ex monks please? - www.ezboard.com

>

SRF Walrus

Mt. Washington, Ca

Open discussions about SRF

SRF Walrus > SRF Teachings and Ideals > ex monks please?
Page 1 2 3 4	<< Prev Topic \| Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
etzchaim Registered User (1/12/04 8:34 am) Reply	Cult Awareness Network www.cultawarenessnetwork.org/ YB, there's a very nice article on Witchcraft on this site. They are showing that neo-paganism is quite normal and not automatically a 'cult'. No knee-jerk reactions, etc. I think you should read the site a little more. They are quite open-minded and fair, and display a good deal of tolerance. Hint, hint. There's no list of supposed cults that I could find, though I haven't done a thorough search of the site, and they do not mention the incident of them being shut down by Scientology in their "About Us" section, nor do they mention the loss of their list of cults due to a lawsuit from the Scientologists. There's some disturbing files on the previous CAN, who were shut down for kidnapping someone, apparently to deprogram a Babtist guy because of his beliefs. Some of it is very disturbing, actually. Edited by: etzchaim at: 1/12/04 1:53 pm
etzchaim Registered User (1/12/04 9:02 am) Reply	Re: Cult Awareness Network OK, I found the list, it's rather long, actually and the Temple is indeed on it. The list is what the group 'kept records on', not what they list as a cult, because they have one that is simply "therapy", and they even list the Amish. I can see why this may have been problematic. It's not really a problem to keep an 'eye' on groups, it's the labeling as a 'cult' something general, like the Amish, or other such groups of people who are simply living by their religious beliefs, as 'cults'. There may indeed be issues among Amish people and problematic people who are Amish, but to say that Amish people are cultish because they are on this list is really taking things a bit too far! Here's the list, it's not exactly short, in fact it's long, and includes many groups that might indeed be cults and others who I seriously doubt are cults, as well as the names of CAN's other files, like "Therapy", at least I'm hoping that's another type of file. I'm truly suspicious of the one entry, 'American's United for the Separation of Church and State'. They sound really spurious! : www.cesnur.org/2001/CAN/appendix_B.htm I have heard that some attempts at deprogramming people from cults can be abusive, as well, see below. -------------------------------------- later, after an amuzing perusal, I've only gotten to the g's! Hey the Grateful Dead are listed! Oh I like that....I know many brain-washed Deadheads, all good friends of mine! Hunh, the Green party is listed.... and the Hindu Temple for Greater Chicago - this is the main Hindu Temple in the Chicago area, it's sort of like listing the local synagogue... Wouldn't ya know, Lubavitch is listed... and Lutherans.... In fact, every religion/group that CAN has heard of is on this list... Here, for easy access, is CESNUR's (center for the study of new religions) site: www.cesnur.org/ This is particularly interesting in that it goes directly into the abusiveness of Deprogrammers, CAN, in particular: www.cesnur.org/2003/shupe_darnell.htm Edited by: etzchaim at: 1/12/04 2:07 pm
Punk Yogi Registered User (1/12/04 5:41 pm) Reply	To YB *Quote:* it's kind of not cool to edit your posts by changing and adding material. You've basically kept your point along the same lines, which YB appreciates, but still it's kind of impolite. (Yellowbeard) Not sure what you're referring to here. Punk usually writes his material on-the-fly since he's living a very active life. Sometimes he pushes the send button and realizes that a word is misspelled or he forgot to say something. On the rare occasion when he needs to edit, he does so to tidy up his sentences, not alter their meaning. Also, this is done within several minutes of pushing the send button. If you look at the post with the Bible text, you will see that the post registered at 5:32 pm while yours was 5:30 pm. This is because I was cutting and pasting at the same moment you were replying. Perhaps you should let a little time go by before you reply. You've been caught misunderstanding a number of times before. Instead, take the time to meditate on the import of other ideas than your own. Above all, I reserve the right to edit my writings whenever and however I want. Go back and read the Bible quote. Channel your urge to fix others into fixing yourself. We have already given you a list of things to work on. You ought to know me well enough by now. While you cut with plastic swords, I kick with feet stuffed with goose down. With Punk, you get what you dish out. I know you can take it, so I grant you your fetish. About labels, the typology labels are less malicious than your playful insults. Typology is a real tool for real psychologists and students of human temperament and behavior. It's your skepticism against a history of great minds from Plato to Jung. I know you want to believe you are acting authentically, but your reaction is nothing atypical of most Kiersey Rationals. Why do I know this? Because my girlfriend is one and her reactions are identical to yours. Plus, several people I have known in my life react exactly the same way and they have similar ways they express themselves and play with the world. Rationals like to find meaning in mind matches. They foist their intelligence and skepticism on anyone they feel will draw a sword - plastic or steel. Keirsey explains that Rationals seek mindmates. With several close friends and an intimate relationship, I have a my own laboratory in which to view this personological phenomenon. Sorry if you felt offended for Punks discussion of YB on the temperament thread. Actually, he was replying to two posts by Xnun on 12/11 and 12/12. Until those posts, Punk was wary of ruffling any sensibilites by discussing users on this board. But then again, why should you mind? You've set a precedent by your comments about Yogananda that basically makes it okay to dicuss the character of an individual. Plus you've been very liberal in your pronouncements of Punk's lack of spirituality. Ultimately, this puts your spirituality in a bad light because it reveals you as a judgmental person who relies on externals for measuring spirituality. Spirit is beyond mind and human behavior. What a person knows about Spirit may not be apparent through his or her mask of persona. That's why Punk keeps spirituality for a separate discussion from temperament -- which is a phenomenon of nature and has its own merits when considered in this light.
