Chinmoy's
lifts were lever assisted and I think anybody could have lifted all the
bizarre objects that he claims to have lifted. I consider that Sri Chinmoy
wants his disciples to believe that he has broken several world
weightlifting records and that he has supernatural powers. Many of his
disciples have been completely fooled into thinking that Sri Chinmoy is the
strongest man of all time.
Because his disciples spend an hour or two a day meditating on Chinmoy's
photograph, I consider this process gradually eats away at their powers of
critical reasoning until the point is reached where they readily accept
anything he says. To back up my opinion that Sri Chinmoy wants his disciples
to believe that he is a world champion weightlifter, I looked through some
of the material on internet about the lifts, and I include below some
extracts from this "evidence". I apologise that this posting has almost
reached the epic proportions of an "Outcast" posting, but this is because
Sri Chinmoy collected so much "evidence" in order to convince and impress
his disciples of his incredible supernatural powers.
In a usenet posting dated 22 July 1996, a Chinmoy supporter posted to
newsgroups some extracts from "endorsements" given by famous weightlifters.
The writer said that a number of people in the weightlifting community at
the time gave statements endorsing the lift: Henry Rappo, Heinz Vierthaler,
Andy Bostinto, Dan Lurie, Tom Carey, Frank Zane, Terry Todd, Cliff Sawyer,
Jim Smith, and Bill Pearl. In a posting dated 24 July 1996, it was pointed
out to the Chinmoy supporter that Terry Todd was actually skeptical of the
lifts. In reply, the Chinmoy supporter said he had noticed that Terry Todd
was regarded as a critic of the lifts, so he quoted, as set out below, the
actual endorsement that Dr Todd is said to have given to Sri Chinmoy:
"It is spectacular. It certainly does appear that he has moved the weight
both vertically and laterally. It's a spectacular photo. In fact, he
probably lifted it higher than the photo shows. It is rare that a photo
catches the highest point of a lift. His lift is creating all kinds of
excitement. What he is doing is fantastic. He is responsible for reviving
the whole field of feats of strength."
On 19 August 1996, the Chinmoy supporter said that:
"Readers of this thread should keep in mind that while there appears to be
almost exclusive disbelief of the lift on the newsgroup, many well-respected
individuals in the weightlifting community have gone on record supporting
the lift. Even though they were not present, the photos were convincing
enough for them. These include Frank Zane (three time Mr Olympia) and Bill
Pearl (five time Mr Universe, 1953 AAU Mr. America, 1956 Mr USA
professional, 1974 WBBG World's Best Built Man of the Century, 1978 elected
IFBB National Chairman of the Professional Physique Judges Committee) and
many others. In fact here below is another quote for the thread."
"Sri Chinmoy's lift is the greatest lift in the history of mankind. I have
been weightlifting for 40 years, and I can tell you without a doubt that the
force that moved that weight is the strongest force ever exerted by a human
being in the history of the world. Never before in history has there been so
much weight lifted in this style. It is really beyond me!"
"There is no question as to whether or not it is really a world record; it
is a galaxy record. Sometimes people feel threatened by Sri Chinmoy's
achievements because these achievements make them feel insignificant and
inferior. Otherwise, they would recognise this to be the greatest lift in
history."
"Sri Chinmoy's weightlifting feats are like Roger Bannister's running.
Everyone said that the 4-minute mile could not be accomplished. While
Bannister was in medical school, all the experts and doctors said it was
physically impossible, so many people never attempted to do a 4-minute
mile."
"Sri Chinmoy is showing how much of the sport is mental. He has freed
himself from all limitations. He has not let anything limit him. He would
have stopped at 300 pounds if he had not conquered his mind.
-- Tom Carey
Coach of 1985 and 1986 Women's National Powerlifting Team Champions, Trainer
of world powerlifting champions (excerpted)"
In August 1997, a supporter of Sri Chinmoy said that the weightlifting
achievements of Sri Chinmoy were described in the book, "Bill Pearl:
Twentieth Century's Best Built Man". The following quotation was given from
this book:
"I watched him press his body weight with one arm, from the rack, and also,
on the calf machine, stand erect with 1,800 pounds on his shoulders. His
strength comes from an inner source, because his physique and basic
character certainly doesn't make him the aggressive type, capable of doing
what he does. It is a sight to behold, and it's the most I have seen anyone
have on their shoulders and stand erect. I'm telling you, if John Grimek and
other respected past 'strong men' could have seen it live, they would have
'died'. They would really be amazed, and have tremendous respect for him and
his use of spiritual power. I would not even consider trying (those feats)."
