"I'm a cult veteran -- and I'm one tough son of a bitch"
John M. Knapp
An extraordinary event took place two weeks ago. 39 people were murdered
in Southern California.
Your typical suicide doesn't require written instructions. Or an extra
pair of hands. Or 20 years of videotaped brainwashing. No way was this
their "choice." This was murder.
There was no low-speed chase. Choppers and forensic teams didn't crawl all
over this mansion. Heck, we didn't even call in Mulder and Sculley.
For the most part, the media reported on what can best be called a
"Disneyland" version of Heaven's Gate -- blissed-out hobbits, with sweet
little voices, and those darling buzz cuts and uniforms.
This hit me personally. While I watched those earnest, wholesome, engaged
cult members on the TV I realized I could have been any one of them. I
spent 23 years in Transcendental Meditation, and I, too, believed in
flying saucers, my ability to levitate, immortality, and saving the world
by my merest thought. There but for the grace of God went I. And at least
100,000 of my friends.
I can't really fault the press or the public for their abysmal lack of
empathy. They haven't the foggiest notion of what it feels like to be
mindf--ked brutally, repeatedly for 20 years.
But 10 MILLION of my generation do. We stumble out of the cult battlefield
by ones and twos -- and we ain't pretty to look at. We are the psychically
halt, the lame, and the blind. We don't give "snappy soundbites" or make
"good TV."
Most of us are still lost. Most cult veterans are still in various stages
of recovery, trying to click those ruby slippers just right and come on
home.
If the public doesn't understand, it's our fault -- all of us who have
tried to educate them for so long.
Many cult activists have been talking lately behind the scenes about why
we just can't seem to unite behind massive actions. You'd think if any
generation could take a page from the Gay Rights and Women's Liberation
Movements, it would be us!
Between our own well-earned phobias about group involvement and the
"button hammering" we take from the cults and "religious scholars" who
claim we're just "anti-cult cults," we may always find it indeed
difficult to unite behind a leader or group.
That's why I think our challenge is to find small individual actions that
we can choose to do -- or not. Possibly leaderless. Most likely, finding
the least common denominator that we can agree with.
You know, like murder and psychological torture aren't nice.
In that spirit, today is April 19 -- anniversary of both Waco and the
Oklahoma City Bombing.
Let's take back our own power from these horrors and these horrific
groups. Let's use the next week to educate in small ways the world at
large about our own personal involvement in cults.
Anyone who is comfortable "coming out of the closet" will find a variety
of Web buttons at http://www.trancenet.org you can download to your Web
page or emails. No need to give credit. No need to link to ours or any
other particular cult education site. Our gift to you.
We figure it's unlikely your government will ever bestow any medals for
surviving the Cult Wars.
America knows what 39 corpses draped in purple look like. America has no
frigging idea what 10 MILLION former cult members can accomplish.
We may not need a march on Washington, or a black day on the web.
Perhaps a simple chain email, "I'm a cult veteran -- and I'm one tough son
of a bitch" flooding cyberspace, will do.
John M. Knapp
executive director
trancenet.org
--
John M. Knapp, executive director, http://www.trancenet.org
"trancenet.org: Beaming 10 megs of unfiltered information daily!" Transcendental Meditation, Rama/Lenz, Chopra, Moon, more! To discuss controversial groups and cult recovery without flaming: email jmk...@crl.com about free email lists. trancenet.org relies solely on "sharefare" contributions of readers like you at http://www.trancenet.org/trancenet/levels.html.
John M. Knapp
John M. Knapp
An extraordinary event took place two weeks ago. 39 people were murdered
in Southern California.
Your typical suicide doesn't require written instructions. Or an extra
pair of hands. Or 20 years of videotaped brainwashing. No way was this
their "choice." This was murder.
There was no low-speed chase. Choppers and forensic teams didn't crawl all
over this mansion. Heck, we didn't even call in Mulder and Sculley.
For the most part, the media reported on what can best be called a
"Disneyland" version of Heaven's Gate -- blissed out little hobbits, with
sweet little voices, and those darling little buzz cuts and uniforms.
This hit me personally. While I watched those earnest, wholesome, engaged
cult members on the TV I realized I could have been any one of them. I
spent 23 years in Transcendental Meditation, and I, too, believed in
flying saucers, my ability to levitate, immortality, and saving the world
by my merest thought. There but for the grace of God went I. And at least
100,000 of my friends.
I can't really fault the press or the public for their abysmal lack of
empathy. They haven't the foggiest notion of what it feels like to be
mindf--ked brutally, repeatedly for 20 years.
But 10 MILLION of my generation do. We stumble out of the cult battlefield
by ones and twos -- and we ain't pretty to look at. We are the psychically
halt, the lame, and the blind. We don't give "snappy soundbites" or make
"good TV."
Most of us are still lost. Most cult veterans are still in various stages
of recovery, just trying to click those ruby slippers and come on home.
If the public doesn't understand, it's our fault -- all of us who have
tried to educate the public for so long.
Many cult activists have been talking lately behind the scenes about why
we just can't seem to unite behind massive actions. You'd think if any
generation could take a page from the Gay Rights and Women's Liberation
Movements, it would be us!
Between our own well-earned phobias about group involvement and the
"button hammering" we take from the cults and "religious scholars" who
claim we're just "anti-cult cults," we may always find it indeed
difficult to unite behind a leader or group.
That's why I think our challenge is to find small individual actions that
we can choose to do -- or not. Possibly leaderless. Most likely, finding
the least common denominator that we can agree with.
You know, like murder and psychological torture aren't nice.
In that spirit, today is April 19 -- anniversary of both Waco and the
Oklahoma City Bombing.
Let's take back our own power from these horrors and these horrific
groups. Let's use the next week to educate in small ways the world at
large about our own personal involvement in cults.
Anyone who is comfortable "coming out of the closet" will find a variety
of Web buttons at http://www.trancenet.org you can download to your Web
page or emails. No need to give credit. No need to link to ours or any
other particular cult education site. Our gift to you.
We figure it's unlikely your government will ever bestow any medals for
surviving the Cult Wars.
America knows what 39 people draped in purple look like. America has no
aim...@world.std.com
In article <jmknapp-1904...@malone14.slic.com>,
John M. Knapp <jmk...@crl.com> wrote:
>Perhaps a simple chain email, "I'm a cult veteran -- and I'm one tough son
>of a bitch" flooding cyberspace, will do.
Will do *what*?
>trancenet.org relies solely on "sharefare" contributions of readers
>like you at http://www.trancenet.org/trancenet/levels.html.
Oh. I see.
Judith Stein
In article <jmknapp-1904...@malone14.slic.com>,
jmk...@crl.com (John M. Knapp) wrote:
<snip>
> This hit me personally.
Yup, Trancenet's proprietor is getting low on funds again, time
to look for some tragedy to exploit for a solicitation campaign.
How fortunate the Heaven's Gate suicides came along just now!
This time "Honest" John can use something that has actually
happened rather than having to make it up, as he's done in the
past.
While I watched those earnest, wholesome, engaged
> cult members on the TV I realized I could have been any one of them. I
> spent 23 years in Transcendental Meditation, and I, too, believed in
> flying saucers, my ability to levitate, immortality, and saving the world
> by my merest thought. There but for the grace of God went I. And at least
> 100,000 of my friends.
It will come as no surprise to those familiar with "Honest" John
Knapp's anti-TM output to know that belief in flying saucers is
nowhere to be found in what TM teaches, despite the knowingly
false attempt above to suggest guilt by association with the
Heaven's Gate cult.
Those who are reasonably alert will also have spotted the
discrepancy between TM's save-the-world messianism and the belief
of the Heaven's Gate crowd that the world is beyond hope (indeed,
they referred to *staying* on earth as "the real suicide").
For those not knowledgeable about TM, one of its teachings is
that enlightenment can be achieved *only* in a human body. To
commit suicide and blow this chance would be to take a giant step
backward. Readers might want to reflect on why "Honest" John
failed to mention this.
Perhaps TM should make an attempt to screen out the sort of folks
who are so lacking in common sense they will swallow without
question or examination what appear to be wild claims, even those
made by TM. Had "Honest" John encountered the Heaven's Gate cult
before he got into TM, he might well be one of the 39 who
committed suicide. He was fortunate that his gullibility led him
to align himself with one of the most benign spiritual groups
around.
Most of those who become committed to TM do not do so on the
basis "Honest" John did, however. We take TM's claims with a
healthy dose of salt, ultimately accepting them only on the basis
of the evidence of our own experience and thorough intellectual
exploration. Moreover, it is entirely possible--as it was not
with Heaven's Gate and is not with most genuine cults--to be an
independently committed TMer without having anything at all to do
with the organization.
> I can't really fault the press or the public for their abysmal lack of
> empathy. They haven't the foggiest notion of what it feels like to be
> mindf--ked brutally, repeatedly for 20 years.
Nor, in fact, does "Honest" John. There is a sharp distinction
between being "mindf--ked" and engaging in compulsive mental
masturbation. It's understandable that those who eventually wake
up to their own self-abuse prefer to place the blame for it
elsewhere. To some extent such an awakening is a sign of
progress in self-knowledge, but the refusal to accept any
responsibility for it demonstrates there is a long way to go.
With some groups there is at least equal responsibility. Even
with TM, there is some responsibility, in that it does not
attempt to *discourage* the weak-minded from establishing a
cultlike relationship with it. But as the evidence of many
hundreds of thousands of healthy, happy, autonomous TMers
pursuing productive and independent lives demonstrates, such
cases are the exception rather than the rule, and the bulk of the
responsibility for any "victimization" must be laid at the door
of those who insisted on making the organization into something
that would fulfill their personal needs, which it never pretended
to be.
> But 10 MILLION of my generation do.
Those who like to reflect on facts might want to ask "Honest"
John to document his figure of 10 million "cult victims" in a
single generation. I'd question whether there are even 10
million current *and* former cult members in the world today
spanning *all* generations.
We stumble out of the cult battlefield
> by ones and twos -- and we ain't pretty to look at. We are the psychically
> halt, the lame, and the blind. We don't give "snappy soundbites" or make
> "good TV."
Well, actually some of you do. Some of you even manage to
surmount your victimization, real or imagined, and heal
yourselves. There are many very eloquent former cult members
expressing themselves on the airwaves, in the print media, and
even in cyberspace. Most of them are quite sincere; they attempt
to give an honest account of their cult experience. They have
learned to stand on their own two feet, however, and have
refrained from building their lives around their past
victimization.
Others have clearly made little progress in recovery. Some of
them remain so helplessly in the thrall of their unrealistic
expectations and unhealthy behavior patterns they are led to lie
about and distort and misrepresent their past experience in the
futile hope of exorcising their own personal demons by burying
them so deeply in fantasy and dishonesty they will never be able
to surface.
It is essential to this effort for these people to "convert"
others to their own twisted perspective. Their inner demons are
too powerful to be kept in check without massive external
reinforcement of the fragile defenses that hold them at bay.
Some of these unfortunate people, like "Honest" John Knapp, make
a career (possibly even a *profitable* career) of this endeavor,
and it takes on a life of its own, becoming a thoroughly
dishonest and cynical propaganda crusade that bears virtually no
relationship to reality.
Close examination of the material put out by these people,
however, even without reference to the facts of the situations in
question, will reveal enough inadvertent internal inconsistencies
to give one pause. The contrast, for example, between the two
opposing characterizations of cult "veterans" in "Honest" John's
post--"tough sons of bitches" versus "the psychically halt, the
lame, and the blind"--is particularly striking.
Such inconsistencies have been one of the hallmarks of "Honest"
John's anti-TM contributions since he first surfaced on
alt.meditation.transcendental back in 1994. Those who are
knowledgeable about TM have repeatedly pointed out the other
hallmarks--distortion, wildly exaggerated spin, and outright,
willful misrepresentation. Some examples of these
characteristics in "Honest" John's present post have been noted
above.
<snip>
> Perhaps a simple chain email, "I'm a cult veteran -- and I'm one tough son
> of a bitch" flooding cyberspace, will do.
Certainly an *honest* crusade against genuinely destructive cults
would be a worthy cause. It's questionable whether a massive
cyberspace spam conducted by "the psychically halt, the lame, and
the blind" posing as "tough sons of bitches" (and soliciting
financial contributions at the same time) is the most convincing
way to go about it.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Judy Stein * The Author's Friend * jst...@ziplink.net +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dragon999
Oh, come on!
Don't need to blame all cults (or maybe- all religions) from one
incident.........
schappell
John M. Knapp wrote:
>
> An extraordinary event took place two weeks ago. 39 people were murdered
> in Southern California.
>
> Your typical suicide doesn't require written instructions. Or an extra
> pair of hands. Or 20 years of videotaped brainwashing. No way was this
> their "choice." This was murder.
snip
So many crazies so few comets!!
s
Steve Guich
On Sat, 19 Apr 1997, John M. Knapp wrote:
> An extraordinary event took place two weeks ago. 39 people were murdered
> in Southern California.
>
> Your typical suicide doesn't require written instructions. Or an extra
> pair of hands. Or 20 years of videotaped brainwashing. No way was this
> their "choice." This was murder.
>
> There was no low-speed chase. Choppers and forensic teams didn't crawl all
> over this mansion. Heck, we didn't even call in Mulder and Sculley.
...mercy snip... of one of the most pathetic, transparent and goofy (words
fail) knappspams we have been offered.
(BTW, what a catchy little phrase - will there be merchandising of the
"I'm a cult veteran -- and I'm one tough son of a bitch" sticker,
cookbook, and day calendar?)
An embarrassing low for Knapp, already renown for unabashed schmaltzy
dribble. A burgeoning Ed Wood (of sorts - premature of the hip,
posthumous "so bad it's good" camp) of vanity spammism.
Steve
*****************************
| Steven M. Guich, PhD. |
| Brain Imaging Center |
| UC Irvine |
| sgu...@brains.bic.uci.edu |
*****************************
Mabel
Judith Stein <jst...@zip1.ziplink.net> wrote in article
<5jh4bv$1tq$5...@kayrad.ziplink.net>...
> <snip>
> Perhaps TM should make an attempt to screen out the sort of folks
> who are so lacking in common sense they will swallow without
> question or examination what appear to be wild claims, even those
> made by TM. Had "Honest" John encountered the Heaven's Gate cult
> before he got into TM, he might well be one of the 39 who
> committed suicide. He was fortunate that his gullibility led him
> to align himself with one of the most benign spiritual groups
> around.
Even the most "benign spiritual groups around" can convert a person who
previously had good powers of critical thinking into a gullible person who
will accept without question what appear to be wild claims.
I think we need to examine what can cause this transformation to take
place. In the case of certain Eastern cults, for example, where followers
meditate on the photo of a Guru, a self hypnotic type of reaction can
follow. If this is repeated for an hour or two a day, some followers can
become "hooked into" the thinking of the Guru to such an extent that they
turn to the Guru for all the answers to their problems. They soon believe
that the Guru is God incarnate. Once this point has been reached, their
faith in the Guru is at such a high level that they will not critically
question his teachings.
This then leads to the familiar pattern of becoming a student of a Guru and
believing, for example, in celibacy and reincarnation. After a while,
followers will probably believe that their Guru has lived several prior
lives and they will become certain that, after they die, they will come
back again, complete with all the knowledge they obtained from their
previous lives. This leads to a complete lack of fear of death and can mean
that some followers do not look after themselves as well as they should,
because they are looking forward to their next lives.
The process of how thinking people can gradually be sucked into cults and
start to lose their desire to question things must have been well
researched. Perhaps a psychologist could explain the process.
Tovaresch
<<
> But 10 MILLION of my generation do.
Those who like to reflect on facts might want to ask "Honest"
John to document his figure of 10 million "cult victims" in a
single generation. I'd question whether there are even 10
million current *and* former cult members in the world today
spanning *all* generations.
>>
Good point. Numbers cited should be numbers sourced.
Maybe HJ should just turn to Allen Ginsberg (Alev ha shalom) and
say from now on
"I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed" - The Howl
I think that's the proper qoute. Every generation seems to think it is
getting wasted and its minds are being turned to rot by some big
failing to protect them from something or other. Aristotle probably made
some snide remarks to this effect about Socrates, at least in private,
when he was still young and looking for someone to blame. Probably had a
pretty tight argument that if Socrates had been more enlightened he
wouldn't have died a stupid martyr's death but stuck around to help
Aristotle & Co. with their elocution rather than leaving it all up to them
to figure things out. Makes one wonder how the world's still here.
Makes one wonder how all those poor Catholics in the "bad old" church
before Vatican II ever managed to survive such fearful oppression of
"Tradition with a capital T."
Hey I'm not saying "intellectual slavery is cool" or such - just that we
shouldn't be too nostalgic for an ideal past that never was or be too
impatient about not achieving the new "correctness" in religious precepts
of autonomy quickly enough.
Anyway, the "Howl's" way of putting it is so much more expressive. This
much vaguer expression of the point is so much more suitable I think.
Thanks Al, whever it is you're making your new life.
Joe Harrington
Tovaresch wrote:
>
> <<
>
> > But 10 MILLION of my generation do.