YellowBeard420 Slow Down (1/13/04 3:55 am) Reply	Expedient Means > Etzchaim wrote: "... during my childhood I was made fun of regularly for being stupid by the two girls who flunked second grade." It seems to always work like that. Like with racists, most of them are "down and out" in some way, so they try to make themselves better by attempting lift themselves above an entire race of people. If you could have seen these particular kids' home-life, YB is sure that you would understand why they were "projecting" abuse. > Etzchaim: "Children are cruel." Don't let a few rotten apples spoil the whole bunch. Those who allow themselves to sink deeply into that type of thinking too much find themselves going back to school with a gun! Of course you're not, but it could manifest in lesser, less obvious ways. > Etzchaim: "YB refers to the Temple as an Astrology-cult." YB uses the term cult loosely, which may be a bad idea because it takes away from the true meaning of the word. With regard to the Temple and SRF, he uses it more in the way of "cult of personality". Also, it's fun to use the word cult; YB remembers when he use to go in for SRF temple services and meditations, a family member referred to the group as a cult. YB thought it was pretty funny at the time and it never bothered him. YB would joke back about how there were guns on the alter along with the photos and paintings of gurus. Having SRF called a cult to YB never made him second guess the group. And YB doubts that him calling the Temple of Kriya Yoga a cult is actually making you doubt the group. >> YellowBeard: "YellowBeard reaches down and ruffles Etz's hair, 'Sweetie that's fun'." This statement comes from my sister who says this to her son (the one alluded to earlier that plays in the bathtub with YellowBeard's pirate ship). She says this to him when he's being "bad". YB always thought this statement was funny and was dying to use it somewhere. > Etzchaim: "but this, my friend, is a classic example of subtle derogatory statements and condescension." This is true. But YB feels that it's pretty much as delicate as he can get to say that he views Astrology as something for children. > Etzchaim: "... even as a child, see pretty clearly that I am not stupid." You're not stupid for believing in Astrology just as most people that have "blind faith" in things that they shouldn't aren't really stupid. An interesting fact here is that more people in the world believe in Astrology than people that believe in evolution. If people don't believe in Astrology because they're too "stupid" to see how it relies on Rorschach blot type of effects to fool people, then why do they? YB has mentioned this before. People believe in Astrology because they want to and they're going to push anything aside that tells them differently. Why would people do this? Astrology offers people a sense of security in an insecure world. We read our horoscope and it shows us how our day is going to be. It warns us about what we should be on the lookout for. It tells us what type of people we should be attracted too and those we should avoid. This kind of security is just what the doctor ordered for most people, and people will continue to cling to it regardless of anything negative said about it because it offers them this thing we call "security" in a world that has none. Why does YB care if people do this? Yb brings this up here because he feels that this is an obstacle on the Path. Why should it be viewed as an obstacle, perhaps it can actually help? Where we're going, we can't bring anything along for the ride. We have to go there completely naked, otherwise we can't slip through the door. It's too narrow, only room for pure awareness to peek through. You folks haven't seen nothing yet, if you don't mind YB speaking in a flagrant manner. This is just the beginning. First we throw off our external belief structures, such as Astrology, religious views and faith, and even the views of modern science! Modern science is simply today's mythology. Every external belief has to go, even the one's that we view as "real". So it doesn't matter if you believe that Astrology is a true science, you have to toss it nonetheless. Neti, Neti (not this, not that). Once we've gotten rid of our external belief structures, it's time to rip through the internal ones. This is why YB said that you haven't seen anything yet. If you thought the first phase was uncomfortable, we're going to pull layers off that you never knew you had. The internal belief structures are how we personally view the world and our relationship to it. It goes all the way down to what we define as "ourself" and "other". You give up what information your senses and mind are bringing it. You don't try to block these things (like with the SRF Aum technique), that just creates resistance which will strengthen dualistic perception -- this perception will change through Aum if you keep at it long enough, but it will remain dualistic. You can take it all the way to God (if you're lucky), but it will always be "God" there, me "here". Subconscious stuff will come up for you to deal with. We don't have to big down to get to it. If we do the external and internal layers fully, the subconscious stuff floats to the surface on its own. This is a tricky place where we can get easily distracted. But we continue with Neti, Neti. Throw whatever comes your way aside. Some of these things will pop up to "show you the way" to the Divine, this is a subtle trap. You may have some wild experiences with this, but it won't lead to the perception of your Self. You made it this far on your own, don't depend on any external to carry you the rest of the way. Things like SRF is an external manifestation of this type of trap. It's "close" to the Self and therefor extremely, subtly deceptive. Like YB says a lot, the closer you get to the Truth, the more subtle the tricks to bring you down. If maya can create this entire world of people and places which are "completely" convincing, how much more easy to create a "God" you cannot see and a guru to lead you there? For your mind to create that illusion is nothing compared to the illusions it normally creates. An important note here is that maya is the projections of your own mind and not an "evil" external force as religions sometimes label it as. Why does YB speak so much on this non-dual approach? This process is natural and easy once one gets use to it. You need no teacher and therefor all the problems that arise through the teacher-student relationship are thrown out the window. You won't have to deal with any of that. YB is speaking on this here because people have had problems with spiritual authority, otherwise they wouldn't be posting on a board like this. We've all had problems with this in one way or another. So with this approach, we have no one to worship or take lessons from. With no supports to get in your way or to confuse you, the full experience of Truth can be had. The greatest spiritual teachers in history have come to their realizations in a direct way and not through a "mediary". It's important to realize that they were no different than us -- you know all that silly "son of God" talk that does nothing but create problems -- and we can do the same if we truly give up all our securities and probe within. These words are cute and all, but where's the proof that this can work? This process alone can work but takes time. YB doesn't want to play that game with you. YB wants you to see it now. So we need to add something to help peel back the layers so that you can do this in an hour instead of ten years of practice. P-iss on that 10 years of practice! You need to be rebellious if you want the Truth. When someone tells you that you need to do this and that practice and meditation for x amount of years, YB wants you to drop your shorts and to p-iss on them. If they say it's going to take x amount of lives to burn up your karma to see this, p-iss on 'em! YB presents what is referred to in Buddhism as "expedient means". This is something that is used in conjunction with meditation to accelerate the process. So what we're going to do is combine this non-dual Neti-Neti type approach explained above with Salvia divinorum. See the thread entitled "Talk is Cheap" under the 'Not the Main Stream' section. The information you're going to need on Saliva divinorum is in the first post, there's a few other details later as well. These two approaches combined work together perfectly. Please do not do any "mind-numbing" repetitive meditations during this process. We're going to need a very alert mind. Don't be coming back here to say, hey it didn't work with my Hong Sau. YB is clearly saying that it's not going to. At least not for our purposes, which is to see the Self. If you have other goals, do what you will, YB can't help you there. Salvia divinorum peels back layers of consciousness. For most people this just takes them for a ride within the subconscious. Now if we combine this Neti-Neti (not this, not that) process where we're throwing everything aside, we work with Saliva divinorum properly. These work together to form this 'expedient means'. This approach is for the extremely bold. You're going to have your entire world riped out from under you, everything you had will be gone. Also, if your ego remains partially intact during this process (which it does most of the time since this approach is so rapid), the Self may be a horrifying vision. Seeing that you have to exist for all eternity as every person you meet can be far from pleasant. Life is not a situation that begins and ends. This is just how our mind views things -- being delusional and then walking the Path to Enlightenment -- all that will be nonsense in the burning light of Eternity. If you really can do this, you're in for one hell of a shock. And you're going to be on your own stark naked. There's going to be no one there to help you and nothing to grab onto. You'll learn to depend on the Self alone and you'll carry that back into your daily life. You won't need gurus anymore or any crutches, most of which are deceptions anyway. You'll know why YB says that we're all the same Person. You will be that Person and YellowBeard will just be another thought in your head along with all other people and your ego. When the fear of this experience dissipates, then Love unfolds which is your connection to everything. But going beyond this fear is a whole other process. You won't need YB or anyone to talk about it. You'll know how to do it yourself. This 'expedient means' will not give you bliss (or at least not permanent). It's for Self-realization which is simply the perception of what you really are. Bliss is what happens when we learn how to live with this realization. Self-realization is just the beginning. People think that Self-realization is mystical and holy -- it's not, it's simply the fact of our existence. If a simple pirate like YB can see it, you surely can as well. Yeah, you'll fall back into your ego, but you'll never forget what you are because that Reality is more real than this computer screen that we're looking at right now. You will always remember it, and it will change how you look at the world permanently. Spirituality won't be something to read about and practice anymore, it'll be your life.