The major source of evidence available to disciples of Sri Chinmoy about the
7063 pound lift is the 233 page book, "A 20th Century Gold Compassion
Miracle: Published Articles on Sri Chinmoy's 7063 3/4-Pound Lift". (Printed
by Agni Press, 84-47 Parsons Blvd. Jamaica N.Y. 11432, 27 August 1987.) This
book includes copies of a large number of articles that were said to be
published in 1987 about the 7063 pound lift. The book says that, on 30
January 1987 at 1.25am, Sri Chinmoy lifted a 7063 3/4 pound dumbbell
overhead with one arm. It was claimed that this is the heaviest weight ever
lifted by a human being.
The book also claims (p.62) that the lift was officially recognised by the
International Powerlifting Association (IPF) and the American World
Powerlifting Congress (article by Nikunga Ebner in Athletic Wurzburg,
Federal Republic of Germany, April / May 1987, translated from the original
German).
On page 212 of the book, it is stated that, Jim Smith, Registrar of the
British Amateur Weight Lifters' Association, considered that Sri Chinmoy has
surpassed anything and everything that any weightlifter has ever done
throughout the world. He said that, as far as he knew, 600 pounds is more
than anybody has ever held with one or two arms. Smith said that Chinmoy is
the eighth wonder of the world and that by lifting more weight with one arm
overhead than anyone has ever lifted, in any style, he is literally creating
a new law of the universe. Smith said that the dimensions of this lift are
not able to be grasped by even the greatest of athletes.
The book (p.52) says that a video was made of the lift. On page 225 of the
book, in an article copied from the Delta Democratic-Times, Greenville
Mississippi, it said that 24 people witnessed the lift and that to keep the
bar from bending under the weight of 68 100-pound metal plates, a 15-foot
steel bar plus a 200-pound free moving overhead truss had to be used. The
book (p.53) said that 68 "Dan Lurie" 100-pound plates were used.
Several supporters of Sri Chinmoy have claimed that the 7063 pound "lift"
was recognised in the Guinness Book of World Records, but this is not the
case. It is considered that the greatest weight ever raised by a human being
is 6,270 lb or 2.84 tonnes in a "back lift" (weight raised off trestles) by
the 26 stone Paul Anderson of the U.S.A. (born 17 Oct. 1932), the 1956
Olympic heavyweight champion, at Toccoa, Georgia, U.S.A. on 12 June 1957. A
"back lift" is a completely different proposition to lifting a weight
overhead with just one arm, and the two types of lifts are not in any way
comparable. For example, one weightlifting expert, Dr. Terry Todd, a
Professor of Kinesiology at the University of Texas, is reported as saying
that, in a pure one-handed military press, the most anyone has achieved has
been around 200 pounds (see the October 1996 issue of "Outside Magazine").
Therefore, Chinmoy's claimed 7063 lb overhead lift is many times greater
than any "normal" human has achieved for a one-armed overhead lift.
In a posting dated 11 August 1996, a weightlifter with 25 years' experience
discussed Paul Anderson's lifts as follows:
"When Paul Anderson set the world record, he performed the lift with a
harness and barely lifted the weight. I also remember seeing him lift over
450 lbs with a neck harness on the Johnny Carson show, and also press 275
lbs 10 times with his right arm and 8 times with his left. Now he was a
bonafide strength athlete." Apparently Paul Anderson performed his 6,270 lb
back lift using a harness that went around his back and which was fastened
to the weight between his legs. He stood on a platform of sorts with the
harness connected to the weight between his legs. He braced himself with his
hands on his knees (which were slightly bent), and then bending over at the
waist, he would barely lift the weight off the ground.