>
> Those who like to reflect on facts might want to ask "Honest"
> John to document his figure of 10 million "cult victims" in a
> single generation. I'd question whether there are even 10
> million current *and* former cult members in the world today
> spanning *all* generations.
>
> >>
>
>
> Maybe HJ should just turn to Allen Ginsberg (Alev ha shalom) and
> say from now on
>
> "I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed" - The Howl
>
> I think that's the proper qoute. Every generation seems to think it is
> getting wasted and its minds are being turned to rot by some big
> failing to protect them from something or other. Aristotle probably made
> some snide remarks to this effect about Socrates, at least in private,
> when he was still young and looking for someone to blame. Probably had a
> pretty tight argument that if Socrates had been more enlightened he
> wouldn't have died a stupid martyr's death but stuck around to help
> Aristotle & Co. with their elocution rather than leaving it all up to them
> to figure things out. Makes one wonder how the world's still here.
> Makes one wonder how all those poor Catholics in the "bad old" church
> before Vatican II ever managed to survive such fearful oppression of
> "Tradition with a capital T."
>
> Hey I'm not saying "intellectual slavery is cool" or such - just that we
> shouldn't be too nostalgic for an ideal past that never was or be too
> impatient about not achieving the new "correctness" in religious precepts
> of autonomy quickly enough.
>
> Anyway, the "Howl's" way of putting it is so much more expressive. This
> much vaguer expression of the point is so much more suitable I think.
> Thanks Al, whever it is you're making your new life.
Truth is always the first casualty in wars against "cults".
Joe
Bev
Bernie wrote:
> "Mabel" <ma...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
> >Even the most "benign spiritual groups around" can convert a person who
> >previously had good powers of critical thinking into a gullible person w=
ho
> >will accept without question what appear to be wild claims.
> A person who previously had good powers of critical thinking?
> That's the clich=E9. The cult made him "loose" his ability to
> think critically.
> I say that he never lost it because he never had it in the first
> place...
> In the best of case, he may now have gained some of this power
> upon leaving the cult, if he is honest enough to examine what
> was his part in the process.
That is a good way to heal also, by turning a negative into a positive.
Everyone makes mistakes, it's what you learn from them that turns you
from a vicTIM to a vicTOR. :-)
Beverly
Rudy Thompson
Mabel wrote:
>
> Judith Stein <jst...@zip1.ziplink.net> wrote in article
> <5jh4bv$1tq$5...@kayrad.ziplink.net>...
>
> > <snip>
> > Perhaps TM should make an attempt to screen out the sort of folks
> > who are so lacking in common sense they will swallow without
> > question or examination what appear to be wild claims, even those
> > made by TM. Had "Honest" John encountered the Heaven's Gate cult
> > before he got into TM, he might well be one of the 39 who
> > committed suicide. He was fortunate that his gullibility led him
> > to align himself with one of the most benign spiritual groups
> > around.
>
> Even the most "benign spiritual groups around" can convert a person who
> previously had good powers of critical thinking into a gullible person who
> will accept without question what appear to be wild claims.
>
> I think we need to examine what can cause this transformation to take
> place. In the case of certain Eastern cults, for example, where followers
> meditate on the photo of a Guru, a self hypnotic type of reaction can
> follow. If this is repeated for an hour or two a day, some followers can
> become "hooked into" the thinking of the Guru to such an extent that they
> turn to the Guru for all the answers to their problems. They soon believe
> that the Guru is God incarnate. Once this point has been reached, their
> faith in the Guru is at such a high level that they will not critically
> question his teachings.
>
> This then leads to the familiar pattern of becoming a student of a Guru and
> believing, for example, in celibacy and reincarnation. After a while,
> followers will probably believe that their Guru has lived several prior
> lives and they will become certain that, after they die, they will come
> back again, complete with all the knowledge they obtained from their
> previous lives. This leads to a complete lack of fear of death and can mean
> that some followers do not look after themselves as well as they should,
> because they are looking forward to their next lives.
>
> The process of how thinking people can gradually be sucked into cults and
> start to lose their desire to question things must have been well
> researched. Perhaps a psychologist could explain the process.
this is as well said and spelled out as I've ever heard thanks for the
most vivid and easy-to-understand exclamation of it all
Bernie
"Mabel" <ma...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>Even the most "benign spiritual groups around" can convert a person who
>previously had good powers of critical thinking into a gullible person who
>will accept without question what appear to be wild claims.
A person who previously had good powers of critical thinking?
That's the cliché. The cult made him "loose" his ability to
think critically.
I say that he never lost it because he never had it in the first
place...
In the best of case, he may now have gained some of this power
upon leaving the cult, if he is honest enough to examine what
was his part in the process.
---------
Bernie
Bernie
>Tovaresch wrote:
>> "I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed" - The Howl
>> I think that's the proper qoute. Every generation seems to think it is
>> getting wasted and its minds are being turned to rot by some big
>> failing to protect them from something or other.
Socrates was made to drink poisonous cigue just for this reason.
>>Aristotle probably made
>> some snide remarks to this effect about Socrates, at least in private,
>> when he was still young and looking for someone to blame.
Don't remember anything of value that came out of this Aristotle
guy.
>>Probably had a
>> pretty tight argument that if Socrates had been more enlightened he
>> wouldn't have died a stupid martyr's death but stuck around to help
>> Aristotle & Co.
Just like JC, Socrates went to the martyr willingly. He could
have easily escaped had he wanted to.
---------
Bernie
piedtech
This has been crossed post to alt-support ex-cult .
It is obvious that you are a current member of an accepted cult so
your posting here is against our groups charter . And according to
what you have written even though you may have some brains it is
obvious your reasoning skills are nonexistant .
jim
David Rife
: > The process of how thinking people can gradually be sucked into cults and
: > start to lose their desire to question things must have been well
: > researched. Perhaps a psychologist could explain the process.
Please read Peter McWilliams book, Life 102. Peter was sucked into a guru
based cult by taking a transformational group awareness course known as
"Insight".
Bernie
pied...@intrlink.com (piedtech) wrote:
>This has been crossed post to alt-support ex-cult .
>It is obvious that you are a current member of an accepted cult so
>your posting here is against our groups charter.
So what is this ridiculous charter that forbid contradictory
viewpoints?
If you are going to stop people on such a basis, you would have
to moderate the newsgroup - and like so many other moderated
newsgroups, you will have *no* posting done in it at all...
> And according to
>what you have written even though you may have some brains it is
>obvious your reasoning skills are nonexistant .
Everything is always "obvious" for those who have fixed, frozen,
and stupid opinions.
Bernie
Bernie
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Perhaps the charter of a group called ALT.SUPPORT.EX.CULT
>which is designed to SUPPORT people who have LEFT ("EX") cults,
>rather than hold debates about whether cult beliefs are true
>or not.
>They probably resent idiots who stray into other
>subject areas as much as we resent idiots who think
>alt.religion.SCIENTOLOGY is the right place to debate
>christian myths or windoze95.
>Please stop making an arse of yourself: either write articles
>which are relevant there, or remove it from the newsgroups line.
Sorry, but questions of mind-control and cults are extremely
relevant to a group about cult. If for nothing else, to
counter-act the fallacies they are being told in there in guise
of "support" and which are only worsening the situation.
If you want to prevent people from posting there what they deem
as relevant to this newsgroup, then you should create a
soc.support.ex-cult, moderate it, and sit in it alone as with so
many other moderated newsgroups.
Or create a listserve to make sure they are completely isolated
and don't hear anything contradictory to their new
indoctrination.
Bernie
Bernie
Bev <dbj...@iag.net> wrote:
>Bernie wrote:
>> In the best of case, he may now have gained some of this power
>> upon leaving the cult, if he is honest enough to examine what
>> was his part in the process.
>That is a good way to heal also, by turning a negative into a positive.
>Everyone makes mistakes, it's what you learn from them that turns you
>from a vicTIM to a vicTOR. :-)
Hiya Bev,
Yes. There are so many deep elements that are involved in a
cult/religious experience that it can actually turn out to be a
very rich experience, at the end... All depends, as you say, of
what you make out from it.
For this, I am personally quite glad of my own experience. I
enjoyed the high intensity life that cult involvement entailed,
something that you hardly find on the outside. Many young people
have an immense desire to share some deep and true meaning and
to have an active part into building a better world. Since they
don't trust anymore the traditional churches that have become
sterile, they are an easy prey for new religions that seem to be
better able to answer these needs. The young then "found what
they were always looking for."
Although it is true that, to some extend, the cult exploit this
aspect, it is also true that an unilaterally negative
explanation of cult involvement ignores it, together with the
fact that society doesn't offer much else to the youth than sex,
drug, and Rock and Roll. The "brainwashing cult" explanation is
not only convenient for the individual to elude his
responsibilities, it is also a convenient excuse for modern
society to avoid having to look at its own failings.
To be able to retain this basic idealism while being acutely
aware of the dangers and restrictions of a cultic mindset is, I
would say, one of the challenge of the post-cult experience.
See ya,
Bernie
[p/m]
William O. West
Bernie wrote:
....
> Yes. There are so many deep elements that are involved in a
> cult/religious experience that it can actually turn out to be a
> very rich experience, at the end... All depends, as you say, of
> what you make out from it.
Maybe. What are "deep elements," Bernie?
....
> For this, I am personally quite glad of my own experience. I
> enjoyed the high intensity life that cult involvement entailed,
> something that you hardly find on the outside.
What cult were you in, and for how long, Bernie?
....
> Many young people have an immense desire to share some deep and true
> true meaning and to have an active part into building a better world.
That's certainly true.
....
> The "brainwashing cult" explanation is not only convenient for
> the individual to elude his responsibilities,
That one is more false, defamatory and damaging than useful.
What "responsibilities" are those, Bernie? A person certainly
winds up paying for whatever (s)he winds up believing, but that
certainly doesn't mean (s)he had any other options going in.
It all depends on the particular cult, Bernie.
....
> it is also a convenient excuse for modern society to avoid
> having to look at its own failings.
How is "modern society" ever going to look at "its own
failings," Bernie? Some group of churches might look at
society's failings. That's a church sort of inquiry. They
might even get the Democratic party to look at society's
failings. Most people, and especially most Republicans,
are going to look at the failures of individuals and blame
them for it.
....
> acutely aware of the dangers and restrictions of a
> cultic mindset is, I would say, one of the challenge
> of the post-cult experience.
What do you mean by "a cultic mindset," Bernie?
Monica Pignotti
Bernie wrote:
>
> For this, I am personally quite glad of my own experience. I
> enjoyed the high intensity life that cult involvement entailed,
> something that you hardly find on the outside.
That's an interesting way to look at it, which is quite different from
other people I knew who also worked for the GO at Saint Hill at the same
time you did. I spoke to a woman the other day who was there in the
70s, and early 80s. This woman is still very positive about the tech
and is a freezoner who still practices and today has a happy and
fulfilling life, yet she freely admitted that the GO at Saint Hill was
an extremelly abusive, oppressive organization to work for. She told me
about GO people would come into auditing sessions and have to justify
the horrendous acts they were committing including carrying out ops
against Paulette Cooper and of Operation Snow White (just to give 2
examples), which she had personal knowledge of. Did you see it that way
at all, or do you have only positive thoughts about your experiences
there? IMO, I don't think that acknowledging the negative aspects of
cult life precludes a person being positive about their current life.
>Many young people
> have an immense desire to share some deep and true meaning and
> to have an active part into building a better world. Since they
> don't trust anymore the traditional churches that have become
> sterile, they are an easy prey for new religions that seem to be
> better able to answer these needs. The young then "found what
> they were always looking for."
And was working for the crimminal GO a viable alternative for you as a
way of building a better world? I'm not blaming you, Bernie because I
believe you came into Scientology and the GO with idealistic intentions
as did most people, but what was the reality of it?
> Although it is true that, to some extend, the cult exploit this
> aspect, it is also true that an unilaterally negative
> explanation of cult involvement ignores it, together with the
> fact that society doesn't offer much else to the youth than sex,
> drug, and Rock and Roll. The "brainwashing cult" explanation is
> not only convenient for the individual to elude his
> responsibilities, it is also a convenient excuse for modern
> society to avoid having to look at its own failings.
To ~some~ extent? Can you really condone what went on at GO
headquarters?
> To be able to retain this basic idealism while being acutely
> aware of the dangers and restrictions of a cultic mindset is, I
> would say, one of the challenge of the post-cult experience.
I agree with you 100% there, and I believe that I have done that. I
might be extremely critical of Scientology here on this newsgroup, but
that certainly has not kept me from exploring other avenues which I find
very fulfilling and satisfying.
Monica Pignotti
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <33663bde....@news.Belgium.EU.net>,
>pied...@intrlink.com (piedtech) wrote:
>
>>This has been crossed post to alt-support ex-cult .
>
>>It is obvious that you are a current member of an accepted cult so
>>your posting here is against our groups charter.
>
>So what is this ridiculous charter that forbid contradictory
>viewpoints?
Perhaps the charter of a group called ALT.SUPPORT.EX.CULT
which is designed to SUPPORT people who have LEFT ("EX") cults,
rather than hold debates about whether cult beliefs are true
or not.
They probably resent idiots who stray into other
subject areas as much as we resent idiots who think
alt.religion.SCIENTOLOGY is the right place to debate
christian myths or windoze95.
Please stop making an arse of yourself: either write articles
which are relevant there, or remove it from the newsgroups line.
--
LRon Hubbub public relations teknology
(1) (2) (3)
.-~~-. .-~~-. .-~~-. ;
< ..@ .- < ..@ . < ..@ .-
'-..-| '-..-| : '-..-|
|____ |____ |__ _
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~-~~
[ clam, BLAM, thank you mam! ]
Stephen Jones
In article <33720878....@news.Belgium.EU.net>,
be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>
>Bev <dbj...@iag.net> wrote:
>>Bernie wrote:
>
>>> In the best of case, he may now have gained some of this power
>>> upon leaving the cult, if he is honest enough to examine what
>>> was his part in the process.
>
>>That is a good way to heal also, by turning a negative into a positive.
>>Everyone makes mistakes, it's what you learn from them that turns you
>>from a vicTIM to a vicTOR. :-)
>
>Hiya Bev,
>
>Yes. There are so many deep elements that are involved in a
>cult/religious experience that it can actually turn out to be a
>very rich experience, at the end... All depends, as you say, of
>what you make out from it.
>
>For this, I am personally quite glad of my own experience. I
>enjoyed the high intensity life that cult involvement entailed,
>something that you hardly find on the outside. Many young people
>have an immense desire to share some deep and true meaning and
>to have an active part into building a better world. Since they
>don't trust anymore the traditional churches that have become
>sterile, they are an easy prey for new religions that seem to be
>better able to answer these needs. The young then "found what
>they were always looking for."
Bernie, I think I see what you are saying, but both above and below I'm
slightly disturbed at way you shrug-off the grossly predatory nature of a
group like the CoS. Not that it was the subject you were concerning
yourself with, but the CoS does more than "to some extent" exploit new or
wannabe members....they REALLY exploit them. The CoS promises to be nearly
everything to everybody. It's a religion, it's a scientific process, it's
philosophy for livin', it's gonna clean-up the world, it's gonna give you
unbelievable power, your ills will be cured, your cancer could go away, your
eyesight will improve, you're gonna be a better mom or dad....etc. If it
is desirable, the CoS will promise it. The CoS is ready, willing and able
to exploit personal weakness. Via their many companies and guises, the CoS
seems to be staking out a niche in every exploitable market they can find.
They've created an infrastructure of exploitation. The CoS has cast it's
crab traps into nearly every corner of the sea. Baited with the promises of
a better life, who can blame the crab for being curious or just plain
hungry? Sure, the crab wanted the ..erm...crab bait?...but the
...um...crabber is to blame for hauling them onto his dingy or skiff or
whatever. ....Crud, i got side-tracked. ANYWAY, next time you say "to some
extent" say "a whole lotta" (you have to fit it into a sentence..not me...I
just make up the rules) instead and I promise i'll pick my nits elsewhere.
Um..carry on.
Stephen Jones
>Although it is true that, to some extend, the cult exploit this
>aspect, it is also true that an unilaterally negative
>explanation of cult involvement ignores it, together with the
>fact that society doesn't offer much else to the youth than sex,
>drug, and Rock and Roll. The "brainwashing cult" explanation is
>not only convenient for the individual to elude his
>responsibilities, it is also a convenient excuse for modern
>society to avoid having to look at its own failings.
>
>To be able to retain this basic idealism while being acutely
>aware of the dangers and restrictions of a cultic mindset is, I
>would say, one of the challenge of the post-cult experience.
>
>See ya,
>
>Bernie
>[p/m]
>
Bernie
Right. The problem is that you can't say it all in one post,
because then it gets too long, and I for one am often not
reading the too long posts, unless they are really extremely
good, and I don't know if my posts are that good ;-)
At the beginning, I was posting much more about my ideas of why
I think the COS is wrong. I don't do it so much now because I
see no much point in feeding what I consider as biased,
pointless and unfair attacks (am not speaking about everyone
here). So I often come out as a cult apologist (and don't care).