etzchaim Registered User (1/13/04 5:48 am) Reply	YB, you are patronizing me YB, you are totally in denial of your own aggression. You are not in any way, any one who has any permission to attempt to 'guide' me, nor anyone else on a 'path', and yet you attempt to do so. You attempt to correct me, in classic passive aggressive style, by first insulting my beliefs and then hiding behind a self-rightious demeaner of "helping" and "being of assistance" and pretending to "feel for me" because I was I am 'like a child' in my beliefs and you feel bad for me, due to my 'confussion and obvious gullability'. YB, you are currently the abuser in this situation. None of us are innocent of human characteristics and of losing our tempers, but you have come in here to "deprogram" us and continually try to stir up our ire with posts that are blatently meant to start arguments with you and then post quotes indicating that spiritual people are often the most violent of people. Now, when I have pointed out your completely obvious patronizing and condescending comments to me, you come across as the 'good friend' offering sympathy. I don't need any sympathy from you YB. I want you to address the issues that were brought up with regard to the violence of C.A.N. and other deprogrammers. You have a right to your opinions on all things, but you do not have the right to attempt to change or alter other peoples legitimate religious beliefs, particularly through the manipulative techniques you are using. You have referred to the former deprogramming center C.A.N., which went out of business due to losing a court case and their inability to pay the penalty. This case involved the kidnapping of a Baptist man and C.A.N.'s attempt to "deprogram" him. This was in the mid '90's. You are claiming to be a deprogrammer, and you are also claiming to have been involved in SRF through the lessons for 5 years. Once again, I am not interested in your sympathy, and I am not interested your attempts to persuade me to follow a religious path that you choose for me. I am quite content in my path and am here on this board because I have many years of experience in another school of Kriya that has not manifested the problematic issues that SRF has. I also have experience in a Fundamentalist expression of a religion and can share my that with the people here because Fundamentalisms manifest in the same pattern regardless of the religion or even lack of religion. My intention is to try to present a clearer picture of what Kriya is, or at least present another approach to it, so that people can make their own decision about it and work out their own choices. Because I do not believe that Kriya is a path for everyone, I do not in any wish to convince people that they need to continue practicing it. From what I can tell from your posts, you will belittle anyone who believes that Kriya is legitimate and push your own agenda. You insult my intelligence and the intelligence of the other people here, unless, of course, they also have an agenda to demoralize anyone who practices Kriya because they feel demoralized. Turn your deprogramming on yourself. Here's another Beatles song for you: "I'm looking through you. Where did you go? I thought I knew you. What did I know?" Edited by: etzchaim at: 1/13/04 6:49 am
etzchaim Registered User (1/13/04 6:27 am) Reply	Re: Expedient Means This is precisely what I mean by your attempts to 'guide' us in a path: "You folks haven't seen nothing yet, if you don't mind YB speaking in a flagrant manner. This is just the beginning. First we throw off our external belief structures, such as Astrology, religious views and faith, and even the views of modern science! Modern science is simply today's mythology. Every external belief has to go, even the one's that we view as "real". So it doesn't matter if you believe that Astrology is a true science, you have to toss it nonetheless. Neti, Neti (not this, not that). Once we've gotten rid of our external belief structures, it's time to rip through the internal ones. This is why YB said that you haven't seen anything yet. If you thought the first phase was uncomfortable, we're going to pull layers off that you never knew you had." You do not know where any of us are at spiritually, you do not understand why I would use Astrology, or anything else that I am using as a method and you do not have the right to attempt to change me, nor anyone else who does not give you the permission to do so. This is an attempt at manipulative control of people YOU DO NOT EVEN KNOW. You are not my teacher. If someone chooses you for their teacher, then you have permission to teach them. I am not interested in your attempts to change me, nor does it seem like most of the people here are interested in following your path. Those who are interested should do so, but please do not try to insist that we all should be like you. I do not want to be like you. I want to be like me. Get it? And please do not come back with a statement about how I'm being a dualist. I choose to individuate in my own particular way and I have a right to my individuality. When I am in situations where I am told that I should be who I am as an idividual soul, I know someone is attempting to manipulate me in cult-like fashion. You have the right to believe what you believe, and other people have the right to believe what they believe. It doesn't matter in you are more enlightened than all of us put together. We have the right to choose our own paths. Please, if you will, respond to the issues around the old C.A.N. and your claim to be a deprogrammer. I am truly curious. Edited by: etzchaim at: 1/13/04 6:59 am
etzchaim Registered User (1/13/04 7:39 am) Reply	Just so people know What YB is recommending we do is to use a drug known as Salvia divinorum. Here is a web site that will tell you about it: leda.lycaeum.org/?ID=269 This is a mind-altering drug that is native to Mexico and used in a Shamanistic way to divine. I have no issues with the use of drugs for ones spiritual growth. It is a path that people, particularly those on a Shamanistic path, which exist all over the world, use quite regularly. If this is your path than, by all means, do it, and proclaim to the high heavens internally and externally, that it is the Only Way for you to 'peel back layers of concsiousness' (a phrase that was first brought up in these forums by Punk Yogi, btw), as YB has put it. Some people are into Shamanism, some people are not. Some people are into Shamanism without the use of drugs, and some people into drugs without the use of Shamanism. Make your own decisions but beware of people proclaiming that their path is superior to other paths. These people are Fundamentalists.