It is clear that Sri Chinmoy was determined to convince his followers that
he had in fact broken Paul Anderson's record. In 1987, following the "7063
pound lift" a press release was put out by one of the Sri Chinmoy
organizations saying 'Sri Chinmoy today smashed Paul Anderson's Guinness
powerlifting record to become history's strongest man' ".
In a usenet posting dated 17 March 1997, a supporter claimed that
weightlifters and others who dismiss Sri Chinmoy's lifts are those who do
not believe in spiritual energy. He said that weightlifters as a general
class of people do not systematically work with yogic power and are
therefore not qualified to speak about the lift. The supporter went on to
say that we should help the people "under Jesus' spell" to realize that they
aren't thinking critically because physicists say that walking on water is
impossible.
In a feature article in Wellington's "Evening Post" (21 June 1997), it was
mentioned that Jogyata Dallas, one of the founders of the 14-year-old Sri
Chinmoy Center in Auckland, New Zealand, believes Sri Chinmoy lifted 7,000
pounds with one hand. Dallas said that, "When body and spirit are combined
humanity can achieve extraordinary things." In the same article, Dr Paul
Morris, Professor of Religious Studies at Victoria University, said that,
"The claim Sri Chinmoy has lifted 7000 lb (3175kg) is woven into the
hagiography of Sri Chinmoy, marking him off from the rest of us, making him
special, living proof of what he teaches."
In a Usenet posting dated 13 August 1997, a very experienced weightlifter
said: "Consider this: at the last Olympics, the world record for lifting
weights overhead was set by a Russian who lifted 573 pounds (two-handed!
clean and jerk). This is after a lifetime of training, dedication, etc. I
know there are folks out there who believe Chinmoy possesses some "mystical"
power(s). Well, there is an easy way to prove this, just have him
demonstrate his "powers" in a bona fide, sanctioned weightlifting
competition / demonstration. If he lifted such amazing amounts under these
conditions, I would be the first to congratulate him."
This argument was repeated by several skeptics, and Sri Chinmoy was
challenged to lift weights in competition with other weightlifters, so that
the world may see what he can really lift. However, Sri Chinmoy has never
responded to this challenge. It was also asserted that, because Sri Chinmoy
and all the people associated with his "miracle lifts" are probably still
alive, we have an ideal chance to investigate closely, with the aid of the
latest technology, this claimed paranormal event. This is not the case with
the miracles that are said to have been performed by spiritual leaders
thousands of years ago.
A Chinmoy supporter has claimed that a certificate for Chinmoy's "world
record" one-armed overhead lift of 3081.75 pounds was issued on 20 January
1987 by Ernie Frantz of the American Powerlifting Federation (based in
Aurora, Illinois, and not to be confused with the United States Powerlifting
Federation). However, it has been reported that Ernie has since denied that
such a certificate was issued, even though a signed copy of the certificate
has been on internet.
In a paper dated 12.7.96, Jim Clewley said that Sri Chinmoy performed
several historic feats of strength soon after beginning his training. He
said these lifts have been certified by official bodies such as the AAU and
prominent individuals such as Wayne DeMilla, Vice President of the
International Federation of Body Builders.
In my opinion, the above extracts prove conclusively that Sri Chinmoy wants
his lifts to be regarded as world records, and that he has gone to
incredible lengths to try and convince his disciples that he is the greatest
weightlifter of all time. Because experts say Chinmoy's lifts were lever
assisted, I consider it most unlikely that the well known individuals and
organisations referred to above would have endorsed his lifts, but I would
welcome any further information from these people.
jody
[snip]
> LOL! Why thank you, Jody! From you I'll take any compliments I can
> get, even backhanded ones. You once defended me when
> Sereni...@aol.com accused me of being a "recruiter" for Sri Chinmoy
> (which I am not). Here is what you wrote:
>
> jody <jod...@home.com> wrote in message news:<3B6437E9...@home.com>...
>
>
>>While Outcast is obviously highly intelligent and learned in the
>>yoga shastras, it is completely irrelevant as to which group he
>>is associated with, as he has *never* tried to "recruit" for his
>>or any other group on USENET as far as I've seen.
>>
>>He is a respected poster on the alt.yoga newsgroup, and
>>regardless of which organization he is associated with, he
>>usually offers much in the way of knowledge and understanding
>>each time he writes there.