But be it for the record that my points of objection with the
COS are:
- it's an absolute and totalitarian system that creates a
spiritual dependency
- it makes fabulous claims, which it can't "deliver"
- it uses techniques of psychological influences based on fear
and guilt
- like with any fanatics, the members end up doing things that
are diametrically opposed to what they think they are doing
- it's a narrow and fixed belief system
Some of the lessons I learned from my experience are:
- "No one holds the key to the Kingdom of Happiness. No one has
the authority to hold that key. That key is your own self, and
in the development and the purification and in the
incorruptibility of that self alone is the Kingdom of
Eternity...." (Krishnamurti)
- techniques, being per se something going from A to B through
time, is never going to "produce" "total freedom"
- the moment fear intervene in your reasoning, there can be no
freedom or insight. Fear of hell, or eternal aberration, or the
evil cult, whatever.
- questioning, self-criticism, and an open mind are the main
tools against authority and self-illusion. The means are no
different than the end.
- reality, being infinite, can never be adequately expressed or
known through finite means (words, thoughts, etc)
So, again I stop here before it becomes too pompous ;-)
---------
Bernie
Stephen Jones
In article <339440f9....@news.Belgium.EU.net>,
be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>Stephen Jones <snj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
<snip>
>>ANYWAY, next time you say "to some
>>extent" say "a whole lotta" (you have to fit it into a sentence..not
>>me...I just make up the rules) instead and I promise i'll pick my nits
>>elsewhere.Um..carry on.
>
>Right. The problem is that you can't say it all in one post,
>because then it gets too long, and I for one am often not
>reading the too long posts, unless they are really extremely
>good, and I don't know if my posts are that good ;-)
>
>At the beginning, I was posting much more about my ideas of why
>I think the COS is wrong. I don't do it so much now because I
>see no much point in feeding what I consider as biased,
>pointless and unfair attacks (am not speaking about everyone
>here). So I often come out as a cult apologist (and don't care).
>
>But be it for the record that my points of objection with the
>COS are:
>
>- it's an absolute and totalitarian system that creates a
>spiritual dependency
>- it makes fabulous claims, which it can't "deliver"
>- it uses techniques of psychological influences based on fear
>and guilt
>- like with any fanatics, the members end up doing things that
>are diametrically opposed to what they think they are doing
>- it's a narrow and fixed belief system
Good job, here is your cookie! I'm not love-bombing you....but I love you.
Everyone loves you. Welcome to the fold! You are one of us! The evil
outsiders, we will get them, no? heh...anyway, sorry if my post made you
feel like you had to proclaim your beliefs. My fault.
>Some of the lessons I learned from my experience are:
>
>- "No one holds the key to the Kingdom of Happiness. No one has
>the authority to hold that key. That key is your own self, and
>in the development and the purification and in the
>incorruptibility of that self alone is the Kingdom of
>Eternity...." (Krishnamurti)
>- techniques, being per se something going from A to B through
>time, is never going to "produce" "total freedom"
>- the moment fear intervene in your reasoning, there can be no
>freedom or insight. Fear of hell, or eternal aberration, or the
>evil cult, whatever.
>- questioning, self-criticism, and an open mind are the main
>tools against authority and self-illusion. The means are no
>different than the end.
>- reality, being infinite, can never be adequately expressed or
>known through finite means (words, thoughts, etc)
I agree 100%! Ok,ok...i didn't understand a word. Should they ever discuss
spirituality on Baywatch or Baywatch Nights...then i think i'll have the
vocabulary to dicuss spirituality. Until then....HEY, WATCH OUT! HE'S GOT
A SPEARGUN!!!! QUICK, LET'S JET-SKI!!!
Stephen Jones
Bernie
"William O. West" <willia...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Bernie wrote:
>> Yes. There are so many deep elements that are involved in a
>> cult/religious experience that it can actually turn out to be a
>> very rich experience, at the end... All depends, as you say, of
>> what you make out from it.
>Maybe. What are "deep elements," Bernie?
The meaning of life, the reason of one's existence on earth,
what is right and what is wrong, sharing a common goal, on and
on, William.
>> For this, I am personally quite glad of my own experience. I
>> enjoyed the high intensity life that cult involvement entailed,
>> something that you hardly find on the outside.
>What cult were you in, and for how long, Bernie?
Scientology, five years, William.
>> Many young people have an immense desire to share some deep and true
>> true meaning and to have an active part into building a better world.
>That's certainly true.
>> The "brainwashing cult" explanation is not only convenient for
>> the individual to elude his responsibilities,
>That one is more false, defamatory and damaging than useful.
Is it? "Of course I did all these stupid things, of course I
believed all of this nonsense, but, you know, it's not my fault,
it's only this evil cult that brainwashed me".
>What "responsibilities" are those, Bernie?
Basically that the person had *something* to do in being in it
in the first place. That it was her choice, even if it was not
an unformed choice, that she had her share of responsibility,
William.
>A person certainly
>winds up paying for whatever (s)he winds up believing, but that
>certainly doesn't mean (s)he had any other options going in.
In the absence of physical coercion, she had all the options any
other person have.
Think about it this way: *who* induced this person to join? Who
exploited her, abused her, deceived her, etc? The other members,
isn't it? So are they victim or exploiters? Make up your mind.
>It all depends on the particular cult, Bernie.
No, I don't think that there are fundamental differences in the
basic mechanisms of cult involvement, William.
Bernie
Bernie
Monica Pignotti <Pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Bernie wrote:
>> For this, I am personally quite glad of my own experience. I
>> enjoyed the high intensity life that cult involvement entailed,
>> something that you hardly find on the outside.
>That's an interesting way to look at it,
Isn't it?
>which is quite different from
>other people I knew who also worked for the GO at Saint Hill at the same
>time you did.
We seem to have different acquaintances, Monica...
>I spoke to a woman the other day who was there in the
>70s, and early 80s. This woman is still very positive about the tech
>and is a freezoner who still practices and today has a happy and
>fulfilling life,
How can she have an happy and fulfilling life while being
brainwashed - or did you review your judgement about freezoners?
>yet she freely admitted that the GO at Saint Hill was
>an extremelly abusive, oppressive organization to work for.
I wouldn't say so.
> She told me
>about GO people would come into auditing sessions and have to justify
>the horrendous acts they were committing including carrying out ops
>against Paulette Cooper and of Operation Snow White (just to give 2
>examples), which she had personal knowledge of.
"Have to justify?" What kind of auditing session is this?
She seems to have been a very lucky women. GO ops were kept very
secretive and only a very handful of GO staff would know about
them. And she just happened to audit these people... and just
those who were dealing with Paulette Cooper... What a
coincidence!
I only learned about these things long after I had decided to
quit, and like so many staff and students, I was surprised and
shocked by these. It would take a while before I could start to
believe it was possible.
>Did you see it that way
>at all, or do you have only positive thoughts about your experiences
>there?
I was only in the GO for the last other year of my 5 years
period, but I didn't find it fundamentally different than the
local or European organization. Many people I worked and lived
with were bright and remarkable people. As I said, we shared a
common goal, were highly motivated, and enjoyed the unique
opportunity we had to make the truth known and work for a better
world. If we made long extra hours to achieve that, it wasn't
because we were "required to" so that we would be "weakened" and
malleable to "hypnotic suggestions". It was more simply because
we wanted to.
Of course not everything was positive, but it seems to be the
case of about every working environment, or any human
environment for that matter. When you additionally have an
element of high involvement, things can get somewhat more
intense. But you have to deal with these things. Escape into a
"look how bad these people were to me" doesn't help anyone, IMO.
>IMO, I don't think that acknowledging the negative aspects of
>cult life precludes a person being positive about their current life.
What you and your CAN friends are doing is not "acknowledging
the negative aspects of cult life", Monica. It is a systematic
depiction and interpretation of every aspects under an
unilateral negative and dark picture, calling on people's
imagination with such loaded terms as "mind-control" and
"destructive cults." It is a total distortion of what actually
happens.
>>Many young people
>> have an immense desire to share some deep and true meaning and
>> to have an active part into building a better world. Since they
>> don't trust anymore the traditional churches that have become
>> sterile, they are an easy prey for new religions that seem to be
>> better able to answer these needs. The young then "found what
>> they were always looking for."
>And was working for the crimminal GO a viable alternative for you as a
>way of building a better world?
I am describing the subjective reality of the time. We didn't
view it that way then.
>I'm not blaming you, Bernie because I
>believe you came into Scientology and the GO with idealistic intentions
>as did most people,
Thanks
>but what was the reality of it?
The same reality as for any militant organization. The fact that
we didn't realize the hold of the cult mindset is another story.
It doesn't turn the past into an horrendous experience.
>> Although it is true that, to some extend, the cult exploit this
>> aspect, it is also true that an unilaterally negative
>> explanation of cult involvement ignores it, together with the
>> fact that society doesn't offer much else to the youth than sex,
>> drug, and Rock and Roll. The "brainwashing cult" explanation is
>> not only convenient for the individual to elude his
>> responsibilities, it is also a convenient excuse for modern
>> society to avoid having to look at its own failings.
>To ~some~ extent? Can you really condone what went on at GO
>headquarters?
"To some extent" refers to the psychological aspect of what I
was describing, not to the GO activities.
>> To be able to retain this basic idealism while being acutely
>> aware of the dangers and restrictions of a cultic mindset is, I
>> would say, one of the challenge of the post-cult experience.
>I agree with you 100% there, and I believe that I have done that. I
>might be extremely critical of Scientology here on this newsgroup, but
>that certainly has not kept me from exploring other avenues which I find
>very fulfilling and satisfying.
Fine
Bernie
Bernie
ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk (Steve A) wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Apr 1997 20:08:06 GMT, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>> Sorry, but questions of mind-control and cults are extremely
>> relevant to a group about cult. If for nothing else, to
>> counter-act the fallacies they are being told in there in guise
>> of "support" and which are only worsening the situation.
>And who are you to determine whether the support being offered is
>fallacious?
I am familiar with the type of support that is being offered by
the anti-cult faction. I consider it to be fallacious. I am not
determining anything - that's just my opinion. I have expanded
this in many posts already. Further, anyone can read what is
going on in the alt.support.ex-cult and see for themselves.
>Hell, the cult of Scientology may as well launch an
>arsbomb attack there, since *they've* surely got as much right as you
>to decide what the readers of a.s.e. should think!
No one has such a right. I was told in this post that
alt.support.ex-cult has a charter. I asked that they post this
charter or say on which URL it can be found. I'm still waiting.
>> If you want to prevent people from posting there what they deem
>> as relevant to this newsgroup, then you should create a
>> soc.support.ex-cult, moderate it, and sit in it alone as with so
>> many other moderated newsgroups.
>> Or create a listserve to make sure they are completely isolated
>> and don't hear anything contradictory to their new
>> indoctrination.
>Right, there we have it. Thousands of people can go through all sorts
>of upheaval, reconfiguring, CFV's and assorted mayhem just so one kook
>can continue to post where HE thinks HE'S entitled to post, according
>to HIS ego. And sod the rest of us.
I have as much right to determine what I personally find
relevant to post there as you. I consider that topics about cult
and mind-control are relevant in a discussion about cults.
Didn't you yourself post ramblings about the COS in an alt.comp
newsgroup, Steve? Now that's for sure is most relevant... Or are
you defining "relevant" as something that suits your one-sided
crusade and "irrelevant" anything that may contradict it?
Bernie
Bernie
sk...@comcat.com wrote:
>Bernie wrote:
Before anything, let me put here a paragraph that stands
actually near the end of this post, but is an amazing
illustration of what I think is wrong with the anti-cult
support. You say:
>A professionally trained psychologist and psychiatrist told
>me all I need to know about what happened to me.
That's exactly what is wrong, in my view. When a member is
getting out of a cult, either on his own or with counseling, he
is in a very fragile mental state. The values he was holding so
much went to scratch, he is in a rather confused state and in
search of new values and signification, trying to re-adjust
himself to his immediate realities.
Then you have these so called psychologists (some of them), or
those that are not psychologists but regard themselves as
"expert on mind control", who come and explain to the member
"all they need to know about what happened to them!" They are
giving him ready-made explanations through which the members can
interpret their experiences in the cult. These so-called
experts, as a matter of fact, are doing exactly what they accuse
the cults of doing. The member himself never conceived of this
mind-control explanation on his own, he is just buying this
fallacious theory in a time where he is most vulnerable.
>> >> Sorry, but questions of mind-control and cults are extremely
>> >> relevant to a group about cult. If for nothing else, to
>> >> counter-act the fallacies they are being told in there in guise
>> >> of "support" and which are only worsening the situation.
>> >And who are you to determine whether the support being offered is
>> >fallacious?
No one in particular, just my opinion based on experiences on
both sides, personal contacts, study and reflection.
>Bernie, Tell me, what is the "guise of support" that we ex-members of
>cults are giving that is worsening the situation??
I don't know what you personally do, and as with anything, there
will be people better at what they do than others, but in
general the anti-cult support consists of little else than
"explaining" to the ex-member of what "happened" to them, and
convincing them of their own pet and egotistical theories. When
the member is thus convinced, these experts can then start to
"recover" them. They only recover them from the distress they
created themselves by getting the member to interpret everything
in a negative, angry and revengeful way.
>> I am familiar with the type of support that is being offered by
>> the anti-cult faction. I consider it to be fallacious. I am not
>> determining anything - that's just my opinion. I have expanded
>> this in many posts already. Further, anyone can read what is
>> going on in the alt.support.ex-cult and see for themselves.
>You are correct, Bernie. What is going on now in alt.support.ex-cult is
>NOT support. We are not able to support eachother because if we do we
>are:
>1. attacked by several posters from a.r.e. saying that the support we
>give is bogus
>2. Have been bombarded by posts from you and others in a.r.s. blaming
>ex-cultists for becomming involved in cults in the first place, putting
>us in the position to defend ourselves
I am not blaming ex-cultists for becoming involved, although I
understand that this is what you read from my posts. Saying that
the mind-control explanation is fallacious because it puts all
the blame on the "cult" and provides an handy justification to
the member for his behavior is not blaming the member. I am not
saying that is was *all* his fault. Saying that the
responsibility are shared between him and the group is not a
blame. As long as the members are not willing to see through
what *part* of responsibility they had in their experience, they
are forever going to remain a "damaged" victim, and hardly more
than puppets in the hand of the anti-cult movement.
>3. Being pulled into debates by you and others from a.r.s. regarding
>acceptable definitions of the words "cult" and "destructive cult"
How are you going to ever support anyone about "cults" if you
are not even able to define and delineate what a cult is? This
only shows that the type of support the anti-cult proponents
give is only based on fixed and rigid ideas, on fear and
superstitions, reinforced between each other in a closed setup.
That's why you want to prevent differing opinion to be posted in
there, you are not able to deal with them. Ah, you still are not
healed? Then how are you ever going to heal others?
>4. Having several people in alt.support.ex-cult being viciously attacked
>for their beliefs in "mental coercion" and "mind control"
I am not attacking anyone for their belief, I am only attacking
the false belief itself. It is actually a help for the person,
and others who may fall prey to it, rather than an attack on the
person himself. The vicious attacks I see are those of ex-cult
members who didn't come to term with their conflicts (and
actually have them kept alive by the anti-cult faction), and
those who do not have either enough experience or insight to see
through the fallacy of such an approach.
>After reading the latest postings in alt.support.ex-cult, I doubt if any
>ex-cult member would feel safe opening up about their experiences here.
No one is ever safe opening up about their experiences on
usenet, unless there are safeguards preventing the unwanted
posts to come in. There are kooks much worse than I or Diane
around, you know ;-) If you want to create a "safe" group, you
should do so under the soc hierarchy, not the alt one, and make
it moderated. It will then be a safe and closed environment that
will soon degenerate and die out of lack of cross-breeding with
other type of opinions. Or you could create a listserve, but the
last one that existed on this topic, so I heard, was a
lamentable failure.
Since you seem to be such a prominent personality in the
alt.support.ex-cult, maybe you could post the charter I have
been told to run against by supposedly "being a member of an
accepted cult". Please post it here in a.r.s., since I have long
since stopped reading the alt.support.ex-cult newsgroup. It's
now the third time I am asking someone from there to do so, but
I doubt that it will ever be more forthcoming than the
declaration against deprogramming I have repeatedly asked
someone from CAN to post a few months ago. If this is the case,
it shows the kind of trust one can place in the assertions of
"cult experts".
>Perhaps this is the desired result you and the others posting from
>a.r.s. have been working towards.
No. My desire is to help members and ex-members to free
themselves from both the illusions of the cults and anti-cults.
The cognitive dissonance this may produce for the anti-cult
members may not be anymore pleasant than the one experienced by
the cult members, I must convene, but the alternative is to
leave things as they are, which on the long run is much worse.
>Bernie, I already KNEW about the mental coercion and mind control that
>went on in the cult i'd belonged to. A professionally trained
>psychologist and psychiatrist told me all I need to know about what
>happened to me.
The paragraph I started with. I leave it here in its context,
just in case I misunderstood it and someone would be charitable
enough to correct me.
>Since I've been reading this NG, mind control was never
>even brought up here, until you, Diane and Rebecca brought it up and
>never let go.
As I said, I have quit reading the asec NG, but mind-control is
*the* "cheval de bataille" of the anti-cult approach. Monica
gives a good example of that, and anyone who ever went to a CAN
meeting can attest this as well. Furthermore, for your
information, neither Diane nor I brought this theme in the first
place, it was of course the likes of Monica and her CAN friends.