YellowBeard420 Slow Down (1/13/04 7:53 am) Reply	CAN > Etzchaim wrote: "You are not in any way, any one who has any permission to attempt to 'guide' me ..." What YB has written on the non-dual approach is for all readers, lurkers included. YB responded to some of your statements and then went into what he's here to speak on, the non-dual approach. > Etzchaim: "... nor anyone else on a 'path', and yet you attempt to do so." Because YB doesn't bow to your long list of gurus? Or is YB suppose to have a degree or something? What YB says on the non-dual approach is just what it is -- you take it or leave it, just like with what everyone else posts here. If you don't want to give up your beliefs, even your superficial ones, then this information is of no use to you. So be it, why worry about it? Why do you continue to engage someone here when all they talk about is the non-dual when that's not your cup of tea? > Etzchaim: "You attempt to correct me ..." Anyone that engages me will have their beliefs put into question because that's what YB does. He's not here to chat, he's here for business. YB has said again and again, if you're not interested in this process he's been speaking on since day 1 here, then it's best to ignore him. > Etzchaim: "I don't need any sympathy from you YB." YB has never offered you any, and challenges you to post a quote from him where he is. YB is not being cold here by saying that, it's just that you're making wild accusations and you should back those up with quotes from him to show this "manipulative" activity that you're seeing. > Etzchaim: "I want you to address the issues that were brought up with regard to the violence of C.A.N. and other deprogrammers." You've come to YB with nothing but hostility since day 1 and now all you have to say is, "I want ... I want". And you wonder why YB refers to you as a child? YB knows you're defensive right now and can't really think about what he's saying other than ways to come back with attacks, but perhaps when the anger dissipates a little, you might wanna peruse your posts towards YB and think a little about what you've written. > Etzchaim: "You have referred to the former deprogramming center C.A.N., which went out of business due to losing a court case and their inability to pay the penalty. This case involved the kidnapping of a Baptist man and C.A.N.'s attempt to 'deprogram' him." Your information here is from the CAN site which is owned by Scientology, the people that bankrupted the group and then bought it out. You can't expect that they're going to mention that on the site. For a little more objective look, let's first try a bit from the transcript from a piece on this subject on "60 Minutes", Dec. 28, '97. YB will then follow with an article that will address all your questions: -------------- VO: She says Scientology sets out to destroy anyone who criticizes it. YOUNG: Someone who speaks publicly against Scientology is targeted for a campaign of harassment, character assassination, financial ruin. There's a policy that says, specifically, "If possible, ruin them utterly." VO: She is talking about a church directive-- this one-- the "Fair Game" law, that says a person or group that publicly criticizes the church is "fair game," and can be "destroyed." Stacy Young and others do not believe the church when it says it no longer harasses its enemies. STAHL (in front of Scientology building, by sign saying "Can you increase confidence and self respect?"): Now, the church says, Scientology, originally known as Dianetics, is a benevolent religion, with anti-drug programs and literacy projects that helps its followers increase their confidence. Camera backs up to show rest of the sign--on top of the sign is a picture of the "Dianetics" book STAHL: A central doctrine goes like this: 75 million years ago, a tyrant named Xenu transported people from outer space to Earth, dropped them in volcanoes, then exploded hydrogen bombs on them. That experience is the root of all human misery today. VO: Scientology offers to help people overcome that misery, charging as much as $50,000 in a year. It's one of the reasons why "Time" magazine calls Scientology "The cult of greed." VO: One of "Time's" principal sources was Cynthia Kisser, who was CAN's executive director. STAHL: You said, "Scientology is quite likely the most ruthless, the most classically terroristic, the most litigious, and the most lucrative cult the country has ever seen." Whoa, that was very powerful. Do you stand by that? KISSER: Oh, more than ever, more than ever. I mean, everything they've done since then just proves that quote. VO: Cynthia Kisser says a Fair Game attack on CAN started in the 1980's, and Stacy Young says she was part of it. YOUNG: Some of the staff who were assigned to the Cult Awareness Network would brief us about... STAHL: You mean there were people specifically assigned? YOUNG: Oh, yes, that was their whole job. that was all they did. STAHL: Was CAN? YOUNG: Was CAN, that's right. And so, our whole orientation was, well, what have you done this week to get rid of CAN, and how, how well have you done to discredit the leaders of CAN? How much progress have you made on disrupting this group? Footage of Scieno picketers with signs saying "CAN is a hate group", "No more hate, no more riots", "Stop hate mongering in Los Angeles, don't support CAN", "CAN kidnappers get out of LA", Stop Religious Hate Crimes, Stop Ku Klux CAN". ---------------- Here's an excerpt from The Los Angeles New Times, Ron Russell, Sept. 9, '99: ---------------- It was an idea whose time had come. That's how Priscilla Coates describes the humble beginnings of the Cult Awareness Network, founded two decades ago in the wake of the murders and mass suicides in Guyana that claimed the lives of hundreds of the late Jim Jones' followers. The concept was simple enough: set up a nonprofit, national organization to assist the often desperate loved ones of people caught up in the ever-proliferating cult scene. On paper, at least, the group known by the acronym CAN endures. But nearly a quarter-century later, neither Coates, who ran the Los Angeles chapter during the organization's hey day, nor anyone else who once helped nurture the network has anything to do with it. That's because whenever people call CAN's hotline these days, more likely than not someone from the Church of Scientology answers the phone. Instead of warning people about suspected cults, opponents say, the new group promotes them. As one Scientology critic puts it, "It's like Operation Rescue taking over Planned Parenthood." The story of how the controversial L.A.-based church -- which Time magazine once termed "the cult of greed" -- commandeered the anti-cult group that was its nemesis is as bizarre as some of late church founder L. Ron Hubbard's science fiction. It is also a cautionary tale for anyone who goes up against Scientology, with its penchant for harassing enemies in the courts, and its rough-and-tumble reputation for retaliating against "suppressives," those deemed as having ridiculed Scientology's teachings. Those teachings include Hubbard's decree that humans are made of clusters of spirits, called "thetans," who were banished to Earth about 75 million years ago by an evil galactic ruler named Xenu. A pulp fiction writer who had served a troubled stint in the Navy, Hubbard hit it big in 1950 by coming up with the concept of Dianetics, which he dubbed a modern science of mental health. It remains at the core of Scientology practice. One of its staples is a simplified lie detector called an E-meter, which is supposed to measure electrical changes in the skin while subjects discuss intimate details of their lives. Hubbard claimed that unhappiness sprang from mental aberrations, called "engrams," and that counseling sessions with the E-meter could help get rid of them. Scientologists refer to the extensive (and expensive) process of "clearing" the mind in order for this to occur as "auditing." But during the 1970s, the Internal Revenue Service conducted some auditing sessions of its own and accused Hubbard of skimming millions of dollars from the church, laundering it through dummy corporations, and stashing it in Swissbank accounts. And although he died before the case was adjudicated, his wife and 10 other former church leaders went to prison in the early 1980s for infiltrating, burglarizing, and