>>
>>The content of Outcast's posts are consistent with that of a
>>yogic traditionalist who is learned in the informational content
>>of the shastras, and while he may not have the experiential
>>knowledge necessary for a complete understanding, few who post to
>>USENET do.
>>
>>Your (Serenity9978) paranoid diatribe and facile attempt to
>>discredit him has only discredited yourself. If you want to save
>>people from cult manipulation, go to the alt.religion newsgroups
>>and save people from coming under the sway of christian
>>fundamentalism; that is where the real cult fanaticism lives.
That was then. Your latest outbreak of Chinmoy defending
has led me to change my opinion a bit.
Your recent posts reveal a person somehow invested in restoring
and defending Chinmoy's reputation, although I don't know what
that investment might be. Perhaps Senenity9978 was correct.
I'm much more inclined to believe him/her now than I was before.
> Believe it or not, I almost posted a message thanking you, but I
> couldn't quite hit the send button. It seemed to me that somewhere in
> distant memory I had experienced something, perhaps a twinge around my
> heart centre -- though it could just have been indigestion.
Heaven forbade you from thanking an obvious heretic.
> Also,
> since I'm into Christianity (though not the fundamentalist brand), it
> was hard to sign on to that part of your message. But in retrospect, I
> really should have thanked you. I do so now.
You're welcome, although now I take some of it back.
> As to my oiliness, I do try and preen my coat regularly. But when the
> hounds are after the fox, the fox must turn any wit to good advantage.
> ;-)
>
> --outcast
Well, there's that and there's your buttering up of Shakti in
an attempt to either discredit or acquire her as an ally in your
little mission to preserve Chinmoy's status as a godman.
The question I put to you is this: why do you devote so much
time and effort in defending Chinmoy? What's in it for you?
outcast
>>The question I put to you is this: why do you devote so much
>>time and effort in defending Chinmoy? What's in it for you?
Jody, forgive me to ask, but have you read the thread? Have you even
read between the lines of my recent message?
outca...@yahoo.com (outcast) wrote in message news:<95aaad3a.02050...@posting.google.com>...
>Looking back to your school days, did you ever have a teacher who
>was tough but fair -- one who made the kids work really hard, but
>who helped mold and shape their personalities and made sure they
>passed their exams? If so, was that teacher loved by some and
>hated by others? Did the kids who loved him do so because they
>felt he really cared about them and that's why he made them work
>hard and learn everything correctly? If so, did any of those
>students ever cry and hug him on graduation day? Did anyone ever
>say "He saved my life" about that kind of teacher?
Clearly, Sri Chinmoy has been an influential person in my life,
someone whose contribution to the Yoga community I greatly value. And
clearly I believe with a passion that I have seen the truth of what's
going on here, and that what's going on is a smear campaign. Though I
have not been a member of Sri Chinmoy Centres in many years, and have
since traveled other paths, I value my time there as the most
important formative experience of my life.
As someone with Christian roots, I have often had occasion to
contemplate the whole meaning of the crucifixion. Over the millennia,
there have been many spiritual figures who have been cruelly mocked
and tortured by people whom they tried to help. I feel this issue on a
deep emotional level. There is perhaps little I can do to prevent some
people from crucifying Sri Chinmoy, whether literally or figuratively,
but I would rather not see it happen on my watch. Therefore, I will
put up such road blocks as I can, and hope that a few people of
conscience may join me.
Jody, you once wrote:
>> Ramakrishna said, "Faith is the one thing needed."
I believe that even an imperfect faith is more pleasing to God than
doubt expertly expressed through long mental habit. Even a little bit
of faith can catch fire and set one's whole being ablaze with love.
But doubt tends to harden and become resistant to the higher light.
Doubt gradually begins to take pleasure in crushing the faith of
others.
Jody, I'm not asking you to show any support for Sri Chinmoy. But
since you have not studied with him, and have not made a direct study
of Sri Chinmoy Centres, as a personal favor would you consider not
speaking ill? I took note of it when you called Sue a "brainwashed
devotee." That was cruel. I took note of your use of the word "cult,"
which is considered a term of abuse by much of the Yoga community and
beyond.