Then don't be surprised that people dare to answer to what they
view as a vicious and abusive claim.
>Bernie, show me some posts from alt.support.ex-cult where ex-cult
>members came here for support and were told that they were victims of
>mind control. (The supposed "guise of support" that we give ex-cult
>members here). Just show me those posts of support that you need to work
>so very hard on to counteract. I'm waiting...
I am not reading this newsgroup, but I went to enough CAN
meetings, read enough of their pamphlet and books, spoke with
enough of their members and with enough deprogrammers to know
what I am talking about. We also have more than enough examples
of mind-control theory supporters in ars, including yourself, to
see that it isn't an invention on my part. Do you really want me
to come into the alt.support.ex-cult newsgroup and gather
examples? I don't think you would want that. Or should I make a
DejaNews search with mind-control and brainwashing as key words?
And what does your unexisting NG charter say about this point?
Sorry for sounding so hard. I know that what you do is made out
of genuine concern, but these things just have to be said.
Bernie
sk...@comcat.com
Bernie,
Yes, I will admit that my semantics were very poor when I said that the
psychologist and psychiatrist "told me" all I need to know... And I
thank you for bringing this to my attention.
Good therapists do not "tell" their patients anything, and this was not
the way it occurred with the doctors I saw. What I realized took several
years, and I came to my own conclusions. I regret my previous wording.
You and I clearly disagree about many things, and it's pointless to get
on a merry-go-round of arguement and bad feelings.
I've only been posting here a very short time. I've been posting a lot
lately because I felt strongly about some of the issues i've read.
I have no idea if this NG has a charter or not. Perhaps someone reading
this post knows if there is such a charter.
I don't read a.r.s. and you don't read a.s.e-c., so perhaps we won't run
head on into one another again.
Laurenn
Bernie
sk...@comcat.com wrote:
>Bernie wrote:
>4. Having several people in alt.support.ex-cult being viciously attacked
Bernie
sk...@comcat.com wrote:
>Bernie,
>Yes, I will admit that my semantics were very poor when I said that the
>psychologist and psychiatrist "told me" all I need to know... And I
>thank you for bringing this to my attention.
>Good therapists do not "tell" their patients anything, and this was not
>the way it occurred with the doctors I saw. What I realized took several
>years, and I came to my own conclusions. I regret my previous wording.
Of course this gives it a completely different complexion.
>You and I clearly disagree about many things, and it's pointless to get
>on a merry-go-round of arguement and bad feelings.
Maybe true.
>I've only been posting here a very short time. I've been posting a lot
>lately because I felt strongly about some of the issues i've read.
That's what is making it lively :-)
>I have no idea if this NG has a charter or not. Perhaps someone reading
>this post knows if there is such a charter.
Thank you for this straight answer. Maybe the poster who had
also the (false) knowledge that I was a member of an accepted
cult, and who proclaimed that, because of that and the charter,
I was not allowed to post in there would know that (someone
called piedech or something)
>I don't read a.r.s. and you don't read a.s.e-c., so perhaps we won't run
>head on into one another again.
I wish you luck. An earnest and dedicated person can make an
important difference in a newsgroup.
Bernie
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
>sk...@comcat.com:
to Bernie:
>After reading the latest postings in alt.support.ex-cult, I doubt if any
>ex-cult member would feel safe opening up about their experiences here.
>Perhaps this is the desired result you and the others posting from
>a.r.s. have been working towards.
It's very rude for people who don't even believe that cultic
manipulation exists, or that recovery from such abuse should be
supported, to be posting to a newsgroup explicitly dedicated to
supporting such recovery.
But that is a typical cult tactic designed to stifle criticism.
[posted/mailed]
Dennis
Stever and Kimipeli
I certainly can agree with many of the things you are saying here, but I
am wondering why you have posted this to trb. I hope that you are not
in some way insinuating that Buddhism is some sort of a "cult" to be
grouped in with TM or Heaven's Gate?? You're not saying that are you?
If so, you are sadly way off course, and certainly speaking to the wrong
group.
metta,
Stever
Rango Keshavan
Likewise anyone who equates TM to Heaven's Gate in any way is sadly
way off course, too.
Rango
--
"Can you answer? Yes I can!
But what would be the answer
to the answer, Man?" R. Hunter
wow...@pacbell.net
be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
....
> sk...@comcat.com wrote:
> >Bernie wrote:
....
> >A professionally trained psychologist and psychiatrist told
> >me all I need to know about what happened to me.
> That's exactly what is wrong, in my view. When a member is
> getting out of a cult, either on his own or with counseling, he
> is in a very fragile mental state. The values he was holding so
> much went to scratch, he is in a rather confused state and in
> search of new values and signification, trying to re-adjust
> himself to his immediate realities.
Bernie, it appears to me that "exactly what is wrong"
here *IS* your view. You have the collossal arrogance to
assume that everyone else's cult experience was the same
as yours and that their experience in leaving whatever
they were in was the same as yours. It may not be that
the "values" went to scratch, but that his epistemology
needed to go to scratch so his ethics could follow.
....
At the point Ted Patrick appeared and announced
the "deprogramming," I was delighted to have the
opportunity to "give sat sang" to the nice black
potential "brother." I knew that the mind was
Satan, that I needed to meditate to keep from
having a mind that was cluttered with thoughts,
that the Guru was the Messiah and that I had to
give the Guru all of my money because I loved
him so much. I knew that the guru was beautiful.
I knew that I couldn't have sex anymore because
God was right here, walking around, which rather
had me over a barrel. That last one sometimes
annoyed me enough to cause me to start meditating
automatically, as I'd just begun to consider myself
liberated when the Guru turned up. My present
purpose in life was to convert my mother so she,
too, would give everything she had to the Guru,
and now, I was going to get to convert this pleasant
black man, too.
........
It took Ted Patrick less than twenty minutes to
challenge every belief I just expressed (except,
of course, for the sexual one), and then to advise
me that I had been "brainwashed and hypnotized"
without my knowledge or consent, to suggest that I
stop meditating and to ask, in a concerned voice,
whether I could stop meditating.
........
> Then you have these so called [snip] "experts on
> mind control", who come and explain to the member
> what they accuse the cults of doing.
So, do you know someone this happened to? I sure
don't. I don't know where you got your own information
but you're sure parroting the $cientology party-line
here.
.....
> The member himself never conceived of this
> mind-control explanation on his own, he is
> just buying this fallacious theory in a time
> where he is most vulnerable.
You've done nothing to demonstrate that the
explantion is fallacious, Bernie. I did not
make up the idea that the Guru was God. I
did not make up the idea that the mind was
Satan. I did not make up the idea that the
Guru was beautiful. I did not make up the
idea that I should "meditate" during every
waking moment. I did not invent the "meditation"
techniques. I did not make up the idea that
"meditation" was a good thing. I did not make
up the idea that it was wrong to have sex.
I did not make up the idea that it was wrong
to eat meat. I did not make up the idea that
I had to give the Guru all of my money.
...
I did accept Ted's claim (that I was hypnotized)
enough to stop meditating in order to test the
truth of his statements. I did have difficulty
in stopping the meditation, and I asked for advice.
Ted Patrick recommended reading aloud. That was
the only thing he told me that I accepted with
no corroborating information. As I started to
come out of it, I realized that I had been
carrying pairs of contradictory ideas around
in my head, believing both and not seeing the
contradiction. Then I remembered the word that
I had just defined: "doublethink." As I was now
deprogrammed, I excused myself, then went to a
bookstore, bought a copy of George Orwell's 1984
and started to read that aloud, making lots of
notes in the margins and blank pages. Later,
during 1984, at a Mensa discussion of the book,
I impressed a group of intellectuals - mostly
college professors - with my knowledge of what
Orwell was writing about. I never even used the
word "cult" that evening.
.......
> >> >And who are you to determine whether the support
> >> >being offered is fallacious?
> No one in particular, just my opinion
Amen.
......
> based on experiences on both sides, personal
> contacts, study and reflection.
Bernie, I think you need to make a broader circle
of personal contacts to justify the strength of
your opinions.
......
> >1. attacked by several posters from a.r.e. saying
> >that the support we give is bogus
>
> >2. Have been bombarded by posts from you and
> > others in a.r.s. blaming ex-cultists for
> > becomming involved in cults in the first
> > place, putting us in the position to defend
......
> As long as the members are not willing to see
> through what *part* of responsibility they had
> in their experience, they are forever going to
> remain a "damaged" victim, and hardly more than
> puppets in the hand of the anti-cult movement.
Well, Bernie, I can see three mistakes I made.
The belief that anything called "meditation"
was good came from associating too lightly with
Quakers. The second was believing that I could
rely on the advice of the majority of the pleasant
and responsible people around me. The third was
believing that the fact that someone had just
shown me things I believed to be impossible
meant that his explanations were also true.
However, by that point in time, I was so far
manipulated that it was unlikely I'd have
thought of that. I gave Divine Light Mission
over $10,000, mostly from retirement savings.
I was defrauded. I was reduced to a state of
slavery, as defined by the Supreme Court of
Italy in the case of Aldo Braibanti.
....
This business about "remain[ing] a 'damaged
victim' simply reeks of "blaming the victim,"
Bernie, and I'm certainly not a tool of the
anti-cult movement. I had a board member of
CFF furious with me almost twenty years ago
because I wouldn't go along with his personal
request that I lie about my former guru. I
did have one of the worst experiences of anyone
in my own cult, but I was not going to lie.
I eventually did est, which helped me get over
the guru, and although, for myself, the experience
was excellent and the organization did not appear
to be cultish, I have just had to recognize that,
for a few of the women in the alt.support.ex-cult
NG, it was a bad experience. I'm certainly not
about to insist that their personal experiences
were less valid than my own.
.....
Bernie, please go to dejanews and read through
Lance Tane's posts in his interaction with Jim
Heller, esq. You will see that Lance is one
conflicted individual. Jim keeps trying to pin
him down on whether our former (Lance's current)
guru is God or not, and Lance is simply unable
to answer. I was into Divine Light Mission for
over ten months, and the damage the so-called
"meditation" did to my thinking process took
another ten months to undo. The emotional damage
of the culture shock was with me for about seven
years until I shed it in the old est training.
Before est, I also read a couple of books about
hypnotism and took a commerical self-hypnosis
course. I was even better as a subject for myself,
knowing that I was hypnotized, than as a subject
for an organization that kept telling me that I
was not hypnotized. On the other hand, Jim Heller
was not deprogrammed. He was also exposed to a
slightly different set of teachings which did
not require that he meditate during every waking
moment. It took him eight years to experience
enough lies and contradictions to think his way
out, leave and go to law school. He now wishes
that his family had gone with their impulse to
deprogram him. He feels that he lost those eight
years of his life. Are you now saying that your
opinion about this trained attorney's life
is more valid and important than his own?
.......
> >3. Being pulled into debates by you
> > and others from a.r.s. regarding
> > acceptable definitions of the words
> > "cult" and "destructive cult"
>
> How are you going to ever support anyone
> about "cults" if you are not even able to
> define and delineate what a cult is?
Does a person need to understand everything
about CPR to save someone's life? A five-year
old from Northern California who had seen a
television program about CPR saved a playmate
who would otherwise have died from drowning.
He couldn't spell the name of the procedure
and probably couldn't pronounce it, but he
knew the abbreviation CPR and he could perform
it. We can't define and delineate what the color
blue is very well, but we can distinguish it
from green or violet most of the time. There
are guidlines written for distinguishing cults
from other political parties, group therapies
or what-have-you. Another problem is that for
one person a particular group may really be a
destructive cult, while for another person, it
simply isn't. We all have different vulnerabilities,
and our vulnerability varies at different points
in our lives or different times of day.
.....
> This only shows that the type of support the
> anti-cult proponents give is only based on
> fixed and rigid ideas, on fear and superstitions,
> reinforced between each other in a closed setup.
Your last sentence seems to reflect, in the
Scientology party-line about brainwashing, the
same thing you are claiming takes place in
here. Do you realize that? You have voiced,
in that very sentence fear and superstitions,
either your own humble opinions or those of
$cientology, from which they really seem to be
indistinguishable.
.....
> >4. Having several people in alt.support.ex-cult
> > being viciously attacked for their beliefs in
> > "mental coercion" and "mind control"
> I am not attacking anyone for their belief, I
> am only attacking the false belief itself.
No, you're attacking the EXPLANATION itself,
which I say is valid much of the time, along
with the validity of the personal experience
of everyone who has evaluated his or her own
personal experience in the light of that
explanation. But, of course, you are so much
better-informed than anyone else, so filled
with a love for humanity and so accurate in
your assessments that it's really wonderful
that you were able to rush right in and fill
the opening when God died like that.
.....
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Kurt Arbuckle
Stever and Kimipeli (skr...@gte.net) wrote:
: I certainly can agree with many of the things you are saying here, but I
: am wondering why you have posted this to trb. I hope that you are not
: in some way insinuating that Buddhism is some sort of a "cult" to be
: grouped in with TM or Heaven's Gate?? You're not saying that are you?
: If so, you are sadly way off course, and certainly speaking to the wrong
: group.
...and why do *you* group TM and Heavens Gate together? OTOH, I do recall
Buddhist monks killing themselves during the Vietnam war. POINT: Anyone
can draw similarities, and anyone can make distinctions. Stick with what
you know.
Kurt
Steve A
On Wed, 30 Apr 1997 06:49:22 GMT, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
> ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk (Steve A) wrote:
> >On Mon, 28 Apr 1997 20:08:06 GMT, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>
> >> Sorry, but questions of mind-control and cults are extremely
> >> relevant to a group about cult. If for nothing else, to
> >> counter-act the fallacies they are being told in there in guise
> >> of "support" and which are only worsening the situation.
>
> >And who are you to determine whether the support being offered is
> >fallacious?
>
> I am familiar with the type of support that is being offered by
> the anti-cult faction. I consider it to be fallacious. I am not
> determining anything - that's just my opinion. I have expanded
> this in many posts already. Further, anyone can read what is
> going on in the alt.support.ex-cult and see for themselves.
Sure, it's just your opinion, but then you go off into a support group
for ex-cult members like a bull in a china shop and start sounding
off, to the extent that a poster to a.s.e. commented recently that it
was actually virtually impossible to perform any kind of support work
thanks to such interference.
What gives YOU the right to trample the activities of others.
>
> >Hell, the cult of Scientology may as well launch an
> >arsbomb attack there, since *they've* surely got as much right as you
> >to decide what the readers of a.s.e. should think!
>
> No one has such a right. I was told in this post that
> alt.support.ex-cult has a charter. I asked that they post this
> charter or say on which URL it can be found. I'm still waiting.
What about common decency? Or has the Scientology mindset still got
enough of a hold over your thought processes that you still believe
that as long as they can't sue you for it, it's OK?
> >> If you want to prevent people from posting there what they deem
> >> as relevant to this newsgroup, then you should create a
> >> soc.support.ex-cult, moderate it, and sit in it alone as with so
> >> many other moderated newsgroups.
>
> >> Or create a listserve to make sure they are completely isolated
> >> and don't hear anything contradictory to their new
> >> indoctrination.
>
> >Right, there we have it. Thousands of people can go through all sorts
> >of upheaval, reconfiguring, CFV's and assorted mayhem just so one kook
> >can continue to post where HE thinks HE'S entitled to post, according
> >to HIS ego. And sod the rest of us.
>
> I have as much right to determine what I personally find
> relevant to post there as you. I consider that topics about cult
> and mind-control are relevant in a discussion about cults.
You do not, however, have the right to insist that the users of a
perfectly reasonable newsgroup attempting to do a social service
should jump through hoops just to serve your ends.
> Didn't you yourself post ramblings about the COS in an alt.comp
> newsgroup, Steve? Now that's for sure is most relevant... Or are
> you defining "relevant" as something that suits your one-sided
> crusade and "irrelevant" anything that may contradict it?
I endeavour to make sure that every group in the Newsgroups: line is
valid. Occasionally I forget to check where a post to which I am
responding is being crossposted to; sometimes it is difficult to
establish where in the list of groups a poster is posting from.
However, when this is pointed out to me, I invariably restrict
X-posts. What I do NOT do is to go off at the poster who pointed my
error out, insist that if he doesn't want MY posts in HIS newsgroup,
he'd better damn well find himself a new one with a watertight
charter, or leave Usenet altogether.
There IS a difference, Bernie, though I doubt that you will ever see
it. It's called "common courtesy". Go wordclear it.
Practicing medicine without a licence? You decide.
"Step Four - Cures for Illness
You will now find BTs and clusters being cures for illnesses of the body
part. Handle all such BTs and clusters by blowing them off. "Cures for
Illness" will then cease to read.
--
Steve A, SP4, GGBC, KBM, Unsalvageable PTS/SP #12
So long, Arthur...
ObURLS: Beginners: http://www.tiac.net/users/modemac/cos.html
In-depth: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/home.html
Suspicious Death: http://www.primenet.com/~cultxpt/lisa.htm
The Other Side: http://www.scientology.org
"...Your suppositions include an unwarranted accusation which
I do not consider myself called upon to address..."