wiretapping dozens of private and government agencies in an attempt to block their investigations. With its sprawling headquarters on Sunset Boulevard in Hollywood, the church has assembled a star-studded roster of followers that includes actors John Travolta, Tom Cruise, and Kirstie Alley; jazz musician Chick Corea; and soul singer Isaac Hayes. To help shed its fringe-group image, it has retained public relations powerhouse Hill and Knowlton, runs a plethora of ads on television and in top-drawer news and business journals, and recruits academics and other professionals through a network of consultants whose ties to the church are typically hidden. Its members also include high-profile media types. Greta Van Susteren, the CNN legal correspondent, and her husband, influential Washington Beltway attorney John Coale, are Scientologists. They even played a minor role in Scientology's assault on the Cult Awareness Network by representing an Ohio woman who sued a cult-[recovery rehabilitation retreat] named Wellspring, whose executive director also sat on the CAN board. In hindsight, officials of the former CAN -- whose alleged involvement with kidnapping and deprogramming individuals from suspected cults created its own controversy -- say they should have seen Scientology's assault coming. Especially after an L.A. lawyer prominent in Scientology attached himself to a civil lawsuit against CAN in suburban Seattle several years ago. Noone could have imagined that the suit, brought on behalf of a young man named Jason Scott -- who had been kidnapped and deprogrammed from [a church affiliated with the United Pentecostal Church International]-- would produce judgments totaling $5.2 million and hasten the anti-cult group's financial ruin. Nor could they have guessed that on the day in 1996 that its logo, furniture, and phone number were auctioned off at the order of a bankruptcy judge, a Scientologist would appear out of no where to place the winning bid. But the ultimate indignity for the anti-cult crusaders occurred earlier this year in a Chicago courtroom. Already having vanquished CAN, appropriated its name, and moved its offices from Illinois to within blocks of Scientology headquarters in Hollywood, lawyers with ties to the church moved to take possession of 20 years' worth of CAN's highly sensitive case files. Filling more than 150 boxes, the materials contained names, addresses, and detailed information on thousands of people who had turned to CAN for help in rescuing their friends and relatives. The list of organizations targeted by the old CAN read like a who's who of fringe culture. Among them were the Ku Klux Klan and the Aryan Nations, dozens of obscure fundamentalist and evangelical Christian groups, the Church ofSatan, the Unification Church of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, followers of political extremist Lyndon LaRouche, and, of course, the Church of Scientology. A judge had earlier excluded the materials from the bankruptcy liquidation, ordering that they be held in storage while the former CAN's officers sought court protection to keep them out of the hands of its enemies. Bankruptcy judges are often leery of turning over the assets of one group to another, especially where rivalries exist. But Scientology lawyers appear to have devised a strategy to get around the problem. By purchasing the judgments against the penniless CAN, a Los Angeles man named Gary Beeny had become the bankrupt organization's chief unsecured creditor. And so it was to Beeny that a judge in May awarded ownership of the files, the last vestige of CAN's once-abundant resources. Beeny is a Scientologist, according to sources and The American Lawyer magazine. And in short order he transferred custodianship of the files to a Scientology-backed group, the Foundation for Religious Freedom [which is listed in an agreement with IRS as a Scientology entity]. The foundation had already become the entity officially licensed to operate the new CAN after another Scientologist, Steven L. Hayes, of Los Angeles, bought the logo and other appurtenances. In fact, the lawyer who represented Beeny was none other than Scientology attorney and high-profile spokesman Kendrick L. Moxon [an unindicted co-conspirator mentioned in a federal indictment that sent 11 Scientologists to prison]. He is the same lawyer who represented Jason Scott in the case that led to CAN's bankruptcy. (Scott now says he was used as a pawn of Scientology and has disavowed Moxon.) Incredibly, the foundation's chairman, who is also the chairman of the new CAN, is the old CAN's most indefatigable enemy, a self-described Baptist minister named George Robertson. And in yet another piece of perverse symmetry, the new CAN's executive director, Andy Bagley -- who was once L.Ron Hubbard's secretary -- was a chief antagonist of the old CAN's last executive director, Cynthia Kisser. Bagley had turned his attention to Kisser while heading a branch of Scientology's Office of Special Operations, the church's CIA-like intelligence unit, in Kansas City. "We're talking about a strategic conspiracy of grand proportions, an unabashed tragedy," says Ed Lottick, a Pennsylvania physician and a director of the old CAN. "And now that they've got the files, God only knows the havoc they'll wreak." Lottick shouldn't have to wait long to find out. Since transporting the files to L.A. barely two months ago, the new Scientology-backed CAN has begun the arduous task of organizing and archiving them. It intends to hand over to each of the many groups targeted by the old CAN copies of all the documents that pertain to those groups, says Nancy O'Meara, the new CAN's treasurer and office manager. A 25-year veteran of Scientology, O'Meara sees the old CAN as made up of hate-mongers bent on persecuting any group they didn't like. Citing the old CAN's "reign of terror," she scarcely conceals her glee at the prospect that some of the formerly targeted groups may want to use the newly obtained materials to pursue lawsuits or even criminal prosecutions. Already, the top lieutenant to once-jailed cult leader Tony Alamo -- the flamboyant one-time L.A. street preacher who combined his messianic pronouncements with a lucrative business in sequined leather jackets -- has flown in from Arkansas to obtain copies of the files pertaining to Alamo. "The documents are amazing," O'Meara says. "They're really going to open some eyes, and we think they will -- or should -- generate a lot of media interest." Understandably, where they are being held is a carefully guarded secret. As for specifics, she referred questions about the files to Moxon, the Scientology lawyer who was a key figure in the old CAN's demise and the person whom she says is responsible for overseeing the files. But when approached for an interview, Moxon expressed more interest in asking questions about this article than in discussing the Cult Awareness Network. "I've seen a lot of shitty things [about Scientology] in New Times," he said, before hanging up on a reporter. "And I don't trust you." For the old Cult Awareness Network, the end was swift. Ben Hyink, who represented CAN in the bankruptcy, recalls the somber mood on that day in 1996 when he escorted Cynthia Kisser into a Chicago courtroom on what proved to be a fool's errand. Kisser had spent nine years at the helm of the organization, and, like the captain of a sinking ship, desperately wanted to cling to it for as long as possible. She had arrived naively hoping to buy the group's assets. Even more naively, she hoped that they wouldn't cost much. Even if successful, hers would have been a sad mission. The aim was to scoop up the trade name, post office box, help-linenumber, and service mark merely to retire them and thus put the beleaguered CAN out of its misery. But there was another suitor in the courtroom that day -- Steven Hayes, the Scientologist, who had come all the way from L.A. with different ideas. The bidding started at $10,000, and a nervous Kisser quickly offered $11,000. Hayes raised her $1,000. "I will bid $13,000," she said. "Fourteen," snapped Hayes. Kisser kept going -- to $19,000. But when Hayes upped her again, Kisser responded: "No more." The trustee conducting the sale asked if she'd like to take a break, and she said that would be fine. He told her that if she wanted to make another offer to come