Jody, you are a brilliant thinker. But expand your empathy and
sensitivity and you will know why I am defending Sri Chinmoy Centres.
jody
> jody <jo...@atman.net> wrote in message news:<3CDB6433...@atman.net>...
>
>
>>>The question I put to you is this: why do you devote so much
>>>time and effort in defending Chinmoy? What's in it for you?
>>
>
> Jody, forgive me to ask, but have you read the thread? Have you even
> read between the lines of my recent message?
To tell you the truth, I skip over the bulk of it as it's
usually too much to read. But I do get to most of the highlights.
But I don't read much between the lines. The best way
to tell me is upfront and clear.
[snip]
> Clearly, Sri Chinmoy has been an influential person in my life,
> someone whose contribution to the Yoga community I greatly value.
What about that part of the yoga community which also
happens to be Chinmoy's ex-devotess?
> And
> clearly I believe with a passion that I have seen the truth of what's
> going on here, and that what's going on is a smear campaign.
That's a little bit paranoid, don't you think?
> Though I
> have not been a member of Sri Chinmoy Centres in many years, and have
> since traveled other paths, I value my time there as the most
> important formative experience of my life.
Ahh, so you're protecting your own impression of Chinmoy.
That makes sense. It also makes sense that when confronted
with so many people with similar complaints, you might conclude
there is something wrong with what he is doing.
> As someone with Christian roots, I have often had occasion to
> contemplate the whole meaning of the crucifixion. Over the millennia,
> there have been many spiritual figures who have been cruelly mocked
> and tortured by people whom they tried to help.
Over the millennia there has accreted a whole mythology about
the saints and what their lives were like. Even in Chinmoy's
life. Like any bigtime guru, there are tales of siddhis and
his magical intervention in the lives of his devotees.
This comprises the worst that yoga has to offer.
> I feel this issue on a
> deep emotional level. There is perhaps little I can do to prevent some
> people from crucifying Sri Chinmoy, whether literally or figuratively,
> but I would rather not see it happen on my watch. Therefore, I will
> put up such road blocks as I can, and hope that a few people of
> conscience may join me.
You can't be faulted with standing for what you believe,
and you are always free to present your wordy offerings.
However, calling this discussion a crucifixion
is a bit over the top.
> Jody, you once wrote:
>
>
>>>Ramakrishna said, "Faith is the one thing needed."
>>
>
> I believe that even an imperfect faith is more pleasing to God than
> doubt expertly expressed through long mental habit.
Pleasing to God? If you're trying to please God with
faith you are wasting your time. The only thing God
wants from you is complete surrender.
> Even a little bit
> of faith can catch fire and set one's whole being ablaze with love.
That's a quaint picture.
> But doubt tends to harden and become resistant to the higher light.
> Doubt gradually begins to take pleasure in crushing the faith of
> others.
Scary! Doubt attacking faith! The horror!
When "faith" is manufactured by a cult ideology then
it is blind faith. What you are calling doubt is
really the highest function of the mind, discrimination.
> Jody, I'm not asking you to show any support for Sri Chinmoy. But
> since you have not studied with him, and have not made a direct study
> of Sri Chinmoy Centres, as a personal favor would you consider not
> speaking ill?
I have not really spoken ill of Chinmoy. I've pointed to the
existence of a large community of ex-devotees who have had a
much different experience of him.
> I took note of it when you called Sue a "brainwashed
> devotee." That was cruel.
That's what she looked like at the time.
> I took note of your use of the word "cult,"
> which is considered a term of abuse by much of the Yoga community and
> beyond.
If members are expelled for reading about Chinmoy online, then
he surely leads a cult.
> Jody, you are a brilliant thinker. But expand your empathy and
> sensitivity and you will know why I am defending Sri Chinmoy Centres.
Translation: I'll butter you up so you'll drop discrimination and
cease supporting the apostates. Perfect.
> --outcast*
>
> *I am not a member of Sri Chinmoy Centres and do not speak for Sri
> Chinmoy.
But you do speak for him. You are defending him against a
community of individuals with a much different view of him.
You've got his back on USENET. I call that speaking for him.
outcast
>Were you aware of Christ's position on insults and slander? I
>only ask because you continually threaten ex-disciples because
>they are "slandering" Chinmoy.