- a nice line in diplomatic put-down from Swedish
A/G in response to letter of Warren McShane
Stever and Kimipeli
Actually, I don't group those things together. I was just wondering
about the motives of a posting about cultism to a Buddhist newsgroup.
It seemed like kind of an insinuation.
Peace,
Stever
Stever and Kimipeli
Rango Keshavan wrote:
>
> Stever and Kimipeli wrote:
> >
> > I certainly can agree with many of the things you are saying here, but I
> > am wondering why you have posted this to trb. I hope that you are not
> > in some way insinuating that Buddhism is some sort of a "cult" to be
> > grouped in with TM or Heaven's Gate?? You're not saying that are you?
> > If so, you are sadly way off course, and certainly speaking to the wrong
> > group.
> >
> > metta,
> >
> > Stever
>
> Likewise anyone who equates TM to Heaven's Gate in any way is sadly
> way off course, too.
>
> Rango
> --
> "Can you answer? Yes I can!
> But what would be the answer
> to the answer, Man?" R. Hunter
>
> http://www.ultranet.com/~rango
I am not equating TM to Heaven's Gate (although, if you can find the
original post of this thread, the poster I was responding to WAS). My
sentance was simply questioning why someone would post a message about
cultism to a Buddhist newsgroup. It seemed to me to be a kind of
indictment on Buddhism, hinting that Buddhism may be some sort of cult.
Apparently, my wording was awful, because the only responses I received
were from you and another gentleman who were upset with my question. I
will just ignore this type of thread in the future. Sorry for the
misunderstandings.
Peace,
Stever
Kurt Arbuckle
: >
: > : I certainly can agree with many of the things you are saying here, but I
: > : am wondering why you have posted this to trb. I hope that you are not
: > : in some way insinuating that Buddhism is some sort of a "cult" to be
: > : grouped in with TM or Heaven's Gate?? You're not saying that are you?
: > : If so, you are sadly way off course, and certainly speaking to the wrong
: > : group.
: > ...and why do *you* group TM and Heavens Gate together? OTOH, I do recall
: > Buddhist monks killing themselves during the Vietnam war. POINT: Anyone
: > can draw similarities, and anyone can make distinctions. Stick with what
: > you know.
: >
: > Kurt
:
:
: Actually, I don't group those things together. I was just wondering
: It seemed like kind of an insinuation.
That's the way people who do TM feel about his posts to our newsgroup.
Kurt
aim...@world.std.com
>> Stever and Kimipeli (skr...@gte.net) wrote:
>> : I certainly can agree with many of the things you are saying here, but I
>> : am wondering why you have posted this to trb. I hope that you are not
>> : in some way insinuating that Buddhism is some sort of a "cult" to be
>> : grouped in with TM or Heaven's Gate?? You're not saying that are you?
>> : If so, you are sadly way off course, and certainly speaking to the wrong
>> : group.
>>
>> ...and why do *you* group TM and Heavens Gate together? OTOH, I do recall
>> Buddhist monks killing themselves during the Vietnam war. POINT: Anyone
>> can draw similarities, and anyone can make distinctions. Stick with what
>> you know.
>
It seems to me that Buddhism has been really good for your perception.
It *was* an insinuation. The fact that the person who sent it doesn't
know that is tragically sad.
Bernie
wow...@pacbell.net wrote:
>be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>> sk...@comcat.com wrote:
>> >Bernie wrote:
This is going to be very long.
>> >A professionally trained psychologist and psychiatrist told
>> >me all I need to know about what happened to me.
>> That's exactly what is wrong, in my view. When a member is
>> getting out of a cult, either on his own or with counseling, he
>> is in a very fragile mental state. The values he was holding so
>> much went to scratch, he is in a rather confused state and in
>> search of new values and signification, trying to re-adjust
>> himself to his immediate realities.
>Bernie, it appears to me that "exactly what is wrong"
>here *IS* your view. You have the collossal arrogance to
>assume that everyone else's cult experience was the same
>as yours and that their experience in leaving whatever
>they were in was the same as yours. It may not be that
>the "values" went to scratch, but that his epistemology
>needed to go to scratch so his ethics could follow.
Sorry, I don't understand.
>My present
>purpose in life was to convert my mother so she,
>too, would give everything she had to the Guru,
>and now, I was going to get to convert this pleasant
>black man, too.
Usually, members do try to convince a maximum of other persons
to their newfound belief, including their close family. They do
that because they believe that they have found something unique,
and uniquely valuable. This is akin of trying to share with
others something you find really beautiful, a piece of music,
whatever. Furthermore, they believe that if their loved ones
don't prey, or meditate, or get auditing, (or get deprogrammed,
for that matter), they will end up in something akin to hell.
They are, therefore, very motivated in trying to convert them.
This is all a "normal" religiously fanatical behavior, ensued
from a particular combination of hope and fear typical of so
many religions, and more intense in radical religions. It has
nothing to do with "mind-control", unless you try to qualify as
mind-control any such psychological aspects, in which case it
would be a gross misnomer.
>It took Ted Patrick less than twenty minutes to
>challenge every belief I just expressed (except,
>of course, for the sexual one), and then to advise
>me that I had been "brainwashed and hypnotized"
>without my knowledge or consent, to suggest that I
>stop meditating and to ask, in a concerned voice,
>whether I could stop meditating.
>> Then you have these so called [snip] "experts on
>> mind control", who come and explain to the member
>> [snip] ready-made explanations [snip] doing exactly
>> what they accuse the cults of doing.
>So, do you know someone this happened to? I sure
>don't. I don't know where you got your own information
>but you're sure parroting the $cientology party-line
>here.
That's strange. Didn't you just say in the paragraph above: "and
then to advise me that I had been 'brainwashed and hypnotized'
without my knowledge or consent"? How can you then say that it's
a conception, and idea, an observation that comes initially from
you?
>> The member himself never conceived of this
>> mind-control explanation on his own, he is
>> just buying this fallacious theory in a time
>> where he is most vulnerable.
>You've done nothing to demonstrate that the
>explantion is fallacious, Bernie. I did not
>make up the idea that the Guru was God. I
>did not make up the idea that the mind was
>Satan. I did not make up the idea that the
>Guru was beautiful. I did not make up the
>idea that I should "meditate" during every
>waking moment. I did not invent the "meditation"
>techniques. I did not make up the idea that
>"meditation" was a good thing. I did not make
>up the idea that it was wrong to have sex.
>I did not make up the idea that it was wrong
>to eat meat. I did not make up the idea that
>I had to give the Guru all of my money.
And I didn't say that the ideas you've got in the cult were your
own. So what's your point?
>I did accept Ted's claim (that I was hypnotized)
>enough to stop meditating in order to test the
>truth of his statements. I did have difficulty
>in stopping the meditation, and I asked for advice.
>Ted Patrick recommended reading aloud. That was
>the only thing he told me that I accepted with
>no corroborating information. As I started to
>come out of it, I realized that I had been
>carrying pairs of contradictory ideas around
>in my head, believing both and not seeing the
>contradiction. Then I remembered the word that
>I had just defined: "doublethink." As I was now
>deprogrammed, I excused myself, then went to a
>bookstore, bought a copy of George Orwell's 1984
>and started to read that aloud, making lots of
>notes in the margins and blank pages.
So what you did was (1) buy the idea of hypnosis, brainwashing,
from Patrick, (2) dismount the set of belief you had while in
the DLM, and reconstruct another set of beliefs according to the
mind-control doctrine, re-interpreting your experiences and
conceptions according to this doctrine. You went from one set of
belief to another, without really tackling the real causes
(because the mind-control doctrine is mainly a justification
doctrine), and this other set of belief have been fixed by the
strength of the emotional period you were in. No wonder you can
hardly see alternative explanations now, or even nuances and
distinctions in the very set of doctrine you now preach
yourself.
Furthermore, because you didn't really resolves and extracted
the real causes of fanaticism (the superficial explanation of
mind-control is hiding this from you), every time your new
belief is challenged, like I do, you get back in this initial
confusion period and therefore feel the need to defend yourself
vigorously, insult people trying to reason with you, etc.
>Later,
>during 1984, at a Mensa discussion of the book,
>I impressed a group of intellectuals - mostly
>college professors - with my knowledge of what
>Orwell was writing about.
Holla! *I* am supposed to be the arrogant know-it-all Belgian
waffle around here, not you. Please go back to your seat ;-)
[snip]
>> As long as the members are not willing to see
>> through what *part* of responsibility they had
>> in their experience, they are forever going to
>> remain a "damaged" victim, and hardly more than
>> puppets in the hand of the anti-cult movement.
[snip]
>This business about "remain[ing] a 'damaged
>victim' simply reeks of "blaming the victim,"
>Bernie, and I'm certainly not a tool of the
>anti-cult movement. I had a board member of
>CFF furious with me almost twenty years ago
>because I wouldn't go along with his personal
>request that I lie about my former guru. I
>did have one of the worst experiences of anyone
>in my own cult, but I was not going to lie.
Well done! This proves that what I say isn't an absolute either.
>I eventually did est, which helped me get over
>the guru, and although, for myself, the experience
>was excellent and the organization did not appear
>to be cultish, I have just had to recognize that,
>for a few of the women in the alt.support.ex-cult
>NG, it was a bad experience. I'm certainly not
>about to insist that their personal experiences
>were less valid than my own.
No, of course, except when you label the others's as being under
the influence of an induced psychosis. But, silly me, this isn't
an insistence where their personal experiences are less valid
than your own...
I recognize, however, that there are people who don't see much
alternative. It's either the cult doctrine or the explanation
provided to them by the mind-control doctrine. They don't have
much else to compare with.This doesn't make, however, the
mind-control doctrine necessarily true.
Like one is to go beyond his belief, whether it be a cult or
otherwise, to be aware of the limits of this belief, so one is
to go beyond his belief in the mind-control doctrine, and be
able to acknowledge the limit of this parabola.
For me, one of the main difference between an healthy belief and
a cultic one, is the ability to be aware of the limit of this
belief, or this set of beliefs. That's all the difference
really, between a tolerant group or individual and a fanatical
one. To be able to put things in perspective.
As you see with est, it can be interpreted in cultic term or
not, according to one's experience, conditions, teachers, etc,
etc. So, how would you like that those who decided that est was
a cult, to forcibly detain you and force their view down your
throat? Yet, this is what you are promoting.
I doubt personally that a "cult" exists per se, it only a group
that is more or less cultic than an other, and more or less
cultic at some time than other. A cultic attitude isn't
necessarily limited to cults either, and could be found in all
walks of life. It is mainly those in the anti-cult movements who
believe that there is a clear cut, definite, and absolute
demarcation between what is a cult and what isn't. Of course,
the unmistakable sign is that they use "mind-control"...
>Bernie, please go to dejanews and read through
>Lance Tane's posts in his interaction with Jim
>Heller, esq. You will see that Lance is one
>conflicted individual. Jim keeps trying to pin
>him down on whether our former (Lance's current)
>guru is God or not, and Lance is simply unable
>to answer.
If you take this as "evidence" of mind-control, then I have to
object. Arguments and counter-arguments, reactions and
interpretation by others of others reactions, are normal in a
contradictory debate. To interpret anything at this level, as it
is so often done in this NG, BTW, as a "damage to one's thinking
process" is only intellectual dishonesty and stupidity.
>I was into Divine Light Mission for
>over ten months, and the damage the so-called
>"meditation" did to my thinking process took
>another ten months to undo.
It also took a long time for myself to start thinking in another
way than the way I was used to in Scientology. The difference is
that I don't interpret this as a "recovering of the damage done
to my thinking process". It is a normal that after you go out of
an intense experience, in which you invest all of your being,
you take certain habits, which not only you have to learn to get
rid of, but also involves the fact of having to find and
establish new basic and fundamental values to adjust to your new
setting. See? It's all a matter of interpretation, but one can
choose to interpret things with common sense and simple words,
or ignorantly interpret them according to some bogus theory
using loaded language and twisted concepts.
>The emotional damage
>of the culture shock was with me for about seven
>years until I shed it in the old est training.
>Before est, I also read a couple of books about
>hypnotism and took a commerical self-hypnosis
>course. I was even better as a subject for myself,
>knowing that I was hypnotized, than as a subject
>for an organization that kept telling me that I
>was not hypnotized. On the other hand, Jim Heller
>was not deprogrammed. He was also exposed to a
>slightly different set of teachings which did
>not require that he meditate during every waking
>moment. It took him eight years to experience
>enough lies and contradictions to think his way
>out, leave and go to law school. He now wishes
>that his family had gone with their impulse to
>deprogram him. He feels that he lost those eight
>years of his life. Are you now saying that your
>opinion about this trained attorney's life
>is more valid and important than his own?
Certainly not, but his interpretation is not necessarily more
valid than mine. He sees things this way, I see in a very
different way, and others maybe in still other way, unless they
have been indoctrinated in the mind-control theory, in which
case you can predict what they will say with as much certainty
as you can predict what a cult-member will say.
>There
>are guidlines written for distinguishing cults
>from other political parties, group therapies
>or what-have-you.
And these guidelines have been debunked and discussed many times
here in ars. The only ones who can use them to ascertain with
certainty what is a cult and what isn't a cult, are the
anti-cult proponents for whom this is "obvious". But then why
use guidelines at all if they aren't useful to others? Anti-cult
proponents already have their fixed ideas about this, so they
don't really need guidelines. These guidelines serve only as an
appearance of legitimacy, that may look valid on the surface,
and that further serves in calling on the emotions and fears of
the people they want to proselytize to.
>Another problem is that for
>one person a particular group may really be a
>destructive cult, while for another person, it
>simply isn't. We all have different vulnerabilities,
>and our vulnerability varies at different points
>in our lives or different times of day.
Well, exactly! And that's not just another problem, it is *the*
problem: it simply is impossible to delineate what is valid for
someone else, and therefore there is only one answer to that,
and it is freedom of belief, freedom of religion, freedom of
expression. The mind-control theory runs exactly opposite to
this, it asserts that the choice the cult member made is not a
choice, since he doesn't have free will, and therefore, since
what he holds isn't really a belief, he does not enjoy the same
freedom and rights as others in this area. This is what is
fallacious, and, needless to say, dangerous.
>> This only shows that the type of support the
>> anti-cult proponents give is only based on
>> fixed and rigid ideas, on fear and superstitions,
>> reinforced between each other in a closed setup.
>Your last sentence seems to reflect, in the
>Scientology party-line about brainwashing, the
>same thing you are claiming takes place in
>here. Do you realize that? You have voiced,
>in that very sentence fear and superstitions,
>either your own humble opinions or those of
>$cientology, from which they really seem to be
>indistinguishable.
What is the fear aspect, and what is the superstition aspect in
this sentence?
>> I am not attacking anyone for their belief, I
>> am only attacking the false belief itself.
>No, you're attacking the EXPLANATION itself,
Mmm, maybe to say that I am addressing the explanation rather
than the belief may be more exact indeed.
>But, of course, you are so much
>better-informed than anyone else, so filled
>with a love for humanity and so accurate in
>your assessments that it's really wonderful
>that you were able to rush right in and fill
>the opening when God died like that.
This "argument", together with the other ones you indulge along
your posts, and that I ignore, isn't bringing anything useful to
others and they don't affect me in the least. Keep doing them if
you so wish, but they are not to your advantage. Their only
effect is to indicate that you are not really interested in
discussion but more that your are "defending" something.
The need to defend something is, BTW, very indicative of a
cultic mindset. I remember a forcibly deprogrammed guy I
interviewed in California who explained to me that he wasn't
really deprogrammed during his deprogramming, but his
deprogrammers thought so. At that time, as a "sign" that you
were really deprogrammed, you sometimes had to participate in
the forcible deprogramming of others, and so he did. It is only
then that he really got "deprogrammed", because he saw how these
other people "defended" their doctrines, doctrines that for him
had no value. He then realized that he likewise defended himself
so desperately against something that maybe wasn't really that
worth after all...
As a matter of fact, I had a similar experience. When I read Ted
Patrick's book, I was still in Scn. What stroke me was that I
could identify myself fully with the people that so desperately
defended their doctrine. Obviously, I didn't view Moon's
doctrine as anything valuable at all, quite on the contrary, and
still these people where defending themselves in probably the
same way I would in such a circumstance. I had a similar
realization as the one above: maybe what I held as an absolute,
what was for me my whole eternal future, was maybe nothing else
than just that: a belief, a belief that may have just as much
validity as the Moon doctrine, which obviously for me had none.
Since then I also became wary when I found myself defending
something. What is there to defend? Either something is true or
not, and why should I hold desperately on something that may not
be true?
Bernie
Kurt Arbuckle
aim...@world.std.com wrote:
insinuation. That is why he did it. That is even more tragically sad.
Kurt
Richard
Steve A wrote:
>
> On Wed, 30 Apr 1997 06:49:22 GMT, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>
> >
> > I am familiar with the type of support that is being offered by
> > the anti-cult faction. I consider it to be fallacious. I am not
> > determining anything - that's just my opinion. I have expanded
> > this in many posts already. Further, anyone can read what is
> > going on in the alt.support.ex-cult and see for themselves.
>
>
> What gives YOU the right to trample the activities of others ?
