|
|
|
Hi Milarepa,
I see many vivid similarities in the ways these two organisations (Sc. and E.V.) effect their followers. While the specific characteristics differ, the same hostile divisions into "us" and "them": the depersonalising suspicion directed toward non-followers, the outrage directed toward any open disagreements are apparent. The same impossibly exalted pedestal for their special "gift" which drains all validity from the surrounding world is maintained.
I feel deeply for the despair John Sweeney must have felt and for the actual damaging effect such desperate attempts to communicate a truth; beyond the limits of patience or endurance to those who are sworn closed, can have on body and mind.
I feel also for that acute pain of realising that human beings can be so distorted in their perspectives and priorities by narcissistic leaders as to be persuaded to effectively turn on the rest of the human race as a whole, in defence of a mere idea: that even our best seen truths and clearly thought through sentences will fall on ears: deaf not by lack of function; but by a sound proof door, more sinister, within.
It feels to the arguer, as if, here, humanity has broken down: as if human nature has been, in this instance, overruled.
I will definitely be watching avidly. A similar Panorama scenario could well be aired around a more Amaroo setting. We can always hope. What E.V. lacks in size it makes up for in colourful and comically ludicrous accessories. It would make an interesting, possibly even cathartic, follow up.
All the best to you and to everyone.
saph.
Modified by Mike Finch-Admin at Mon, May 14, 2007, 15:50:03
|
|
|
|
These trancendental types are all "on one".
Remember the glee with which M used to tell the myth of Arjun on the battlefield. "Go ahead kill them" says K, "Slay them all, they'll love it. It'll be good for them. Go at it. Anyway they're as good as dead already".
The story gives me a thrill of superiority right now even thinking about it .
Personally I'm into Heidegger this month. Now there is a grounded philosophy. And there's no chance of making a guru out of him. What a total bastard, but what a brilliant analysis of daily being.
Anyway, I think K was just a form of spiritual materialism, a kind of grasping psychic empiricism, if you see what I mean. Boneheaded Enlightenment twaddle hicked up into commodified Nirvana!
Ho ho.
Love
Bryn
|
|
|
|
spiritual materialism - nice.
As if we could buy enlightenment with satsang, service and meditation.
Heidigger - he's the one without the cat isn't he?
|
|
|
|
Schroedinger had his cat, Nietszche had his moustache, Captain Corelli his mandolin. Sparky his magic piano, Bell his theorum, oh the list is endless. What about the "-and her"s? None leaping swiftly to mind at the mo. Hmmm Prem Rawat and his Amazing Technicolour Dream Coat. I can really dig it below, PatD and his ongoing battle with being gods messenger. On exiting, me and Loaf went through a phase of what we referred to as "Badger grooming"-the compulsion to instruct others less (as we thought) charismatic than ourselves. It takes a lot to kick the habit. That Ubermench just wont lie down. I've filled in the Jihadi skills questionaire and await a reply. Semi-seriously though, the issue of isolation, grandiosity, and general "Uber-ness" in the religious, among whom I include myself as a premie, is fascinating. It is such a very visible state,to everyone but the afflicted. Jai Satchitanand fellow travellers, Bryn the Extended and his Unfeasably Incisive Demeanour
|
|
|
|
comes when, having indulged and survived the grovelling and the sucking toe stages, (a like-able enough phrase at the time, coined by my American sadhu friends on our trips to New Delhi to find the best subji and dhal in town.) we find ourselves straightening up. (The back can only bow for so long.)
As the blood drains back to our feet, we find ourselves looking at the man in the street with a different eye.
Or as I might have once preferred to arrange it: 
As the blood drains back to our feet,
we find ourselves
looking at the man in the street
with a different eye.
In other words: bowing to guru feet seriously distorts how we view other human beings.
Modified by Lp at Tue, May 15, 2007, 05:32:04
|
|
|
|
'Schroedinger had his cat, Nietszche had his moustache, Captain Corelli his mandolin.'
Whose cat, moustache, mandolin? Heidigger's? What was left for the poor man? Even his magic piano nicked by Sparky ( the cat? ). No wonder he turned to philosophy!
|
|
|
|
Remember the glee with which M used to tell the myth of Arjun on the
battlefield. "Go ahead kill them" says K, "Slay them all, they'll love
it. It'll be good for them.Go at it. Anyway they're as good as dead
already".
The story gives me a thrill of superiority right now even thinking about it
Yes, there was a definite whiff of the ubermenschen about us all, & it's still there with them, only now more or less completely internalised. It's actually a very difficult character trait to eradicate, once successfully installed, & its something I have to consciously work on, being given to pontificating, shouting at the tv & such like.........