back within three minutes. But as Hyink recalls, the pause was pointless. Kisser could go no higher. "I will accept the offer of Mr.Hayes for $20,000," court records show the trustee proclaimed. And it was over. But Scientology's takeover of CAN had been years in the making. Starting in 1991, CAN had been forced to fend off at least 50 lawsuits filed by Scientologists in state and federal courts around the country. Coates, the former L.A. chapter head, recalls being hit with a half-dozen suits in the span of just two weeks in 1992. "It became so routine that you felt like you knew the process servers," she says. At the same time, Scientologists filed dozens of discrimination complaints against CAN with state human rights commissions nationwide, requiring the services of a battery of lawyers. Although individual Scientologists had filed the suits, many of them contained almost identical language. And there was another common denominator: Many of the lawsuits were drafted by Moxon's law firm. The plaintiffs' claims fell into one of two categories. Either they had been denied membership in one of CAN's local affiliate groups, or they had been refused admission to CAN's annual conference. "You'd have to be an imbecile not to see that it was part of an orchestrated effort," says Dan Liepold, a Santa Ana attorney who defended CAN in three dozen of the lawsuits and who has often butted heads with Scientology. His files contain scores of letters written by Scientologists to CAN, requesting to join it. In many of them, the language is virtually identical as if they were churned out using a common model. The extent of the orchestration became clear, he says, when he began to depose individual plaintiffs and discovered that some hadn't even applied for membership in CAN before they sued. Others, he says, didn't know who was paying for their lawyers or how the lawyers had been selected. For Coates, the letter-writing campaign held no mystery. "There was nothing spontaneous about it," she says. "The letters started arriving in huge numbers, all of them saying pretty much the same thing. It didn't take a rocket scientist to see that [the church] was getting ready to come after us." Bagley, the former Hubbard secretary, confirms as much. After being rebuffed numerous times by Kisser in an effort to discuss with her "the lies [the old] CAN was fomenting" about Scientology, he says, he informed Kisser in a phone call that he wanted to join CAN "in order to reform [her] organization from within." Exactly what prompted Scientology to turn its considerable resources against the tiny anti-cult group when it did -- beyond Scientologists' long-time hatred of CAN -- is a matter of speculation. But that it did so is hardly surprising. According to Scientology policy, opponents are viewed as fair game for retaliation. Hubbard's own teachings spell out the importance of waging legal war against perceived enemies, even when the purpose is to intimidate and discourage rather than to win. As a consequence, lawyers hired by the church have filed hundreds of lawsuits over the years. (Among the high-profile attorneys who've represented the church is L.A. Police Commission President Gerald Chaleff.) As for the attack on CAN, a May 1991 issue of Time, headlined "Scientology: The Cult of Greed," couldn't have helped. In it, Kisser offered some particularly disparaging remarks about the church. In any event, Scientologists made no secret of their contempt for her. For example, a 1995 issue of Freedom magazine, a church publication, bore the cover title: "CAN: The Serpent of Hatred, Intolerance, Violence and Death." Inside, it likened CAN to "a hate group in the tradition of the KKK and neo-Nazis" and referred to Kisser as the "mother of the serpent." The same issue contained the accusation that before she became the group's executive director in 1987, Kisser had been a topless dancer in a Tucson, Arizona, nightclub -- an accusation Kisser has publicly dismissed as "ludicrous." (Kisser declined numerous requests for an interview with NewTimes. Friends and former colleagues describe her as personally devastated by the demise of CAN and by what she perceives as the church's continued harassment of her. They say she is trying to begin a new life and is attending law school in Chicago.) ---------------------
etzchaim Registered User (1/13/04 8:28 am) Reply	Re: CAN My information on CAN is from the CENSUR site, which is not run by Scientologists, but is a world-wide based group of Religious scholars studying new religions, some of which are cults and some of which are not. I posted the new CAN site, as well, but the list and the article on deprogrammers is from the CENSUR site. Scientology did indeed strike back, which is usually what happens when a group is being attacked. Scientology is indeed a made up religion, a joke between it's founder and Isaac Asimov who goaded him into proving that he could invent one. If you do not want people to join Scientology or other cults, then education about what makes them a cult is in order, not attacking peoples religious beliefs, which you do quite regularly, calling them 'external' and a product of 'dualism'. In my understanding of dualism, when a person believes that the inner is real and the outer in unreal, they are being dualist. "> Etzchaim: "... nor anyone else on a 'path', and yet you attempt to do so." "Because YB doesn't bow to your long list of gurus? Or is YB suppose to have a degree or something? What YB says on the non-dual approach is just what it is -- you take it or leave it, just like with what everyone else posts here. "If you don't want to give up your beliefs, even your superficial ones, then this information is of no use to you. So be it, why worry about it? Why do you continue to engage someone here when all they talk about is the non-dual when that's not your cup of tea?" I am a non-dualist, YB. I do not bow down to my Guru, why are you making the assumption that I do? Why? Could it possibly be because you assume that anyone who has a Guru is worshipping them and is therefore a dualist? I do not think you are qualified to teach anyone on a path because you have not demonstrated very much knowledge of meditation or any knowledge of paths or any kind, except your own, which is quite individualized to you and apparently requires a drug (no externalizations here, are there?) to induce the required meditative state you are seeking. I suppose you could guide people in smoking or chewing the drug you use and then if they demonstrate any tendency toward believing anything you could tell them they are being childish and falling into dualistic belief patterns. You are quite good at cutting and pasting from anti-cult sites, and at harrassing people, though, which despite your denial to the contrary, several others have pointed out either gently or not so gently to you. Your behavior is classically passive-aggressive. You really do not seem to be able to discern the hostility that you bring into these forums, projecting all of that hostility onto us, even though, in the very beginning, you appeared to be acting hostile on purpose. This hostility was, according to you, a deprogramming method, that you claimed was useful to us in that if we were able to rebel against you, we could then transfer this rebellion onto SRF and it's teachings. Now it is only we who are hostile and angry and attacking. This, YB, is the classic pattern of a passive-aggresive person. Edited by: etzchaim at: 1/13/04 9:36 am
