Rebecca mentioned abuse of involuntary commitment.
.
There was a movie - the reality I don't know about -
in which a psychiatrist who was chief of staff in a
hospital learned of her husband's infidelity. In
retaliation, she committed and lobotomized him. By
the time anyone could to anything to stop her, it
was much too late.
.
There was a real story from the days when masturbation
was seen as evidence of mental illness. Imprisoned mental
patients could be observed doing it, and the doctors, many
of whom did it themselves, wouldn't admit it. A psychotic
woman with no other pleasure in life was observed masturbating,
and the good doctors responded by cauterizing her clitoris.
.
The parallel in cults which have real, hard-core mind-control
(as opposed to $cientology, which, from this discussion, seems
to use something much milder) is the attempt to make real the
notion that "we conned him, fair and square, so now he's our
slave forever."
.
I'm currently thinking that one common factor among people
who would call a group's teaching that one should cut off
one's testicles and suicide, or that some other person is God
a "religious belief" rather than an artificial psychosis may
be a lack of respect for real religion, which I'm not going
to attempt to define at this time.
.
<Posted and mailed>

In article <33E20834.1...@pacbell.net>,
William O. West <wow...@pacbell.net> wrote:
[...]

Some "real religions" require their male members to have their
foreskins cut off. In many communities, this procedure is performed on
infants (without their consent, obviously). To make matters worse,
this "religious belief" was even promoted by the American medical
community for quite some time.

Once again, it seems that the difference between "cult" and "religion"
is just a matter of degree. The Heaven's Gate folks are considered
weird because the men decided to become eunuchs. In contrast, American
society is considered normal although infants get circumsized.

Note that "institutional" eunuchs have been part of other societies
for centuries - the Hijras are an obvious example, as were the eunuchs
in Imperial China.

-Vivek

Jim Heller <hel...@islandnet.com> wrote in article
<33DBC45F.4E3F9...@islandnet.com>:

Ah, good. I find this post only now, thanks to my new super
server. I like being called stupid. I would have missed this
one.

Your value judgement. You say he doesn't discuss fairly and
honestly, he says the same about you.

From a viewpoint of someone who doesn't know the background of
your discussion, the one flamming is always the looser.

In post I commented on, which is all what I see, it certainly
proves that to me.

From my experience in similar field, both sides (cults and
anticults) do not talk frankly. Then they accuse each other of
being the one who isn't honest. They both are right...

Since I didn't follow the discussion, I can't make a judgement
in who is right or wrong in this matter, and I can't rely on
your interpretation only to decide that, nor am I really
interested to hear the interpretation from the other side. I am
not awfully interested in the subject. I just commented on the
difference of style, not only in this post but in a few other
posts I saw of the two of you. I didn't read enough of either to
draw a final conclusion, though, but it does have a trend.

Did it occur to you that there are many different
interpretations possible for the same reality? Or do you think
that your is the only valid interpretation?

Who said you have to continue playing? Play or don't play, but
if you feel you have a superior knowledge and awareness than
cult members because you were in the cult and now you are out,
then I would say that the responsibility is on you to keep the
discussion civil. If you just launch in an Erlich-like dismissal
of the person rather than the argument, then I would say you
have certainly lost it, and is something that certainly confirms
to me that many anticult members are just as stupid as cult
members. They obviously didn't gain anything out of their
experience.

It's useless and makes you look awfully bad in the eyes of
outsiders.

An apology for what? You make the whole post defending the
position that one should say what he has on his mind, then you
ask me to make an apology for doing just that?

I base my opinion on what I see here. I don't base myself, like,
unfortunately, so many others in this (these) newsgroup on the
simple fact of whether they belong to a cult, and anticult or no
cult at all. I see how they behave here, and draw my conclusions
from that.

Bernie

"William O. West" <wow...@pacbell.net> wrote in article
<33E1FFCD.3...@pacbell.net>:

And who will decide in what degree the "cult mind control"
varies? The William O! Wests of this world, no doubt.

Oh Herr Erlich. The O! West says that Scientologists aren't
programmed. Do you agree?

He certainly had a considerably more sophisticated and nuanced
view than yours. I am reposting here as a (renamed) follow up
the reasons for his decision.

Bernie
--
Dianedroids. Tashbackolyte. Invisible party line buster.
Hot-head flammer. Anti-anti-cultist. ARS critic's critic.
Skripted scienobot. Cult rah-rah.

b...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote in article
<346a3a7a.490584...@snews.zippo.com>:

-------------------- start repost -----------------------

I am posting this text because I think that it is highly
relevant for all those concerned with both the issue of
spirituality and cults. It is the speech made by Jiddu
Krishnamurti in 1929 when he dissolved the Order of the Star.
The Order of the Star was the organisation built around
Krishnamurti by Theosophists who selected him at the age of 13
to be the vehicle for the return of Christ, or Maitreya. He was
raised accordingly, but after his enlightment, he refused the
role that has been prepared for him, disbanded the organisation
of which he was the head, and continued to teach on his own.
What follows is the speech he made for this occasion during the
Dutch Camp of Ommen, in front of more than three thousand Star
members, and with many thousands of Dutch people listening on
the radio. Many of the concepts that are present in this speech
are worth to be pondered upon in the light of almost 70 years of
spiritual history.