When I read the Krishna /Arjuna story as a teenager I was horrified, I think, & didn't understand what it meant. I'm not sure I do to this day although I'm working on it sporadically, but its significance to the master/devotee relationship is an incidental accretion. There's something much older & darker going on here. Why should the 'Lord' choose to initiate his disciple at such a time, & what was the initiation anyway? Hardly likely that it was Rawat's watered down fakir trick.
Speaking of which, wasn't that the same one that Jesus Christ was supposed to have 'shown', even though the circumstances were entirely different, something which should've given pause for thought, & in fact did in my case, but only temporarily. The Power of the Trick was too strong.
Then there was Buddha, different again in many important respects from the other two, yet still the bearer of the great gift.........only not as Great as the Satguru.
Which brings us to the 4th founder of the world's major religions Rawat claimed to be in the line of, & Greater than........Mohammed. Now Mohammed didn't actually initiate anyone into anything, he just gave them a book he claimed had been dictated to him by the Archangel Gabriel, & told his followers to get medieaval on the ass of anyone who looked sideways at them.
With such varied, & one has to say, largely incompatible founding myths, it's incredible that we should've fallen for Rawat's bullshit syncretism, but then it all comes back to the fact that he could deliver the proof. At one time anyway.
Maybe we should get Professor Geaves to explain it all.
|
|
|
|
And Krishna said to Arjuna "Be not afraid, for I am always with you. Go forth into the living room, and shout at the TV, and pontificate a lot. "
Blessings.
|
|
|
|
I don't recognise that quote from Bagh Gita - however when was Bagh Gita written - 2000BC some say even 3000BC. Look at all those quotes that reappear verbatim in New Testament. There's 100's of them, well dozens. eg? Although I did memorise the complete Mahabaratha once cant' quite give examples at the moment. Please see for yourself, tell me I'm not wrong. Explanation given is Devil travelled back in time to write Baghavad Gita. A knavish trick to dupe unwary. There is a word for that from Xtian apologistst. Zed
|
|
|
|
'Explanation given is Devil travelled back in time to write Baghavad Gita. A knavish trick to dupe unwary.'
If the Devil could travel back in time, he'd be stuck there, unless he could travel to the future again. So if he went back to trick us with writing a book, what tricks has he already set for us in the future? We're doomed, or at least, dependent on Dr Who for keeping us out of trouble.
|
|
|
|
Can you imagine Rawat going on ANY battlefield?What a joke that rawat compares himself to the blue boy.Imagine rawat driving your chariot. You'de be posterior over bosoms at the start. In the world of words, he will hever put himself in a position where he can be questioned. Even when taking questions from premies, he is unable to be honest. 
|
|
|
|
The cops here in the UK have remarked on the cult like aspects of Al Qaeda. But that hasn't stopped the City of London cops bigging up Scientology, unfortunately.http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1953996,00.html
|
|
|
|
An interesting documentary what? One thought occured to me... that different cults appeal to different personality types. Scientology seems very extrovert. I agree with your suggestion for a follow up documentary LP, so I`ve sent the following message to the BBC Panorama team... "Excellent documentary. Thank you BBC. May I suggest a follow up to this programme? Prem Rawat, aka Guru Maharaji, is a cult leader living in L.A. who uses dangerous mind control techniques. He has caused untold damage by ruthlessly exploiting thousands of vulnerable people to aquire and maintain his luxury lifestyle. Former `devotees` will finally speak out after more than 35 years of social injustice." I doubt they will respond. Rawat is probably just too boring for a mass audience. Mila
Modified by Milarepa at Mon, May 14, 2007, 16:21:45
|
|
|
|
Though many channels have had a go already.
It was more spectacular to document a child who says he is god than a middle aged man who says he is not and never said he was.
It all only looked big -ish to us I guess, and colorful etc..
Still I'd like to see the BBC take you up on that and can't help thinking it would be a good subject, with thorough research.
Some of the pictures of Indian programs are awesomely huge, though that too is normal in India, but it is not so normal to play the chameleon with such abandon..
Lp
Modified by Lp at Mon, May 14, 2007, 17:43:45
|
|
|
|
Lp, that's very well put if I may so. I hope it's OK that I've quoted the piece (anonyomously of course  ) in the discussion I mentioned elsewhere in this thread. Many thanks.
Modified by jonti at Wed, May 16, 2007, 00:51:43
|
|
|
|
Absolutely - honoured. Thanks Jonti
|
|
|
|
Hi Guys, long time,There's an interesting (and reasonably informed) discussion about the BBC program here ...