Ken, I show such kindness as I can. If people act in a sufficiently
benighted fashion, they may get my dander up. Does that make me a bad
Christian? Possibly. I have been known to turn the other cheek. A
poster named Larry has, in this very thread, called me "a sycophantic
brainwashed lacky," [sic] and has drawn no fire.
Ken, I disagree with your characterization of my posts as
"threatening." Unlike members of your ex-cult group, I do not publish
anyone's home address, do not use foul language, do not speak of
"kicking ass," do not compare people with Hitler or Osama Bin Laden,
do not question people's sexual orientation, do not accuse anyone of
bestiality, and am not out to destroy anyone personally. I do seek to
arrive at the truth, and to show that it's possible to stand up to
bigotry, using peaceful means. The slander laws are, indeed,
compassionate in nature. They seek to protect the innocent from
wrongful damage by cruel and unthinking persons. The civil rights laws
are also aimed at protecting religious minorities from people with an
aggressively majoritarian outlook. The laws against subornation of
perjury are intended to uphold the truth. More recently, third parties
have successfully sued therapists who had persuaded their patients
that they were victims of abuse which never took place. These are all
peaceable, lawful means of fighting injustice. There are also methods
which involve raising public consciousness. Your own group has
suggested a number of methods which it's important they understand are
also available to others. I will try and address this issue further in
another post directed to Ian Johnson and his Paddington Meditation
Centre, from which I recently received a curious e-mail which
contained no text, but an attached file (which I did not download).
Ken, I'm grateful to you for answering a question which was asked
elsewhere in the thread, namely: Why do Sri Chinmoy and his students
remain silent in the face of grievous accusations? The answer, as I
think you've confirmed, is that they have learned a very high standard
of spiritual conduct, similar to that taught by the Christ and the
Buddha. But like Sue, I'm at more of a human level where if I see
people doing something wicked, I may feel the need to take reasonable
measures. If you saw some of my earlier posts in another forum, you
might note that I tried to share gentle words of faith and
conciliation, but was greeted with a volley of four and seven-letter
words, and a host of false accusations about me personally. I have not
responded in kind, but I have recognized the need to show a certain
toughness, and to make it clear that wrong action has consequences.
To the extent that the people attacking Sri Chinmoy Centres show
themselves to be incorrigible, this suggests that compassion must be
put in one's back pocket, and that justice is called for. Compassion
is the highest teaching, but when people don't respond to compassion,
justice may be necessary. Even in justice there is compassion, because
when someone suffers the consequences of their wrong action, this
teaches them to think before they act. If such people never received
punishment, they would just go on doing wrong acts and so accumulate
more negative karma.
It's not clear that the Christian philosophy of turning the other
cheek is meant to apply to every situation. The Christian writer C.S.
Lewis suggested in his science fiction novel Perelandra that there are
some things one must oppose hammer, tooth and nail. The late Secretary
General of the United Nations, U Thant, said that his Buddhist
upbringing taught him to be tolerant of everything except intolerance.
That's sometimes how I feel.
There is a natural tendency to speak to people in the language they
understand. The language of faith and kindness has proved too delicate
for the people attacking Sri Chinmoy Centres. I fear I will not be
understood if I speak only in that language, which one fellow
described as "uxorious." So I adapt as best I can.
One cannot always hold back a lynch mob, but one can at least throw a
spotlight on those pouring gasoline on the flames and handing out
sawed-off shotguns. In this sense, my posts are intended as part of a
cleanup effort. While I seek healing for all (no matter what ails
them), I will do what I can to make sure there is a cost to be paid
for slander and harassment. I am also completely ready to forgive
people if they stop being so bloody-minded. On balance, to stick up
for the gentle folk of Sri Chinmoy Centres need not be an un-Christian
act.
Joe Kellett
(outca...@yahoo.com) says...
> kensin...@yahoo.com (Ken) wrote in message news:<5a3ed8b5.02051...@posting.google.com>...
>
> >Were you aware of Christ's position on insults and slander? I
> >only ask because you continually threaten ex-disciples because
> >they are "slandering" Chinmoy.
>
> Ken, I show such kindness as I can. If people act in a sufficiently
> benighted fashion,
In your opinion.