--------------------------- start ------------------------------

We are going to discuss this morning the dissolution of the
Order of the Star. Many will be delighted, and others will be
rather sad. It is a question neither for rejoicing nor for
sadness, because it is inevitable, as I am going to explain....

I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot
approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any
sect. That is my point of view, and I adhere to that absolutely
and unconditionally. Truth, being limitless, unconditioned,
unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organised; nor
should any organisation be formed to lead or coerce people along
any particular path. If you first understand that, then you will
see how impossible it is to organise a belief. A belief is
purely an individual matter, and you cannot and must not
organise it. If you do, it becomes dead, crystallised; it
becomes a creed, a sect, a religion, to be imposed on others.

This is what everyone throughout the world is attempting to do.
Truth is narrowed down and made a plaything for those who are
weak, for those who are only momentarily discontented. Truth
cannot be brought down, rather the individual must make the
effort to ascend to it. You cannot bring the mountain-top to the
valley....

So that is the first reason, from my point of view, why the
Order of the Star should be dissolved. In spite of this, you
will probably form other Orders, you will continue to belong to
other organisations searching for Truth. I do not want to belong
to any organisation of a spiritual kind; please understand
this....

If an organisation be created for this purpose, it becomes a
crutch, a weakness, a bondage, and must cripple the individual,
and prevent him from growing, from establishing his uniqueness,
which lies in the discovery for himself of that absolute,
unconditioned Truth. So that is another reason why I have
decided, as I happen to be the Head of the Order, to dissolve
it.

This is no magnificent deed, because I do not want followers,
and I mean this. The moment you follow someone you cease to
follow Truth. I am not concerned whether you pay attention to
what I say or not. I want to do a certain thing in the world and
I am going to do it with unwavering concentration. I am
concerning myself with only one essential thing: to set man
free. I desire to free him from all cages, from all fears, and
not to found religions, new sects, nor to establish new theories
and new philosophies. Then you will naturally ask me why I go
the world over, continually speaking. I will tell you for what
reason I do this; not because I desire a following, not because
I desire a special group of special disciples. (How men love to
be different from their fellow-men, however ridiculous, absurd
and trivial their distinctions, may be! I do not want to
encourage that absurdity.) I have no disciples, no apostles,
either on earth or in the realm of spirituality.

Nor is it the lure of money, nor the desire to live a
comfortable life, which attracts me. If I wanted to lead a
comfortable life I would not come to a Camp or live in a damp
country! I am speaking frankly because I want this settled once
and for all. I do not want these childish discussion year after
year.

A newspaper reporter, who interviewed me, considered it a
magnificent act to dissolve an organisation in which there were
thousands and thousands of members. To him it was a great act
because he said: "What will you do afterwards, how will you
live? You will have no following, people will no longer listen
to you." If there are only five people who will listen, who will
live,  who have their faces turned towards eternity, it will be
sufficient. Of what use is it to have thousands who do not
understand, who are fully embalmed in prejudice, who do not want
the new, but would rather translate the new to suit their own
sterile, stagnant selves?....

Because I am free, unconditioned, whole, not the part, not the
relative, but the whole Truth that is eternal, I desire those,
who seek to understand me, to be free, not to follow me, not to
make out of me a cage which will become a religion, a sect.
Rather should they be free from all fears - from the fear of
religion, from the fear of salvation, from the fear of
spirituality, from the fear of love, from the fear of death,
from the fear of life itself. As an artist paints a picture
because he takes delight in that painting, because it is his
self-expression, his glory, his well-being, so I do this and not
because I want any thing from anyone. You are accustomed to
authority, or to the atmosphere of authority which you think
will lead you to spirituality. You think and hope that another
can, by his extraordinary powers - a miracle - transport you to
this realm of eternal freedom which is Happiness. Your whole
outlook on life is based on that authority.

You have listened to me for three years now, without any change
taking place except in the few. Now analyse what I am saying, be
critical, so that you may understand thoroughly,
fundamentally....

For eighteen years you have been preparing for this event, for
the Coming of the World Teacher. For eighteen years you have
organised, you have looked for someone who would give a new
delight to your hearts and minds, who would transform your whole
life, who would give you a new understanding; for someone who
would raise you to a new plane of life, who would give you new
encouragement, who would set you free - and now look what is
happening! Consider, reason with yourselves, and discover in
what way that belief has made you different - not with the
superficial difference of the wearing of a badge, which is
trivial, absurd. In what manner has such a belief swept away all
unessential things of life? That is the only way to judge: in
what way are you freer, greater, more dangerous to every society
which is based on the false and the unessential? In what way
have the members of this organisation of the Star become
different?....