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=207485
(you may need to login with an ID and password) That's not why I dropped by tho' -- I thought this paper by Keith Hanson (he of the "space elevator" fame, unfortunately recently jailed, thanks to the efforts of the Scientologists) would be of interest ... http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/cults.html Here's the abstract that summarises the paper ... >>>
In the aggregate, memes constitute human culture. Most are useful. But a whole class of memes (cults, ideologies, etc.) have no obvious replication drivers. Why are some humans highly susceptible to such memes? Evolutionary psychology is required to answer this question. Two major evolved psychological mechanisms emerge from the past to make us susceptible to cults. Capture-bonding exemplified by Patty Hearst and the Stockholm Syndrome is one. Attention-reward is the other. Attention is the way social primates measure status. Attention indicates status and is highly rewarding because it causes the release of brain chemicals such as dopamine and endorphins. Actions lead to Attention that releases Rewarding brain chemicals. Drugs shortcut attention in the Action-Attention-Reward (AAR) brain system and lead to the repeated behaviour we call addiction. Gambling also causes misfiring of the AAR pathway. Memes that manifest as cults hijack this brain reward system by inducing high levels of attention behaviour between cult members. People may become irresponsible on either cults or drugs sometimes resulting in severe damage to reproductive potential. Evolutionary psychology thus answers the question of why humans are susceptible to memes that do them and/or their potential for reproductive success damage. We evolved the psychological traits of capture-bonding and attention-reward that make us vulnerable for other maladaptive functions. We should be concerned about predator and pathogen memes and the mechanisms that make us vulnerable. The possibility of modeling important social factors contributing to the spread of dangerous cult memes is discussed. The history of the author’s experiences that led to understanding the connection between drugs and cults is related.
<<< Incidently, I don't agree the BBC is "at war" with Scientology. They're doing what the BBC Charter says they should do, but that's not something Scientology is able to tolerate, is all. "Scientology at war with the BBC (and anyone who criticises them)" would be more accurate, I think.
Modified by jonti at Tue, May 15, 2007, 06:05:28
|
|
|
|
"Scientology at war with the BBC (and anyone who criticises them)" would be more accurate, I think. I totally agree Jonti. Thank you for that very interesting abstract from the paper. As one who came to the cult from a drug induced perspective the analysis makes a lot of sense. Mila
Modified by Milarepa at Tue, May 15, 2007, 07:30:09
|
|
|
|
They're notorious for this kind of behavior. I could relate so much to Sweeny. He probably learned a great lesson about talking to cult members from that incident: 1) It can become so exasperating to the point of wanting to lose one's temper and scream; and 2) When you reach your limit when talking to cult members and do lose your temper, the cult uses it against you to discredit you and show how unreasonable you are (and they're not). They baited him. Did you know that the COS has an Intelligence Department?
Modified by Cynthia at Tue, May 15, 2007, 11:26:24
|
|
|
|
Hi Cynthia,Did you manage to see the programme over in the States? Or may be it's available on line, not sure. The clip of Sweeney losing his temper, which Scientology put on Youtube, was imo a classic example of a cult "shooting itself in the foot" (which EV is also good at doing). By posting the clip of Sweeney losing his temper, on the internet, Scientology gave the Panorama programme a tremendous amount of publicity - it was featured on the news and radio programmes over here before the programme went out, and many more people will have watched Panorama because of that. They gave free advertising to their own bad publicity! lol. As the programme showed Scientology in a very bad light, they would have been better off keeping quiet about the incident, instead of trying to discredit Sweeney. haha It was obvious to anyone watching that it's a strange and frightening cult, that spies on people and follows them around. Sweeney interviewed Rick Ross too, as the cult expert consultant. My only thought at the end was that it would have been a good idea for the BBC to put Rick Ross's website address for anyone wanting to find out more about the cult. A google search doesn't bring Ross's site onto the first page.
|
|
|
|
The BBC documentary hasn't been aired here that I know of. I'd like to see it. I think the COS underestimated today's media when they published Sweeny's rant on Youtube. I saw it on CNN, and can't watch YouTube videos because I'm limited to dial-up. Last night Anderson Cooper had a well-balanced segment about the whole bruhaha. Rick Ross has excellent info about the COS, but he's also very much at odds with most of the other cult experts, so he often loses some credibiity about the issue of cult awareness. For instance, he doesn't talk with other cult awareness people like Steve Hassan. He's not the most level-headed cult awareness guy out there, although he is good imo.
Modified by Cynthia at Wed, May 16, 2007, 09:48:40
|
|
|