>
Bernie is ex GO/OSA. By joining that/those organisations he showed that
he wasn't interested in anyone's rights, he just wanted to trample on
them for his own miserable attention-seeking purposes.
Now that he has no group to applaud his efforts in that direction, he
resorts to this ng in his attempt to pursue that same pitiable end.
tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
>> Likewise anyone who equates TM to Heaven's Gate in any way is sadly
>> way off course, too.
Aren't you the bozos who think you're "levitating"?
Rango Keshavan
No, we're the bozos who think levitation is possible, but we certainly
aren't bozo enough to think we're levitating!!!
Steve A
On 1 May 1997 12:28:01 -0700, inF...@primenet.com (Rev. Dennis L
Erlich) wrote:
> >sk...@comcat.com:
>
> to Bernie:
> >After reading the latest postings in alt.support.ex-cult, I doubt if any
> >ex-cult member would feel safe opening up about their experiences here.
> >Perhaps this is the desired result you and the others posting from
> >a.r.s. have been working towards.
>
> It's very rude for people who don't even believe that cultic
> manipulation exists, or that recovery from such abuse should be
> supported, to be posting to a newsgroup explicitly dedicated to
> supporting such recovery.
Rude. Yes, I like that. It's so easy, with affidavits, Requests for
Production of Things, court orders and ho'grams flying around the
place to see things in an overly mechanistic way.
But you're right. Bernie's insistence on posting the sort of attacks
on people who are just trying to perform a service is rude, in the way
that a spoiled two-year-old brat who kicks the shins of old ladies in
the checkout queue is rude.
Hmm. Bernie. The Rude Child.
> But that is a typical cult tactic designed to stifle criticism.
As well as being rude.
Bernie
Richard <Abb...@arscc.com> wrote:
>Bernie is ex GO/OSA. By joining that/those organisations he showed that
>he wasn't interested in anyone's rights, he just wanted to trample on
>them for his own miserable attention-seeking purposes.
So, I am not a poor mind-less innocent victim anymore? How
convenient...
Bernie
Bernie
tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu () wrote:
>>> Likewise anyone who equates TM to Heaven's Gate in any way is sadly
>>> way off course, too.
>Aren't you the bozos who think you're "levitating"?
Ah, great. I hope we'll have the pleasure to read Judy Stein
again in here. Don't forget to crosspost in
alt.religion.scientology, Judy. Well, this isn't exactly on
topic in here (although...), but we could do with some extra
clear-thinking in this NG. After all, TM has been insulted in
all these newsgroups, so it makes sense to correct them in all
theses newsgroups as well :-)
Bernie
Bernie
ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk (Steve A) wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Apr 1997 06:49:22 GMT, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>> Didn't you yourself post ramblings about the COS in an alt.comp
>> newsgroup, Steve? Now that's for sure is most relevant... Or are
>> you defining "relevant" as something that suits your one-sided
>> crusade and "irrelevant" anything that may contradict it?
>I endeavour to make sure that every group in the Newsgroups: line is
>valid. Occasionally I forget to check where a post to which I am
>responding is being crossposted to; sometimes it is difficult to
>establish where in the list of groups a poster is posting from.
>However, when this is pointed out to me, I invariably restrict
>X-posts.
My my my, you sure would benefit from a little bit of memory
improvement session from one of the cults, Stevie.
I can hardly belief that you can cover what you did in the
comp.sys.acorn.misc newsgroup with such a lame pretext as
"occasionally I forget to check where a post to which I am
responding is being crossposted to". What you did was nothing
less than the disgusting act of trying to smear and discredit
the editor of a computer magazine in the middle of the newsgroup
he was posting to, for no better reason that he was a
Scientologist.
Forgot it all already? Then I need to refresh your memory with
some of the reactions you encountered in there:
"how can you critise the methods of the CoS when you are
advocating similar yourself? To anyone here in
c.s.a.misc you are ridiculous."
"Tell me, those of you on alt.religion.scientology, do
rants against individual scientologists usually spill
over into newsgroups where a substantial number of
people:
a) Know the individual personally
b) Frequently see postings from the individual
c) Have read editorials and articles by the individual
for about the last ten years without noticing *any*
bias towards scientological viewpoints"
"If he doesn't use his position to promote his views
(and he doesn't), then his beliefs or affiliation are
*not* relevant to us. We are certainly *not* justified
in withdrawing support from Acorn User."
You even made the incredible blunder to "know better" the status
of the people in a newsgroup that you obvious never read. You
said:
"> I doubt it very much. You really aren't that
important, you know.
No? Given that Steve Turnbull succeeded me at Acorn User
(and you seem to consider him fair game) I'd like to
know how you make that decision. ;-)
(Well, actually I wouldn't, which is why I've deleted
c.s.a.misc from the newsgroup list. Come back when
you've learned to argue ;-)."
Your bigoted action of course had the exact reverse effect than
the one you expected. Seems people in there are able to see
through games such as yours rather well - fortunately:
"it might cause some people to think: "Well if
*Steve Turnbull's* a scientologist, perhaps it's not so
bad after all." "
Even the guy who started it all apologized and said:
I've never met Steve [Turnbull], he's probably a great
person - I can see that he has many friends here.
I was surprised to read the extract from Steve
[Turnbull]'s editorial about censorship. It contrasts
with the actions of the CoS in trying to muzzle a.r.s,"
And your trip in this newsgroup had another positive effect: it
provided me with an excellent .sig from someone describing your
action.
"All bigots are unequal, but some are more unequal than
others."
>What I do NOT do is to go off at the poster who pointed my
>error out, insist that if he doesn't want MY posts in HIS newsgroup,
>he'd better damn well find himself a new one with a watertight
>charter, or leave Usenet altogether.
No, of course you don't...
>There IS a difference, Bernie, though I doubt that you will ever see
>it. It's called "common courtesy".
How did you say it's called again?
Bernie
William O. West
Stever and Kimipeli wrote:
...
> Rango Keshavan wrote:
....
> > Stever and Kimipeli wrote:
.....
> > > I hope that you are not in some way insinuating that
> > > Buddhism is some sort of a "cult" to be grouped in
> > > with TM or Heaven's Gate??
There are some people who feel, strongly, that there
are and/or have been "destructive cults" which called
them selves "Buddhists," or groups of Buddhists who
behaved reprehensibly.
.
I opine that the old 'est' training and the Japanese
Perfect Liberty Kyodan are harmless organizations
with some of their roots in Buddhism, and that both
organizations did and do more good than harm. On the
other hand, I was told that Nichiren Shoshu was expelled
from a world Buddhist organization and I consider the
act of making Buddhism the state religion of Sri Lanka
to have been unskillful.
MoonOwl
On Sat, 03 May 1997 09:56:58 -0400, Rango Keshavan
<ra...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>
>tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu wrote:
>>
>> >> Likewise anyone who equates TM to Heaven's Gate in any way is sadly
>> >> way off course, too.
>>
>> Aren't you the bozos who think you're "levitating"?
Tom (still not sure how to decipher this viewer, so I'm not sure, is
this Tom?
>No, we're the bozos who think levitation is possible, but we certainly
>aren't bozo enough to think we're levitating!!!
>
Are you talking about physically, or mentaly, or physicly, or all 3?
MoonOwl wondering
Rango Keshavan
MoonOwl wrote:
> Are you talking about physically, or mentaly, or physicly, or all 3?
>
> MoonOwl wondering
Physically... Don't know rightly if it is possible, but the technique
that is practiced, which is a Yoga Sutra (It's called the Yogic Flying),
("discovered" by Maharishi Patanjali back in the age old days), does
cause the body to hop, very physically, which is what was demostrated
on the tape that the other guy (Tom?) referred to. It's actually a
very energizing, invigorating, and spiritually cleansing experience,
at least on my part (and, I might add, thousands of others).
Rango
MoonOwl
On Sat, 03 May 1997 21:09:08 -0400, Rango Keshavan
<ra...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>
>MoonOwl wrote:
>
>> Are you talking about physically, or mentaly, or physicly, or all 3?
>>
>> MoonOwl wondering
Rango:
>Physically... Don't know rightly if it is possible, but the technique
>that is practiced, which is a Yoga Sutra (It's called the Yogic Flying),
>("discovered" by Maharishi Patanjali back in the age old days), does
>cause the body to hop, very physically, which is what was demostrated
>on the tape that the other guy (Tom?) referred to. It's actually a
>very energizing, invigorating, and spiritually cleansing experience,
>at least on my part (and, I might add, thousands of others).
>
You are saying that it is a very energizing, invigorating, and
spiritually cleansing on your part and yet you dont know rightly if it
is possible?
Here is where I went today. Not my body, but I was surely there.
(This is the background so you know what I did that caused my
experience.)
First I did an hour of dimoku..(.I am currently on a dimoku campaign
because I am trying to over come some major problems that I have in my
life at the moment. )
Then I did gongyo. First prayer turning to the east because that is
supposed to be the 'begining' - sun rising - begining of day - etc.
(I'm sure David can tell you exactally why we face the east) Anyway,
I have been told by senior members that after the first prayer, the
buddhist gods join behind you. So you finish the other prayers with
the gods behind you.
As I was chanting Nam-Myho-Renge-Kyo, a flash sort of entered my mind
and I let it stay there so I could take a better look at it. I was
chanting about all these things and for people, when it seemed that I
was presenting (as one of them) these things to all the 'council' (a
council is the only thing I can aquaint it to) All the Buddas sitting
around in a circle, and I was making a presentation.
That was all, but then I started gongyo, and it sort of came together
for me what everyone had been trying to tell me about all the Buddas
gathering behind me.
As David says, it is clear to me that as we chant, we too become
Buddas. And because we are, the other Buddas (which are simply the
forces of the universe) gather to protect us and guide us in order
that we may find/seek the right path.
Buddhism is so many things wraped up in one word...wisdom is one of
them. It gives you the wisdom to find/seek the right path for you.
Anyway, I sort of got off subject, but would a 'vision' or just a
'knowing' that you are somewhere other than the room that you are in,
be considered an 'out-of-body' experience?
MoonOwl
sk...@comcat.com
Richard,
Thanks for your interpretation as to Bernie's motives. I have been at a
loss to understand why he continues to bait this NG with issues that
have been debated adnauseum.
Laurenn
Bernie wrote:
Richard wrote:
>
> Steve A wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 30 Apr 1997 06:49:22 GMT, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I am familiar with the type of support that is being offered by
> > > the anti-cult faction. I consider it to be fallacious. I am not
> > > determining anything - that's just my opinion. I have expanded
> > > this in many posts already. Further, anyone can read what is
> > > going on in the alt.support.ex-cult and see for themselves.
> >
> >
> > What gives YOU the right to trample the activities of others ?
> >
> Bernie is ex GO/OSA. By joining that/those organisations he showed that
> he wasn't interested in anyone's rights, he just wanted to trample on
> them for his own miserable attention-seeking purposes.
>
Bernie
moo...@idt.net (MoonOwl) wrote:
>Anyway, I sort of got off subject
Are you sure? I don't know. I think that the gongyo dimoku
chanting Nam-Myho-Renge-Kyo certainly does have a relevance in
this thread.
Bernie
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <5ke42i$2...@news.jhu.edu>,
>>> Likewise anyone who equates TM to Heaven's Gate in any way is sadly
>>> way off course, too.
>
>Aren't you the bozos who think you're "levitating"?
bum-bouncers; cushion-pilots.
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on alt.religion.scientology *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |___&_http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk_________________________|/_______| L
/clam/lynx/q0.html I plonked the Witch of Zun.
Rango Keshavan
> You are saying that it is a very energizing, invigorating, and
> spiritually cleansing on your part and yet you dont know rightly if it
> is possible?
I personally have never seen anyone levitate, nor have I experienced
it. I have heard of others who have, and of course countless stories
through time that people have, so I "believe" it is possible. The
sensation that I experience with the Sutra is catagorized as hopping,
which is not levitation in the sense that we generally think of it.
However, it isn't me making myself hop in the standard sense, either,
but something else, which originates from something much deeper than
my willing myself to hop.
Rango Keshavan
Stever and Kimipeli wrote:
> Actually, I don't group those things together. I was just wondering
> about the motives of a posting about cultism to a Buddhist newsgroup.
> It seemed like kind of an insinuation.
>
> Peace,
>
> Stever
The originator of the post does equate TM and Heaven's Gate, and
Jamestown, amongst others. In his mind (and his many of his associates
at trancenet), they feel that people involved with TM are so blind
that they would go and do something like those other souls did.
I've been involved with TM for 18 years, practicing it, lived at a
center for a couple years, have attended many resident courses,
including advanced lessons (TM-Sidhis), and I think that they are way
off base. My feeling is that they are so taken-over by their misgivings
of TM that they see ghosts where-ever they look, including many of
the variousl subject areas they cross posted to.
The sad thing is that folks who share their way of thinking have messed
up the TM newsgroup something terrible for years, so thank your
stars that when this thread dies, it will vanish from your group, but
we TMers have to deal with this kind of nonsense (I termed it Knapp
nonsense) all the time, incessantly.
Rango
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
>Rango Keshavan <ra...@ultranet.com>:
>I personally have never seen anyone levitate, nor have I experienced
>it. I have heard of others who have, and of course countless stories
>through time that people have, so I "believe" it is possible. The
>sensation that I experience with the Sutra is catagorized as hopping,
>which is not levitation in the sense that we generally think of it.
>However, it isn't me making myself hop in the standard sense, either,
>but something else, which originates from something much deeper than
>my willing myself to hop.
Perhaps you can will yourself to levitate this thread TF out of
alt.support.ex-cult?
Thanks in advance.
Dennis
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
>moo...@idt.net (MoonOwl):
[snipt - description of current religious practice]
>Anyway, I sort of got off subject, but would a 'vision' or just a
>'knowing' that you are somewhere other than the room that you are in,
>be considered an 'out-of-body' experience?
MoonOwl,
Since you are neither an ex-cultist, nor are you seeking support in
recovery from same, would you mind trimming alt.support.ex-cult out of
your post next time?
Thanks in advance.
Dennis
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
>Rango Keshavan <ra...@ultranet.com>:
>The originator of the post does equate TM and Heaven's Gate, and
>Jamestown, amongst others.
I don't know about TM, but Waco, Aum, Jonestown and Heaven's Gate
do have some striking similarities. Don't you think?
>In his mind (and his many of his associates
>at trancenet), they feel that people involved with TM are so blind
>that they would go and do something like those other souls did.
Nobody thought the others would do it, either. And not all the
members did.
>I've been involved with TM for 18 years, practicing it, lived at a
>center for a couple years, have attended many resident courses,
>including advanced lessons (TM-Sidhis), and I think that they are way
>off base.
Since you are clearly not an ex-cultist, Rango, I don't understand
why you are disrupting alt.support.ex-cult with your postings.
>My feeling is that they are so taken-over by their misgivings
>of TM that they see ghosts where-ever they look, including many of
>the variousl subject areas they cross posted to.
<chuckle> Dint you bother to notice where you cross-posted this?
>The sad thing is that folks who share their way of thinking have messed
>up the TM newsgroup something terrible for years,
If a post is ~about~ TM, be it positive or negative, it belongs in
the TM newsgroup. It doesn't belong in alt.support.ex-cult if it
doesn't support recovery from a cult. Geddit?
>so thank your
>stars that when this thread dies, it will vanish from your group, but
>we TMers have to deal with this kind of nonsense (I termed it Knapp
>nonsense) all the time, incessantly.
Ever heard of trimming off-topic newsgroups yourself, Rango?
Dennis
Steve A
On Sat, 03 May 1997 19:45:50 GMT, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
> ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk (Steve A) wrote:
> >On Wed, 30 Apr 1997 06:49:22 GMT, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>
> >> Didn't you yourself post ramblings about the COS in an alt.comp
> >> newsgroup, Steve? Now that's for sure is most relevant... Or are
> >> you defining "relevant" as something that suits your one-sided
> >> crusade and "irrelevant" anything that may contradict it?
>
> >I endeavour to make sure that every group in the Newsgroups: line is
> >valid. Occasionally I forget to check where a post to which I am
> >responding is being crossposted to; sometimes it is difficult to
> >establish where in the list of groups a poster is posting from.
> >However, when this is pointed out to me, I invariably restrict
> >X-posts.
>
> My my my, you sure would benefit from a little bit of memory
> improvement session from one of the cults, Stevie.
>
> I can hardly belief that you can cover what you did in the
> comp.sys.acorn.misc newsgroup with such a lame pretext as
> "occasionally I forget to check where a post to which I am
> responding is being crossposted to". What you did was nothing
> less than the disgusting act of trying to smear and discredit
> the editor of a computer magazine in the middle of the newsgroup
> he was posting to, for no better reason that he was a
> Scientologist.
If, instead of making snide references like some cultist DA merchant,
then perhaps we could have established exactly what you were on about,
and got on with discussing it. Still, old habits die hard, eh, Bernie?
First of all, I had nothing to do with the initiation of that debate,
so your characterisation of my postings to the thread as "the
disgusting act of trying to smear and discredit the editor of a
computer magazine in the middle of the newsgroup he was posting to,
for no better reason that he was a Scientologist." falls at the first
hurdle.