etzchaim Registered User (1/13/04 8:36 am) Reply	CENSUR CESNUR, Religion, and Public Polity CESNUR has conducted, in co-operation with public bodies, two of the largest surveys on religious belief and affiliation in Italy, one in Sicily and one in the province of Foggia. the result have been published in two books, La sfida infinita (1994) and Il gigante invisibile (1997). CESNUR is proud to enjoy a fruitful co-operation with a number of law enforcement agencies and public bodies. It has been able to assist members of parliaments, political parties, and law enforcement agencies by formulating suggestions on how to handle problems related to religion and religious minorities. On the other hand, CESNUR notices that, when scholars are ignored or regarded as less reliable than anti-cult activists, serious mistakes are made. The French and/or the Belgian parliamentary reports on "cults" listed among "cults" -- to name just a few -- the Quakers, the Baha'i, the Seventh-day Adventists, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Assemblies of God and other Pentecostal bodies, Evangelical missions, the Lectorium Rosicrucianum, Anthroposophy, the Church of Christ, Zen, Theravada, Tibetan and Nichiren Buddhist organizations, the YWCA, Hasidic Jews, and Catholic groups and religious orders including the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, Opus Dei, and the Work. Some of these groups have defended themselves by arguing that they accept the general category of "cult" as outlined by the reports, but claim that it is wrongly applied to them. This seems to be a very weak defense. The effective defense should be to show that the category of "cults" used by these documents is unscholarly and not acceptable. Methodologically, it is clear that these reports rely primarily on sources supplied by the international anti-cult movement, and accept uncritically the brainwashing or mind control model of conversion, a model unanimously rejected by mainline sociological and psychological science. It is this methodology that should be exposed as faulty. CESNUR does not believe that all religious movements are benign. The fact that a movement is religious does not mean that it could not become dangerous. To the contrary, our experience shows that dangerous or even criminal religious movements do exist. CESNUR invites scholars not to ignore questions of doctrine, authenticity, and legitimacy of spiritual paths. Although questions of authenticity could not be addressed by courts of law in a secular State, the latter could and should intervene when real crimes are perpetrated. Consumers of spiritual goods should not enjoy less protection than consumers in other fields. And when suicide, homicide, child abuse or rape are condoned or promoted, we urge a strong application of criminal laws. On the other hand "cults" in general should not suffer for the crimes of a minority of them. We are against special legislation against "cults", or against "brainwashing", "mind control" or "mental manipulation" (by any name). Any minority happening to be unpopular could be easily accused to own the invisible and non-existing weapon of "brainwashing", and special legislation would reduce religious liberty to an empty shell. Protection of religious liberty also requires that each group be examined on its own merits, comparing different sources and not relying exclusively on information provided by hostile ex-members. Experiences of disgruntled ex-members should certainly not be ignored, but they could not become the only narratives used to build our knowledge of a group. Information supplied by anti-cult activists claims to be eminently practical but in fact is largely theoretical and anedoctical, based as it is on secondary sources, from press clippings to accounts of families of members (not necessarily familiar with the movements) or of ex-members rationalizing their past experiences. Scholars, having a direct contact both with ex-members and actual members may supply more balanced information. And balanced information is precisely what the public powers and the media need. ------------------------------------------------------- For more information about CESNUR, go to: www.cesnur.org/about.htm#ing Edited by: etzchaim at: 1/13/04 9:04 am
kolorado22 Registered User (1/13/04 10:45 am) Reply	Re: Lynch Mob???? To Dawnrays: Thank you for your posts. You show yourself to be a great soul as do others who post here because they love Master and want to talk freely. I have not posted here before. I am a long time devotee who has spent most of his life with Kriya practise. I occasionally attend the Encinitas temple. I believe in Master and Ma and will continue to do so for many lifetimes to come as long as I am aware of anything. I do not work for SRF and am basically a hermit who works when I can to support my family. I waste hours everyday charting securities or meditating as I find that easier than living in the world. I am a mystic and can see into souls but alas I have no other real talents. I am a member in high standing of the California Dark Community of Fools composed of those who think their lives are filled with despair, depression, abuse, addiction, inconsiderate behaviour, ugliness and just plain evil. You might say I am thoroughly unenlightened.. I even voted for George Bush and intend to again. But I am as honest as I know how to be and I see many of you here are also. I think it is important for any new devotees who read this board to know that Daya Mata has been an angel of God and that PY is a saint who is still guiding his devotees. I have not seen Ma for many years, since 1982 I believe. I met her in 1978 at the convocation at the Biltmore Hotel where Master had his Mahasamadhi. I was living in Boulder Colorado then and had never seen her. My wife was not a devotee then and she does not attend the temple now though she loves Ma. My wife had a very severe case of Multiple Sclerosis in 1978, she was partially paralyzed on her left side. She was only 28 years old at the time. She could not hold onto anything on that side and had difficulty walking. I persuaded her to come to convocation to meet some long time friends that lived in LA and we both met Muktananda there who is another God realized soul. Neither of us knew what to expect from SRF as in those days, as now, MC radiated an arrogant and aloof aura. We attended the convocation the Thursday nite that Ma came and we both looked at Ma and saw an angel. Ma went into the audience, touching everyone she could, usually on the right hand, the one you would advance to shake hands. When she came to my wife she took her left hand and held it for what seemed a long while. We thought nothing of it, we were caught up in her eyes that looked reptilian and were so piercing that it was very difficult to look at them. The light coming from her body was beyond description. About 20 minutes later my wife noticed that her symptoms from MS were gone. They have never returned in a major way, though she still has mild weakness on that side. She has had an MRI recently that confirmed her disease and that it has been in remission for many years. We also had a mutual friend who was gay but a very strong devotee who loved Ma. I mention he was gay because at that time MC was very negative about openly gay devotees. Well, our dear friend contracted AIDs and died many years ago. But he saw Ma twice before he died, she helped him greatly. He was a destitute man, and had nothing to give her. She gave him hope until the day he passed away. I don�t know what has happened to Ma recently and I don�t like some of the new ministers, especially the very uninspiring new minister at Encinitas. I trust those on this board who tell about their experiences of the MC and some of the BOD. I don�t think that ex renunciants would just trash the organization for no reason. I also know several who have served the organization and left in confusion. Perhaps Ma and others at the MC have fallen into dark times, I don�t know. Of course we all live in this crazy creation where anything is possible. I admit that I don�t go to convocations anymore and don�t have many friends at the temple, except those I know from the 70s and 80s who are here. I think that whatever ails SRF seems much uglier if you are inside. But I feel strongly that Ma has done the job of keeping the temples open so that devotees can come together. Also she has kept the printing machines going for the lessons. These are important things. All of this organization stuff can wear down even great souls, that is the way of this creation. She will recover as we all will. If Saint Francis can still live in spirit in his crypt in Assisi in the bowels of the Catholic Church, PY can still live in his devotees no matter how FUBAR SRF is today. Eventually his light will return. He will choose some souls and they will come forward.
chrisparis Registered User (1/13/04 12:04 pm) Reply	Re: Lynch Mob???? I hate to say this, but CESNUR was founded by Massimo Intovigne, an apologist for scientology and someone who has ties to the Red Brigades, and a number of other extremist groups on both the right AND left. Anything he has to say about anything needs to be viewed very critically...