> they may get my dander up. Does that make me a bad
> Christian? Possibly. I have been known to turn the other cheek. A
> poster named Larry has, in this very thread, called me "a sycophantic
> brainwashed lacky," [sic] and has drawn no fire.
>
> Ken, I disagree with your characterization of my posts as
> "threatening." Unlike members of your ex-cult group, I do not publish
> anyone's home address, do not use foul language, do not speak of
> "kicking ass," do not compare people with Hitler or Osama Bin Laden,
> do not question people's sexual orientation, do not accuse anyone of
> bestiality, and am not out to destroy anyone personally.
You defend someone who is accused of destroying people personally.
> I do seek to
> arrive at the truth,
You seem to have already decided what the truth is.
> and to show that it's possible to stand up to
> bigotry, using peaceful means. The slander laws are, indeed,
> compassionate in nature. They seek to protect the innocent from
> wrongful damage by cruel and unthinking persons. The civil rights laws
> are also aimed at protecting religious minorities from people with an
> aggressively majoritarian outlook. The laws against subornation of
> perjury are intended to uphold the truth. More recently, third parties
> have successfully sued therapists who had persuaded their patients
> that they were victims of abuse which never took place. These are all
> peaceable, lawful means of fighting injustice. There are also methods
> which involve raising public consciousness.
There are other laws too, as the Scientologists just discovered:
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63143-2002May9.html>.
> Your own group has
> suggested a number of methods which it's important they understand are
> also available to others.
I understand that it is difficult for a public figure to win a slander
or libel case.
> I will try and address this issue further in
> another post directed to Ian Johnson and his Paddington Meditation
> Centre, from which I recently received a curious e-mail which
> contained no text, but an attached file (which I did not download).
>
> Ken, I'm grateful to you for answering a question which was asked
> elsewhere in the thread, namely: Why do Sri Chinmoy and his students
> remain silent in the face of grievous accusations? The answer, as I
> think you've confirmed, is that they have learned a very high standard
> of spiritual conduct, similar to that taught by the Christ and the
> Buddha.
You see? You have already arrived at your version of "truth".
> But like Sue, I'm at more of a human level where if I see
> people doing something wicked, I may feel the need to take reasonable
> measures. If you saw some of my earlier posts in another forum, you
> might note that I tried to share gentle words of faith and
> conciliation, but was greeted with a volley of four and seven-letter
> words, and a host of false accusations about me personally. I have not
> responded in kind, but I have recognized the need to show a certain
> toughness, and to make it clear that wrong action has consequences.
Not always, but we can always hope.
>
> To the extent that the people attacking Sri Chinmoy Centres show
> themselves to be incorrigible,
"Incorrigible" is a pejorative. It does not apply unless the
accusations are wrong.
> this suggests that compassion must be
> put in one's back pocket, and that justice is called for. Compassion
> is the highest teaching, but when people don't respond to compassion,
> justice may be necessary. Even in justice there is compassion, because
> when someone suffers the consequences of their wrong action, this
> teaches them to think before they act. If such people never received
> punishment, they would just go on doing wrong acts and so accumulate
> more negative karma.
Let's all hope for justice in this.
>
> It's not clear that the Christian philosophy of turning the other
> cheek is meant to apply to every situation. The Christian writer C.S.
> Lewis suggested in his science fiction novel Perelandra that there are
> some things one must oppose hammer, tooth and nail. The late Secretary
> General of the United Nations, U Thant, said that his Buddhist
> upbringing taught him to be tolerant of everything except intolerance.
> That's sometimes how I feel.
Except that you have pre-judged the issues.
>
> There is a natural tendency to speak to people in the language they
> understand. The language of faith and kindness has proved too delicate
> for the people attacking Sri Chinmoy Centres. I fear I will not be
> understood if I speak only in that language, which one fellow
> described as "uxorious." So I adapt as best I can.
As I said last time, everything you say only makes sense if the
accusations are known to be invalid. That is not known.
>
> One cannot always hold back a lynch mob, but one can at least throw a
> spotlight on those pouring gasoline on the flames and handing out
> sawed-off shotguns.
Assumes the accusations are invalid.