You are all depending for your spirituality on someone else, for
your happiness on someone else, for your enlightenment on
someone else.... when I say look within yourselves for the
enlightenment, for the glory, for the purification, and for the
incorruptibility of the self, not one of you is willing to do
it. There may be a few, but very, very few. So why have an
organisation?....

No man from outside can make you free; nor can organised
worship, nor the immolation of yourselves for a cause, make you
free; nor can forming yourselves into an organisation, nor
throwing yourselves into work, make you free. You use a
typewriter to write letters, but you do not put it on an alter
and worship it. But that is what you are doing when
organisations become your chief concern. "How many members are
there in it?" That is the first question I am asked by all
newspaper reporters. "How many followers have you? By their
number we shall judge whether what you say is true or false." I
do not know how many there are. I am not concerned with that. If
there were even one man who had been set free, that were
enough....

Again, you have the idea that only certain people hold the key
to the Kingdom of Happiness. No one holds it. 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....

You have been accustomed to being told how far you have
advanced, what is your spiritual status. How childish! Who but
yourself can tell you if you are incorruptible?....

But those who really desire to understand, who are looking to
find that which is eternal, without a beginning and without an
end, will walk together with greater intensity, will be a danger
to everything that is unessential, to unrealities, to shadows.
And they will concentrate, they will become the flame, because
they understand. Such a body we must create, and that is my
purpose. Because of that true friendship - which you do not seem
to know - there will be real co-operation on the part of each
one. And this not because of authority, not because of
salvation, but because you really understand, and hence are
capable of living in the eternal. This is a greater thing than
all pleasure, than all sacrifice.

So those are some of the reasons why, after careful
consideration for two years, I have made this decision. It is
not from a momentary impulse. I have ...

read more »

Curtis Mailloux and I are certainly examples from TM. There are quite a
number more: Nancy Cooke-Herrera comes to mind. Peter McWilliams walked
away from MSIA. I could do some research if you like. It's not that
unusual really.

J

--
John M. Knapp, executive director, http://www.trancenet.org

-->Steal this sig! "I'm a cult veteran -- and I'm one tough son of a bitch!"

"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 jmkn...@crl.com about free email lists. trancenet.org relies solely on "sharefare" contributions of readers like you at http://www.trancenet.org/trancenet/levels.shtml.

I hardly think that a practice, which was mainly hygenic is purpose, has a
whole lot to do with depenising yourself. The American medical community
promoted this belief (and promotes it to this day) because it is easier to
keep a glans clean without a foreskin.

I, myself, kept mine, but that was because the doctor who had delivered my
sister some 11 months before (my Mom's VERY catholic) refused to pierce my
newborn sister's ears, which (to continue in this vein) is a tradition
amoung the spanish jews that my mom was, so she wouldn't let him "cut me"
in return.
--
Great Googly Moogly!

email address: er...@really.net
My opinions are probably not those of my employer.
I don't really know since I didn't ask.

Vivek Sadananda Pai <vi...@cs.rice.edu> wrote in article
<5rta1n$l7...@joe.rice.edu>...

CD pontificated:

you have been in the jeering crowd?

Oh really !

CD
..
(1) That's "Caesar."
.
(2) Even if his "cosmic stage mother" says "all my son wants
    is your fickle human mind," the Goo can't have it any more.
.
(3) Parables or no parables, the guru is not God. He isn't
    God Imminent, he isn't God Transcendent. He's a phony
    alcoholic still trying to run the shabby family business
    from his Malibu mansion.
.
(4)  His "holy Knowledge" is a crock of shit, to speak badly
     of shit. See my article at

     http://www.miraclevision.com/stirling/pages/know_wow.html

     What his "mahatmas," who had been in the business
     before he was born, were teaching in 1973 was damaging to
     and abusive of the initiates. What I'm told he is teaching
     now isn't as damaging, but still isn't as good as, say,
     what the Insight Meditation Society teaches without any
     need to believe in any false Messiah. They are Therevadan
     Buddhist, in their approach.

Try them at:
        http://www.dharma.org/ims.htm

If you want a "Judaeo-Christian meditation," try the tapes and
      books from Roy Masters at:
        http://www.fhu.com/

If you want a Mahayana (specifically Vajrayana) approach, try

        http://www.va.com.au/monks/rinpoche.html

which introduces one of many bona-fide Tibetan lamas. There
are numerous websites for Tibetan Buddhism. They have numerous
forms of meditation.

Unlike what Maharaj Ji is promoting, the Insight Meditation
and Roy Masters's techniques lead to increased awareness,
rather than concentration and self-hypnosis.

Personally, I find the Tibetan "tantric" meditations
interesting.

The point of worthy meditation is to be more aware and to be
a better person, and not to be part of some exclusive, elitist
cult which believes that it's guru's meditation is the best
thing on the planet and the only true way.