etzchaim Registered User (1/13/04 12:18 pm) Reply	Re: Lynch Mob???? OK then, I'm acting the other side of YB's coin. I'm finding, though, from reading the information about the anti-cult deprogrammers that much of what I'm experiencing of YB's derrogation of any kind of religious expression or belief, to be very similar to the kind of abuse that is brought up in these reports. The first thing people are subjected to is derogatory statements about what they believe in. That is what YB is doing. I find this abusive. To all of us and other people have brought this up as well. I also do not get any sense that YB actually knows much about what he is attacking, just that he thinks that any kind of religious belief is either silly, childish or dangerous. Many of the papers on the fringe religions are very open minded. I know people who belong to various fringe religions. They are not in cults, they are practicing their beliefs according to who they are as people. There is a difference between the coercive tendencies within groups, such as many people here bring up about their experiences in SRF and in simply belonging to a fringe religion. Even though I experienced negativity in a Fundamentalist group, I know many, many people who are living as Lubavitchers who are leading very happy lives. I would not call them a 'cult'. SRF itself is very mild as far as 'cults' go. I guess I'm trying to find some sort of balance here and going too far over to the other end. It's one thing for a person to want to leave a group or a belief system, it's quite another for someone to attempt to force someone, whether that is through physical force or through subtle manipulative force. I see no difference between the manipulation that SRF uses and the attempts to belittle peoples beliefs that YB is using. Both are forms of manipulation. Edited by: etzchaim at: 1/13/04 12:44 pm
etzchaim Registered User (1/13/04 1:28 pm) Reply	Re: Lynch Mob???? Actually, I'm also finding some really serious criticism of 'deprogramming' on the anti-cult sites themselves. Many are quite honest about it being abusive.
ugizralrite Registered User (1/13/04 2:06 pm) Reply	My welcome to the kolorado22 post Because of my background, walrus is very enjoyable reading, and kolorado22 has made yet another superb (inaugural) posting and added a new name to the list. This thread has me itching to mirror the entire forum archive again, but it is a process that takes about six hours and January is the month where the statistics are used to figure the fee for walrus over the next six months. So I am waiting until February for the next backup. EZ board says they have server backup anyway. Etzchaim's link to the salvia web site made interesting reading. I come away from the accounts of salvia induced experience feeling that had I been plunged into such an extraordinary reality, especially the vast living-nothingness aspect, I for one would be energized to construct a mutual understanding to incorporate ordinary experience and the salvia induced view. Do others think that perhaps Yellowbeard's quest has something to do with that? Just a thought. Walrus ezboard is a treasure. Edited by: ugizralrite at: 1/13/04 2:08 pm
etzchaim Registered User (1/13/04 2:36 pm) Reply	Salvia descriptions It reminds me of LSD experiences. I think that anytime we experience a mind altering experience that comes from outside of us, like either a Mystic (i.e., a realized being) induced or a drug induced state (I've had both and they are very similar, but the Mystic induced ones were more coherent), it is like receiving a gift that reminds us, or gives us a sign, of what we experience in higher meditative states and when we are more realized. The mind is the mind and access to higher levels can be induced. The main criticism I have with drugs is that they work while they are working and are not as transformative as having the experience integrate through practice and actual personal evolution. They don't seem to leave the transforming effect on people as meditation does. I have combined the two, which is very inciteful (and, oddly enough, in the same way that YB described) but I wouldn't do that as a normal practice. Maybe I'm just a stickler for self-reliance?
YellowBeard420 Slow Down (1/14/04 2:30 am) Reply	Difference between Co-Dependency and Self-Reliance > Etzchaim wrote: "Maybe I'm just a stickler for self-reliance?" This is similar to a claim YB has heard from a Vipassana meditation teacher that felt that Native Americans that use peyote were engaging in "unnatural" means to induce altered states of consciousness. YB says, what can be more natural than using a plant that grows naturally beneath our feet? Most native cultures that use these type of plants don't even cultivate them. They just use them when they appear naturally. It doesn't get more natural than that. But more directly dealing with the "self-reliance" issue that's been brought up here, are we not being self-reliant when we eat vegetables from a market? Even though the food is an external source, purchasing it isn't denying your independence. There's a difference between self-reliance and co-dependence. The common belief is that taking advantage of these plants is somehow unnatural and being dependent on "externals". If we really think about this, using plants that grow on the earth on their own is far from these descriptions of "unnatural" and "external". Well, why does YB knock the guru-disciple relationship, can't we view that in the same way? Unless on has had a taste of Self-realization, it's very difficult to detect it in another. We have to rely on word of mouth and our own judgment. But how reliable is word of mouth? And even our own judgment -- if that was dependable we wouldn't need to "Awaken" from delusion. Also, we have the issues of co-dependency that develops between people, this is why many Self-realized people get as far away from other people as possible. Students can bring down the teacher just as easily as the teacher can bring down the students. YB says that plants are way more reliable, they don't have egos! > Etzchaim: "The main criticism I have with drugs is that they work while they are working and are not as transformative as having the experience integrate through practice and actual personal evolution." YB says that they're useful for glimpsing the Self if used carefully and properly. You're on your own for the rest of the work of course. It can't do these things for you. Perceiving the Self, even for a split second will last with someone for the rest of their life. No matter what anyone says about it, they'll know what that Reality is. They don't have to have faith in what others say about it. This is priceless. This is self-reliance. > Etzchaim wrote: "I'm also finding some really serious criticism of 'deprogramming' on the anti-cult sites themselves." They don't really use deprogramming anymore. They use more gentle 'recovery' methods now and not the intrusive and aggressive deprogramming methods anymore. If YB had a child that joined the "Sea Org" which is basically a Scientology slave labor and programming camp, YB would do whatever he could to find an old-school deprogrammer because as intrusive as their methods were, they had a very good success rate. You can't play nice in serious situations like this example. But worry not, YB thinks that deprogramming is actually illegal now. Not exactly sure on that though. 'Recovery' methods are now used which are more like gentle self-analysis therapy techniques. Yb used spiritual deprogramming on himself which worked very rapidly to break his co-dependence to SRF ideology. All YellowBeard can do is speak on what has worked for him. If he spoke on other things, that would be disingenuous. We have to offer each other what has worked for us, otherwise what are we doing? We're just spreading 'word of mouth' when we do otherwise. The process is aggressive as Etz has described. But it's that way for a purpose. So it's not "abuse". It's so we don't have to spend 25 years in therapy and spending heaven knows how much money. This is free and quick. All YB can offer is what has worked for him ...

Page 1 2 3 4

<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Email This To a Friend

Email This To a Friend
Topic Control Image

Topic Control Image

Click to receive email notification of replies

Click to stop receiving email notification of replies

jump to:

- SRF Walrus - SRF Teachings and Ideals -

Powered By ezboard� Ver. 7.32
Copyright �1999-2005 ezboard, Inc.