Secondly, I made no claims in that thread that I was not prepared to
stand behind. I don't recall the exact debate, and I'm not
particularly interested in going back to dejanews and dredging it up
for your benefit, but as I recall my views were that, personally
speaking, I'd be highly reluctant to be handing over my hard-earned
cash, not to mention my name and address if I were a subscriber, to an
organisation in which a Scientologist played a leading role. AIR, as
the discussion progressed, we discovered that the Scieno wasn't the
owner, but the editor. I would hope that I moderated my position
slightly on that basis, but would imagine that I was still in favour
of the man's connection to the cult having being made known, as I
would today. For the record, I firmly support Germany's stand on
Scientologist-owned companies as a useful piece of consumer protection
aside from any other benefits it might have.
I cannot see anything in what I, or anyone else in that thread for
that matter, did or said that could be called a "disgusting act".
> Forgot it all already? Then I need to refresh your memory with
> some of the reactions you encountered in there:
I'm not going to quote every selective quote that Bernie has snipped
from the thread: his posting is recent enough that you should have it
on your spool. Suffice it to say that a series of unattributed
fragments, with no indication as to who said them, nor what they were
being said in response to, is hardly a useful tool in furthering
debate. I would also observe that, in addition to the critical
reactions which did occur, there were also plenty of favourable ones.
But then, you wouldn't want to be furthering the enemy line, would
you, Bernie?
[testimonials snipped]
> You even made the incredible blunder to "know better" the status
> of the people in a newsgroup that you obvious never read. You
> said:
>
> "> I doubt it very much. You really aren't that
> important, you know.
Another completely out-of-context quote. This remark is so out of
character for me that I am almost tempted to fire up the modem and
take a look. But then I'm not really sure I can be bothered: something
tells me that you, Bernie, aren't going to make any bigger dents in my
credibility than I could manage.
[more selective editing snipped]
> >What I do NOT do is to go off at the poster who pointed my
> >error out, insist that if he doesn't want MY posts in HIS newsgroup,
> >he'd better damn well find himself a new one with a watertight
> >charter, or leave Usenet altogether.
>
> No, of course you don't...
Are you contesting my point? If so, let's see some more of your
"evidence" for my evil and bigotry.
> >There IS a difference, Bernie, though I doubt that you will ever see
> >it. It's called "common courtesy".
>
> How did you say it's called again?
Common courtesy. I don't expect you to get it first time.
Steve A
On Fri, 02 May 1997 23:29:11 -0700, Richard <Abb...@arscc.com> wrote:
>
> Steve A wrote:
> >
> Bernie is ex GO/OSA. By joining that/those organisations he showed that
> he wasn't interested in anyone's rights, he just wanted to trample on
> them for his own miserable attention-seeking purposes.
Sure, but as he is (apparently) an ex-member, I was prepared to give
him the benefit of the doubt.
> Now that he has no group to applaud his efforts in that direction, he
> resorts to this ng in his attempt to pursue that same pitiable end.
So it would seem.
Salmon G. Eddingtton
Stever and Kimipeli wrote:
>
> I certainly can agree with many of the things you are saying here, but I
> in some way insinuating that Buddhism is some sort of a "cult" to be
> If so, you are sadly way off course, and certainly speaking to the wrong
> group.
>
>
> Stever
all deist/theist are cults, must follow the leader, noise to tail
Salmon G. Eddingtton
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------F84A135BBE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
All deist/theist are cult members following the leader nose to tail
--------------F84A135BBE
Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="Atagit.wps"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Atagit.wps"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--------------F84A135BBE--
aim...@world.std.com
moo...@idt.net (MoonOwl) originally posted a:
> [snipt - description of current religious practice]
Rev. Dennis L Erlich <inF...@primenet.com> wrote:
> Since you are neither an ex-cultist, nor are you seeking support in
>recovery from same, would you mind trimming alt.support.ex-cult out of
>your post next time?
I find this a fairly interesting reply from someone who signs
himself "Rev." Now let me see if I got this straight: if one
has a "current religious practice," then one cannot be either
an ex-"cultist" or "seeking support."
Sorry I misunderstood. I was somehow under the impression that
one could pay one's dues in a cultish spiritual environment and
yet walk away still having an intense respect for the spiritual,
and still having a spiritual practice...just one's own.
Thank you, Rev, for pointing out the error of my ways. I now
realize that the truly evolved and hip way to emerge from a
cult is to become a sour, embittered old man and attempt to make
a.s.e-c a "safe haven" for that, and *only* that viewpoint.
Of course, I was never either very evolved or hip, so you'll
forgive me if I view the situation differently. The way it
looked to me, a fairly sour old man from a.s.e-c *created* the
post that spawned this thread, and *he* spammed it to all the
newsgroups in the header. If some of the people in those groups
or this one feel that the view of spirituality he expressed is
not thiers, and followup with less than sour experiences of
their own, well, learn to live with 'em, sucker. The same way
they have learned, rather gracefully I might add, to live with you.
Bernie
sk...@comcat.com wrote:
>Richard,
>Thanks for your interpretation as to Bernie's motives. I have been at a
>loss to understand why he continues to bait this NG with issues that
>have been debated adnauseum.
Eh, and now you "understand," don't you Laurenn? Just as you
"understand" the issue of cults interpretated for you in terms
mind-control...
Bernie
sk...@comcat.com
>>Skye wrote:
>Bernie wrote:
>>A well known psychiatrist and a psychologist went undercover to study
>>the cult I was in. They both concluded that the leader of the group used
>>strong hypnosis techniques as well as techniques that were mentally
>>abusive. The psychiatrist had a psychotic break the evening after his
>>visit. He had to be hospitalized. You might conclude that the
>>psychiatrist was bound to have a psychotic break anyway. I don't
>>subscribe to this.
>I am sorry to say, but this is ridiculous. A psychiatrist having
>a psychotic break the next day when thousands other "normal"
>youngster don't have such even after years?
Bernie,
This is a fact! Your saying that it is ridiculous shows just how very
narrow minded you are. The "thousands of other normal youngsters" in the
cult are still there in the group as, imo slaves to the guru. The few
people that attempted to leave the group while I was a member did not
leave with ease. One man died while trying to leave, his death is being
investigated. Another man, a young promising attorney, left and is now
homeless in NYC. His family called me for help, saying he hasn't spoken
one coherent sentence since leaving the group. A woman who left needed
years of therapy to function again. And myself, who suffered far more
than I will ever share with you.
Laugh all you want Bernie. Deny all you want. Perhaps one of your
children need to "crack" in a cult for you to ever believe any of this.
>Tomorrow I will infiltrate the boy-scout association and have a
>psychotic break to prove they are really a cult and use
>mind-control techniques...
Cute Bernie
sk...@comcat.com
For the record:
I searched thru my past posts and did find one where I mentioned mind
control. Just didn't remember doing so. I still assert that the issue of
mind control was never "interpreted for me" by anyone. I have a mind of
my own now, thankfully, and can actually interpret issues for myself.
L.
sk...@comcat.com wrote:
>
> Bernie wrote:
>
> > Eh, and now you "understand," don't you Laurenn? Just as you
> > "understand" the issue of cults interpretated for you in terms
> > mind-control...
>
> Bernie,
>
> So we meet again. When did I ever say that cults were interpreted for me
> in terms of "mind control?" Furthermore, in what post did I say that I
> was a victim of cult mind control? Why do you continue to bring up mind
> control in this newsgroup post after post?
>
> Laurenn
Bernie
>> [snipt - description of current religious practice]
>Rev. Dennis L Erlich <inF...@primenet.com> wrote:
>> Since you are neither an ex-cultist, nor are you seeking support in
>>recovery from same, would you mind trimming alt.support.ex-cult out of
>>your post next time?
>I find this a fairly interesting reply from someone who signs
>himself "Rev." Now let me see if I got this straight: if one
>has a "current religious practice," then one cannot be either
>an ex-"cultist" or "seeking support."
>Sorry I misunderstood. I was somehow under the impression that
>one could pay one's dues in a cultish spiritual environment and
>yet walk away still having an intense respect for the spiritual,
>and still having a spiritual practice...just one's own.
Right!
>Thank you, Rev, for pointing out the error of my ways. I now
>realize that the truly evolved and hip way to emerge from a
>cult is to become a sour, embittered old man and attempt to make
>a.s.e-c a "safe haven" for that, and *only* that viewpoint.
You have made an *excellent* assessment - well done!
>Of course, I was never either very evolved or hip, so you'll
>forgive me if I view the situation differently. The way it
>looked to me, a fairly sour old man from a.s.e-c *created* the
>post that spawned this thread, and *he* spammed it to all the
>newsgroups in the header. If some of the people in those groups
>or this one feel that the view of spirituality he expressed is
>not thiers, and followup with less than sour experiences of
>their own, well, learn to live with 'em, sucker. The same way
>they have learned, rather gracefully I might add, to live with you.
Expect massive flame from the "Rev."
Bernie
starshadow
moo...@idt.net (MoonOwl) wrote:
>On Sat, 03 May 1997 21:09:08 -0400, Rango Keshavan
><ra...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>>
>>MoonOwl wrote:
>>
>>> Are you talking about physically, or mentaly, or physicly, or all 3?
>>>
>>> MoonOwl wondering
>Rango:
>>Physically... Don't know rightly if it is possible, but the technique
>>that is practiced, which is a Yoga Sutra (It's called the Yogic Flying),
>>("discovered" by Maharishi Patanjali back in the age old days), does
>>cause the body to hop, very physically, which is what was demostrated
>>on the tape that the other guy (Tom?) referred to. It's actually a
>>very energizing, invigorating, and spiritually cleansing experience,
>>at least on my part (and, I might add, thousands of others).
>>
>You are saying that it is a very energizing, invigorating, and
>spiritually cleansing on your part and yet you dont know rightly if it
>is possible?
>Here is where I went today. Not my body, but I was surely there.
>(This is the background so you know what I did that caused my
>experience.)
>First I did an hour of dimoku..(.I am currently on a dimoku campaign
>because I am trying to over come some major problems that I have in my
>life at the moment. )
You mean daimoku. I used to chant too. It is very rhythimnic and
can produce a kind of "self-hypnosis" for lack of a better word.
>Then I did gongyo. First prayer turning to the east because that is
>supposed to be the 'begining' - sun rising - begining of day - etc.
>(I'm sure David can tell you exactally why we face the east) Anyway,
>I have been told by senior members that after the first prayer, the
>buddhist gods join behind you. So you finish the other prayers with
>the gods behind you.
>As I was chanting Nam-Myho-Renge-Kyo, a flash sort of entered my mind
>and I let it stay there so I could take a better look at it. I was
>chanting about all these things and for people, when it seemed that I
>was presenting (as one of them) these things to all the 'council' (a
>council is the only thing I can aquaint it to) All the Buddas sitting
>around in a circle, and I was making a presentation.
This kind of experience isn't uncommon, but I think it's more of
a meditative technique the mind engages in than true out of body
experiences. In NSA, now SGI, teachings, we are all Buddhas waiting
to realize it and daimoku, chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo is the way to
realize that Buddha-awareness. It's one way, I think, like all
religious practices, but not the only way.
In other words there are other ways to acheve the goal of
spiritual awakening.
>That was all, but then I started gongyo, and it sort of came together
>for me what everyone had been trying to tell me about all the Buddas
>gathering behind me.
>As David says, it is clear to me that as we chant, we too become
>Buddas. And because we are, the other Buddas (which are simply the
>forces of the universe) gather to protect us and guide us in order
>that we may find/seek the right path.
>Buddhism is so many things wraped up in one word...wisdom is one of
>them. It gives you the wisdom to find/seek the right path for you.
>Anyway, I sort of got off subject, but would a 'vision' or just a
>'knowing' that you are somewhere other than the room that you are in,
>be considered an 'out-of-body' experience?
Sorta-kinda. Hard to explain, English is pretty deficient in
language for these kinds of experiences.
Someone who is purely into science could call it self-deception,
but I think it is a bit more than that...a trying to put into terms
one's mind can understand, a spiritual knowing that English is
deficient in.
>MoonOwl
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow star...@aa.net
"Feminism: the radical notion that women are people, too."
Bernie
sk...@comcat.com wrote:
>Bernie,
>So we meet again.
So it seems, but you invited me :-)
>When did I ever say that cults were interpreted for me
>in terms of "mind control?" Furthermore, in what post did I say that I
>was a victim of cult mind control?
I think we discussed this on the last post already, but since I
don't have that much time to search back archives, I will admit
that I don't know enough off hand about your viewpoint to assert
anything on the subject. I may have read something you posted,
or I may have mixed you with someone else, it's possible.
>Why do you continue to bring up mind
>control in this newsgroup post after post?
If you are not interpreting cult experience in terms of mind
control, then you probably are an exception among anticultists
(if you are one at all). I probably received this impression
from the content of your answer, but maybe I did make a wrong
assumption. I don't know - yet.
Now I will answer your question.
If you may recall, I was not the one who brought the question of
mind-control in this thread. I just joined it in the middle of
discussion about it, and since I didn't know all the background,
I had no way to know whether the crossposting was there for a
good reason or not, so I let it in place.
By all means, independently of this, I do think that questions
of mind-control are relevant in a newsgroup dealing with cults.
Not that I think that cult involvement can be explained that
way, as you know, but unless you have been completely
disconnected from the cult/anticult issue, you know very well
that it is a question that is at the core of the anticult
arguments. What is wrong, then, of it being discussed? Or can it
only be discussed when everyone agree on the same view about it,
but when some other question its validity, then all of a sudden
it isn't relevant anymore?
Bernie
MoonOwl
MoonOwl wondering:
>>>
>>>> Are you talking about physically, or mentaly, or physicly, or all 3?
>>>>
>>Rango:
>>>Physically... Don't know rightly if it is possible, but the technique
>>>that is practiced, which is a Yoga Sutra (It's called the Yogic Flying),
>>>("discovered" by Maharishi Patanjali back in the age old days), does
>>>cause the body to hop, very physically, which is what was demostrated
>>>on the tape that the other guy (Tom?) referred to. It's actually a
>>>very energizing, invigorating, and spiritually cleansing experience,
>>>at least on my part (and, I might add, thousands of others).
>>>
MoonOwl
>>You are saying that it is a very energizing, invigorating, and
>>spiritually cleansing on your part and yet you dont know rightly if it
>>is possible?
>>Here is where I went today. Not my body, but I was surely there.
>
- snip-
>
>>First I did an hour of dimoku..
Starshadow:
> You mean daimoku. I used to chant too. It is very rhythimnic and
>can produce a kind of "self-hypnosis" for lack of a better word.
Yes, sorry if my spelling isn't up to par. You can expect more of
that from me. ")
Moonowl
-snip-
>
>>As I was chanting Nam-Myho-Renge-Kyo, a flash sort of entered my mind
>>and I let it stay there so I could take a better look at it. I was
>>chanting about all these things and for people, when it seemed that I
>>was presenting (as one of them) these things to all the 'council' (a
>>council is the only thing I can aquaint it to) All the Buddas sitting
>>around in a circle, and I was making a presentation.
Starshadow:
> This kind of experience isn't uncommon, but I think it's more of
>a meditative technique the mind engages in than true out of body
>experiences. In NSA, now SGI, teachings, we are all Buddhas waiting
>to realize it and daimoku, chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo is the way to
>realize that Buddha-awareness. It's one way, I think, like all
>religious practices, but not the only way.
> In other words there are other ways to acheve the goal of
>spiritual awakening.
MoonOwl story:
I want to comment on your last statement, but 1st a little story.
I bought a book a long long time ago called "The Lotus Sutra",
translated by Burton Watson. I bought it because I was saying
portions of the Lotus Sutra every time I did gongyo, only not in
english which is the only language I am familiar with. I wanted to
know what it meant and was excited when this book finally appeared in
our book store.
Anyway...I had started to read it, and kept the book on my headboard.
My dogs decided to check it out too. They took it into the back yard
(we have a dog door) and proceeded to digest it as only a dog could.
I retrieved my once beautiful hard bound book, in a very very terrible
condition, but all the pages were still there so I kept it, also
feeling that I couldn't just 'throw away' a copy of the Lotus Sutra.
My thinking was that I would just buy a new one! No problem..
Money has always been a problem in our household, but has always
seemed to be there when we needed it. I continually stoped into the
book store and whenever I had the money the book was not there. When
I 'didn't' have the money, there it was just sitting there on the
shelf big as life. BTW this book was published in 1993 and I
purchased it as soon as it became available in our store, so I has
been years.
In my 'everything happens for a reason' mind, I finally interpreted
all this to mean, that I should go ahead and read it even in its
present condition. So with encouragement from David, that he is only
now aware of, I began to read it last night.
Finally, I get to your sentence that I wanted to comment on. So far I
have read only the introduction, and it seemed to be saying that yes
there 'are' other ways, but that 'all' ways are included in this
sutra. So by practicing to this sutra, I am including all others.
>>Anyway, I sort of got off subject, but would a 'vision' or just a
>>'knowing' that you are somewhere other than the room that you are in,
>>be considered an 'out-of-body' experience?
Starshadow:
> Sorta-kinda. Hard to explain, English is pretty deficient in
>language for these kinds of experiences.