> In this sense, my posts are intended as part of a
> cleanup effort. While I seek healing for all (no matter what ails
> them), I will do what I can to make sure there is a cost to be paid
> for slander and harassment.
Assumes the accusations are invalid.
> I am also completely ready to forgive
> people if they stop being so bloody-minded.
Assumes the accusations are invalid.
> On balance, to stick up
> for the gentle folk of Sri Chinmoy Centres need not be an un-Christian
> act.
Assumes the accusations are invalid.
>
> --outcast*
>
> *I am not a member of Sri Chinmoy Centres and do not speak for Sri
> Chinmoy.
>
You don't know for sure whether the charges are valid or not, I'm
thinking. Why act as if you do?
--Joe
Amy Greenblatt
I think Outcast IS speaking in a kind way. I haven't got half his
eloquence, but it seems to me he's saying that hatred or the desire for
vengeance will not heal the wounded heart. But there are many who
disagree with that, aren't there? For them, revenge is justified and
sweet. Do you agree?
Amy
"Joe Kellett" <3ajcyv...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.174754c53...@netnews.attbi.com...
Amy Greenblatt
> I am suspicious of the level of extremely emotional ad hominem
> argumentation in your posting. I am suspicious whenever anyone seems
to
> be trying really, really hard to shut someone else up. If you think
> that the charges are false, why not just stick with asserting that?
>
> --Joe
What does "ad hominem" mean?
SueCast
"SAWED-OFF SHOTGUNS" ?? ? "LYNCH MOB" ??? "BLOODY-MINDED", "A COST TO
BE PAID" ??? DEAR OH DEAR, SUCH VITRIOL. I SMELL A RAT. COULD THIS BE
THE SRI CHINMOY FANATICAL MANIFESTATION TEAM HARD AT WORK? SUCH PEOPLE
LIKE VIDOGDHA, PRACHAR, AND APARAJITA COME TO MIND, OR SHOULD I SAY
COME TO BLOODY MIND. AND DON'T BE SO SURE THAT ALL SRI CHINMOY
DISCIPLES ARE "GENTLE FOLK" SOME ARE CHILD MOLESTERS AND CHILD
ABUSERS, UNDER SRI CHINMOY'S KNOWING INDIFFERENCE. MAY I ALSO REMIND
YOU THAT THE CHRISTIANS WERE THE BIGGEST MASS MURDERERS IN HISTORY (IE
CRUSADES) AND ARE CURRENTLY INVOLVED IN MANY PEDOPHILE LAWSUITS. THEN
AGAIN, MAYBE SRI CHINMOY WOULD HONOR SUCH PEOPLE WITH PEACE AWARDS, AS
HE HAS DONE WITH SECRETARY 1 GENERAL OF MYANMAR; A FORMER KYMER ROUGE
LEADER OF CAMBODIA; ROBERT MUGABE PRESIDENT OF ZIMBABWE; AND HE TRIED,
ALBEIT, UNSUCCESSFULLY TO HONOR PINOCHET, THE CHILEAN DICTATOR. BUT
THEN AGAIN, MAYBE YOU WERE PART OF THESE "MANIFESTATION TEAM" THAT
ORGANISED THESE MEETINGS???
SueCast
> Lord your God."...Lev. 19:4
>
> From the Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse by David Johnson
>
> Idolatry: The dynamic: The "god" served by the shame-based
> relationship system is an impossible-to-please judge, obsessing on
> people's behaviors from a distance, whose mood is dependent on them.
> It is a god invented to enforce the performance standard and to keep
> the system intact. This is a false god, or idol. Anything you serve
> besides God, or anything from which you derive your sense of life,
> value and acceptance, is an idol. The false gods of the shame-based
> system are: appearance, or how things look; what people think;
> power-orientation. The effects: Distorted image of God; high level
> of anxiety based on other people or external circumstances;
> people-pleasing; high need to control thoughts, feelings and behaviors
> of others in order to gain a sense of well-being.
Jody, I wish I had your insight and accumen. I was a disciple of Sri
Chinmoy for many years, and it was very typical for Sri Chinmoy and
disciples to butter up "outsiders" (as disciples referred to those not
in the Center) if they thought they could win them over to their side,
and use them to further their cause. - James.