> Someone who is purely into science could call it self-deception,
>but I think it is a bit more than that...a trying to put into terms
>one's mind can understand, a spiritual knowing that English is
>deficient in.
Thank you Starshadow for commenting on this. I really expected someone
to ask me what drugs I was doing. To be honest, I was not sure if this
was really happening to me or if I was just 'loosing it'. In fact, I
haven't even mentioned any of these experiences to any one face to
face, because I was afraid they would think me a nut case.
While I'm at it, let me share something else that happened to me
yesterday. Yesterday, I attended Kofu Gongyo. For those who may not
know this is a regular thing that happenes every month, and is a
special meeting for world peace, not unusual for me.
All afternoon yesterday, I was bombarded with some kind of (the only
way I can describe it is) 'waves' or 'thoughts', distracting me to the
point again thinking "Is this really happening or am I just imagining
it?"
We were at my sister-in-laws visiting, and I finally just had to make
excuses and leave, because I was incapable of being good company while
these 'waves' kept interupting my conversation and activity.
The whole experience was totaly bazaar, I must say.
I have no idea what/who these 'waves' came from, or why, but I'm
hoping that sometime down the road, I will find the answer to that.
In the mean time, I will continue with my book, and maybe keep you
posted. :)
MoonOwl
ps. I notice that this post will be cross posted (I did it
inadvertantly the first time, responding to someone elses post and not
paying attention, but I'm not sure what group you are in Starshadow,
so while I did eliminate the ex-cult group at someones request, I left
the rest so this would be sure to find you. Anyone else that wants to
be removed, email me and I will take that out as well.
Bryan
Hello I'm five years old and don't understand. Do you?
On Sat, 03 May 1997 09:56:58 -0400, Rango Keshavan
<ra...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu wrote:
>>
>> >> Likewise anyone who equates TM to Heaven's Gate in any way is sadly
>> >> way off course, too.
>>
>> Aren't you the bozos who think you're "levitating"?
>
>No, we're the bozos who think levitation is possible, but we certainly
>aren't bozo enough to think we're levitating!!!
>
>
Christian
It's a cult. Tm, buddism, heaven's gate, jamestown. and waco.
Christian
Anyway you see it, it's a cult. Buddism is a cult and you are
worshipping
false gods.
Richard Menninger
Christian wrote:
> Anyway you see it, it's a cult. Buddism is a cult and you are
> worshipping
> false gods.
You have been brainwashed, possibly reinforced with
special drugs. There has been a bit of that in a
variety of Christian circles, though by no means
limited to those circles.
You are following a cult, and your god is false in
the sense that he (this one was a he in his last
human life) is not the creator nor a god in the
way there actually are gods!
You also do not have the slightest notion of what
buddhism actually is. It is how to cut through
any and all such confusion and all can do that.
You are so stuck on the idea of worship in the
sense of degenerating spirituality into just a
game of celestial politics, of who you know instead
of what you already are in spite of your incidental
obscurations. WAKE UP!
Take care of yourself
Dick
rmenn...@lucent.com
Richard Menninger
Christian wrote:
> It's a cult. Tm, buddism, heaven's gate, jamestown. and waco.
See my previous post, you mindless bonehead.
Some people are so out of it that you have to
hit them real hard to have a shot at getting
through to them. You are such a totally
confused person. Hitting such a person real
hard is the most compassionate thing you can
do with them. WAKE UP!
Robert Cholette
Hey,
I dont know who your god is but I can promise that he/she is not still
alive, rose from the grave, or gave thier life for you. But I know an
almighty Jehovah who is my all in all. And when I make mistakes (believe
me I make them) he is always able to forgive me. No matter what! I don't
think you will give this a second thought, but take it for what you will
you just sound like someone who is hardened and looking for a challenge
or somthing so if you have and questions mail me at rc...@juno.com
Robert Cholette
Richard Menninger
I got the e-mail first and did not know
you had posted this, as well. Since you
did post it, I will respond in the public
forum exactly as I responded in private:
Robert Cholette wrote:
> Hey,
> I dont know who your god is
I have gotten beyond that bit of foolishness, actually.
The theistic traditions tried real hard and sometimes
in a very dirty way, but it did not hold up at all.
Blind views fall apart under full inspection.
> but I can promise that he/she is not still
> alive, rose from the grave, or gave thier life for you. But I know an
> almighty Jehovah who is my all in all.
Good luck. He talks to you (you did say you know him)?
But it sounds like a big game of projection to me. You
might have even had some special drug assisted mind rape.
There are some such drugs that make you totally suseptable
to others and when combined with hypnotic techniques can
do quite a number on you. You can put a dent in those with
enough meditation practice and get beyond such dominance
games. If you don't think such drugs exist, there was an
article in the Wall Street Journal (front page center column)
about a year and a half ago on a crude form of drug that is
used by South American criminals to prey on business visitors
to Columbia. These drugs have been around since the early
sixties but have become more refined (less side-effects so
that there is less possibility of discovery).
> And when I make mistakes (believe
> me I make them) he is always able to forgive me. No matter what!
It sounds like a lot more projection to me.
> I don't
> think you will give this a second thought, but take it for what you will
> you just sound like someone who is hardened
No, the process of genuine spiritual development
is one of softening, actually, and that is what
I have been doing. It is much more direct and
genuine than imagining some big bopper being.
But if you mean that I have practiced a lot and
have seen that the stuff actually works and is
quite valid, then that is true. Conviction based
on those results is unassailable by theistic babble.
> and looking for a challenge
Relating directly to the moment without ever
embellishing or supressing is a thorough but
very genuine challenge. The consequences of
doing that are surprising. But I know in a
very direct way that the thesitic stuff is babble.
> or somthing so if you have and questions mail me at rc...@juno.com
>
> Robert Cholette
So, no, I don't have questions that you seem
qualified to help with, but do you have some?
Good luck in your spiritual pursuits. Yours
are based on blindness so that is the best I
can do for you right now. But I always wish
people success and mean it. Spiritual development
is inherently an individual personal effort and
that is the true source of individual human rights.
You are responsible for your mistakes. Good luck!
Richard Menninger
Bernie wrote:
> Richard Menninger <r...@winner.lc.lucent.com> wrote:
...
> >is one of softening, actually, and that is what
> >I have been doing.
Well Pema Chodron and others do a better job than
I ever will on discussing this rather surprising
phenomenon. But you can look at it like this.
A most basic trait of all of our neurotic patterns
is that they are trying to solidify anything they
can find as part of the strategy of trying to shore
up the mistaken and unreasonable belief in a solid,
unchanging self. Yet there always is some soft spot
that is left (an analogy from topology comes to mind
but that would only speak to a very limited audience).
When we practice correct technique with a correct
attitude, more and more of the seeming solidity
get undermined and we get to know and make friends
with all of our processes (accepting that they are
there is very much that). There are statement that
describe the fruition of certain practice stages as
being completely processed, completely softened.
You have lost your projected hard shell, your
attempted no-chink armour. You are tender and more
sensitive to everything, just as you are much more
aware of everything. Things do hit you more
immediately in the face and are more painful, but
those are the things that are actually going on
and you have lost a big, painful hunk of struggle
from trying to force the pattern in many ways
(though by no means have all such disappeared).
You are seeing many things in detail for the
first time because you only saw your projections
previously. There is a sense of softness and
of awe. You have room for accomodating much more
of the world around you in all of its rough hewn
aspects. Things such as the bodhisattva ideal
are just simple expressions of relating and accepting
that go on (very simple, direct, immediate) instead
of being some esoteric foriegn ideas to adopt.
Hopefully you can make some sense out of this babble.
> >Relating directly to the moment without ever
> >embellishing or supressing is a thorough but
> >very genuine challenge.
> Indeed.
> >Good luck in your spiritual pursuits. Yours
> >are based on blindness so that is the best I
> >can do for you right now. But I always wish
> >people success and mean it. Spiritual development
> >is inherently an individual personal effort and
> >that is the true source of individual human rights.
> >You are responsible for your mistakes. Good luck!
> Nicely put.
But did they help?
> Bernie
--
Take care of yourself
Dick
us
Rango Keshavan wrote:
>
> MoonOwl wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 03 May 1997 21:09:08 -0400, Rango Keshavan
> > <ra...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> >
>
> > You are saying that it is a very energizing, invigorating, and
> > spiritually cleansing on your part and yet you dont know rightly if it
> > is possible?
>
> it. I have heard of others who have, and of course countless stories
> through time that people have, so I "believe" it is possible. The
> sensation that I experience with the Sutra is catagorized as hopping,
> which is not levitation in the sense that we generally think of it.
> However, it isn't me making myself hop in the standard sense, either,
> but something else, which originates from something much deeper than
> my willing myself to hop.
My wife has the siddhis, and I never got beyond the regular TM (and
mostly I don't do it any more - so I'm no big devotee). Every once in a
while we used to meditate together, and then I'd lie down with my back
to her while she went on. Mostly it was just bounce-bounce-bounce.
Every once in a while, though, she'd be up for much longer than it would
be possible with just a bit of gymnastic ability. Scared the dickens
out of me.
I have great problems anyway with the idea that we "know" levitation is
impossible. We don't _know_ the answers to the two great questions -
why there is anything rather than nothing, and how life came to be; so
the idea that we _know_ much lesser things is silly. We assume, and get
by that way.
Keith Rhodes
Bernie
Richard Menninger <r...@winner.lc.lucent.com> wrote:
>Robert Cholette wrote:
>> And when I make mistakes (believe
>> me I make them) he is always able to forgive me. No matter what!
Jeesh, I would like to have someone like that and be allowed to
do whatever I want ;-) Does this Jehova guy have an e-mail
address?
>No, the process of genuine spiritual development
>is one of softening, actually, and that is what
>I have been doing.
What do you mean by a softening process, Richard?
>Relating directly to the moment without ever
>embellishing or supressing is a thorough but
>very genuine challenge.
Indeed.
>Good luck in your spiritual pursuits. Yours
>are based on blindness so that is the best I
>can do for you right now. But I always wish
>people success and mean it. Spiritual development
>is inherently an individual personal effort and
>that is the true source of individual human rights.
>You are responsible for your mistakes. Good luck!
Nicely put.
Bernie
Bernie
us <krh...@asde.com> wrote:
>My wife has the siddhis, and I never got beyond the regular TM (and
>mostly I don't do it any more - so I'm no big devotee). Every once in a
>while we used to meditate together, and then I'd lie down with my back
>to her while she went on. Mostly it was just bounce-bounce-bounce.
>Every once in a while, though, she'd be up for much longer than it would
>be possible with just a bit of gymnastic ability. Scared the dickens
>out of me.
Do you know if there was any muscular effort involved?
Bernie
Rango Keshavan
us wrote:
> My wife has the siddhis, and I never got beyond the regular TM (and
> mostly I don't do it any more - so I'm no big devotee). Every once in a
No one in TM is a devotee of anyone, just to clarify that comment
on this widely spewed thread.
> I have great problems anyway with the idea that we "know" levitation is
> impossible. We don't _know_ the answers to the two great questions -
> why there is anything rather than nothing, and how life came to be; so
> the idea that we _know_ much lesser things is silly. We assume, and get
> by that way.
In other words, we as a human race have proven the impossible to be
possible so many times, that we should learn by now to can that
word, eh?
Rango (Who not only feels that levitation is possible (but surely
doesn't know it), but also feels that breaking the speed of light
is also possible..., and quite probably for the same reasons...).
>
> Keith Rhodes
The Centurion
In article <339b307d...@news.Belgium.EU.net>,
be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>us <krh...@asde.com> wrote:
>
>>My wife has the siddhis, and I never got beyond the regular TM (and
>>mostly I don't do it any more - so I'm no big devotee). Every once in a
>>to her while she went on. Mostly it was just bounce-bounce-bounce.
>>Every once in a while, though, she'd be up for much longer than it would
>>be possible with just a bit of gymnastic ability. Scared the dickens
>>out of me.
>
>Do you know if there was any muscular effort involved?
>
>Bernie
Are you Bernie-the-$cientologist who hangs around alt.religion.scientology as
an apologist for ElRon Hubbard? You know, the guy who believes in the
galactic warlord "Xemu" and 75,000,000 year old volcanos in Hawaii?
Just wondering.
--
AVE ATQVE VALE
CENTVRIO
(E-mail address modified to foil spambots.
Remove the extra "home" for the true address!)
Bernie
cent...@homehome.com (The Centurion) wrote:
>Are you Bernie-the-$cientologist
No
>who hangs around alt.religion.scientology
Yes
>as an apologist for ElRon Hubbard?
No
What does alt.religion.roy-masters stand for?
Bernie
tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
>> >I personally have never seen anyone levitate, nor have I experienced
>> >it. I have heard of others who have, and of course countless stories
>> >through time that people have, so I "believe" it is possible.
Yeah, I "believe" it too, just like I "believe" in the extremely
worthwhile and productive nature of your "screwy" religion.
tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
>> My wife has the siddhis
My sympathies. I recommend masturbation as an alternative outlet.
>> I have great problems anyway with the idea that we "know" levitation is
>> impossible.
It's not that difficult a concept to understand. What's your problem?
We don't _know_ the answers to the two great questions -
>> why there is anything rather than nothing, and how life came to be; so
>> the idea that we _know_ much lesser things is silly. We assume, and get
>> by that way.
I see your point. Since we can't possibly answer those two questions, no
other answers count for anything worthwhile. That's why you never count
your change at the grocery store, and you sign anything that's put in front
of you without reading it, right?
>Rango (Who not only feels that levitation is possible (but surely
>doesn't know it), but also feels that breaking the speed of light
>is also possible..., and quite probably for the same reasons...).
My original point stands: that anyone whose thinking is so shallow
has no basis for criticizing anyone else's religion. Yours is clearly
just as whacked.
Deb C.
Hi Bernie,
Roy Masters teaches a Judeo-Christian meditation technique and has
a syndicated radio phone-in program on stations throughout the United States.
He's got a web page at:
The alt.religion.roy-masters newsgroup is supposed to discuss Roy pro or
con, but unfortunately doesn't do much of that.
Deb
In article <340fbb32....@news.Belgium.EU.net>, be...@arcadis.be says...
David
made a frog levitate by subjecting it to some sort of magnetic field.
Has anybody heard anything about this?
Prabbit
David <Mill...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>Someone mentioned to me that very recently, scientists have actually
>made a frog levitate by subjecting it to some sort of magnetic field.
>Has anybody heard anything about this?
Yeah -- I saw it on the news. It was in the UK and they had the frog
floating in the middle of a cylinder-shaped thing which was
presumeably kicking out an electromagnetic field. Didn't look too
portable, especially if you wanted one big enough to float humans.
-P
mac...@ionet.net
Frogs levitate by jumping on their back legs. Humans can do
this too, but not as well as frogs. Toci
tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
In article <3376C4...@netcomuk.co.uk> David <Mill...@netcomuk.co.uk> writes:
>Someone mentioned to me that very recently, scientists have actually
>made a frog levitate by subjecting it to some sort of magnetic field.
>Has anybody heard anything about this?
No, they subjected it to TM and the frog only thought he was levitating.
wi...@xs4all.nl
You may like to read my paper:"On the psychological mechanisms in
spiritual movements"
--
Michael
http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/psymove.html
dchannon
Richard Menninger wrote:
>
> Bernie wrote:
>
> > Richard Menninger <r...@winner.lc.lucent.com> wrote:
> ...
> > >is one of softening, actually, and that is what
> > >I have been doing.
>
> > What do you mean by a softening process, Richard?
>
> > >embellishing or supressing is a thorough but
> > >very genuine challenge.
>
> > Indeed.
>
> > >Good luck in your spiritual pursuits. Yours
> > >are based on blindness so that is the best I
> > >can do for you right now. But I always wish
> > >people success and mean it. Spiritual development
> > >is inherently an individual personal effort and
> > >that is the true source of individual human rights.
> > >You are responsible for your mistakes. Good luck!
>
> > Nicely put.
>
and yet a diamond is so hard.
debbie.
Richard Menninger
dchannon wrote:
> Richard Menninger wrote:
> > Bernie wrote:
> > > Richard Menninger <r...@winner.lc.lucent.com> wrote:
> > ...
> > > >No, the process of genuine spiritual development
> > > >is one of softening, actually, and that is what
> > > >I have been doing.
> > > What do you mean by a softening process, Richard?
[a lot of my babble on that: deleted]
> and yet a diamond is so hard.
> debbie.
The indestructability that diamond refers to
is your wakefulness. You become locked in the
moment. Now you still have a lot to work out
and those who start the diamond way are not
always locked in the moment, but you spend much
time there and you come back readily. Some of
the bubbles of the magic of the moment may
catch you off guard and lead you to a moment of
rash suppressing or embellishing (I certainly
represent that remark!). But coming back is
quick. You just momentarily rose up and surfed
a wave instead of letting happen on the surface
without affecting you. But being locked in the
moment is now a good expression of your existence
and it becomes more and more thorough. The
fire (of awareness) has caught and is fully
raging its way through ego-mind. There is a lot
to work on and the methods change as new things
now become the right tool to bring the hidden
nuggets into the fire. Those new things are
the practices of the diamond way.
But the sense of personal softness deepens
on that way. You become much more sensitive,
tender.
Take care of yourself
Dick