Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 17:57:15 +0800 To: Vladimir Alexiev From: Simon M Subject: Re: Sri Mataji's Sahaja Yoga >I'd very much like to know more about eventual abuses of SY followers by SY >leaders. Yes, I picked up your message to the alt.yoga usenet group on dejanews. I've managed to resist the temptation to put this reply on the Net - ie use your tradgedy to further my one man cyber war against Sahaja Yoga (which began the day before yesterday). >whether Sahaja Yoga is to blame (in part) for his suicide. Impossible to know for sure, but it could well have played a major part. >I *do not* deem Sahaja Yoga to be one of them. I would put it in a similar category, although perhaps not quite so extreme in some ways. >it seemed to me a very humane and spiritually enriching and soothing >teaching. Best way to find out about a cult is to talk to ex-members. When you are inside you are in a self-contained logical universe that only permits certain questions to be considered. >my mother is convinced that if my brother had followed Christianity, this >could not have happened. Had your brother confided in her? If not she cannot really know unless it's "women's intuition". >he had 2 hard years in the army, then he spend one year all alone on a job >assignment). This suggests he wasn't a quitter. >It made him more serene, more stable against life's ups and downs. I suspect most cults do this by providing a different set of priorities. >to grandfather "Well, this problem is inside you. As much as I want to help >you, I cannot." He was inhabiting a different world. >He made himself difficult to communicate with. Sahaja Yoga doesn't openly advocate this. But when you get involved you find it difficult to feel much commonality with non-sahaj people. >She wanted dearly to marry him, but for some reason he refused. There is a possibility that their union had been refused by a 'higher authority' - perhaps Mataji herself after getting an earful from a leader hostile to your brother. Just a possibility - the girlfriend should know. Alternatively Sahaja Yoga could have changed them both. > The immediate cause for his suicide is believed to be some conflict with >the leadership of the local Bulgarian Sahaja Yoga organisation. No big surprise here. If I get round to writing about abuse of power by leader in SY you may see why. It's much the same as in other cults. Read about any cult and you'll get insight into SY. >he was highly educated, both generally and in Sahaja Yoga. Although these are things that can also be used against you in Sahaja Yoga eg "Oh you analyse too much, just stop thinking and use your vibrations." >He had made a trip to India to a Sahaja Yoga convention.) Probably a month long "India tour" - vastly overpriced and a nice little earner for Mataji. When I went in 1988 it was £2000 which is well over $3000. People from some countries had to pay even more. You were just shipped around in a bus, slept in a tent and ate rubbish food. You could travel round India by plane and stay in 5 star hotels for less. >So the leader seeked to isolate and ouster him, which led to his breakdown. Could well be. I've seen that very thing happen - both overtly and more subtly. >I am looking forward to some discussion on the topic, and eventually >testimonials of other similar experiences (but I am not interested in >discussing "evil cults"). SY and Mataji aren't evil to me. I believe the fundamental problem is that SY is a theocracy with Mataji as God. Power flows from above down through the leaders. They say 'power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely'. There is no place for democracy or human conceptions of justice. Let me give the following, purely hypothetical, scenario. The leader does something your brother thinks is wrong. Your brother shares his feelings of uneasiness but this is interpreted as a challenge to the leader's authority. The leader connives to ostracise your brother. This may take the form of simply telling the others that he is 'caught up', 'in ego' or 'bhootish' (possessed) and they better avoid him for their own good. Or it may be that the others perceived that your brother was out of favour with the leader and they gave him the cold shoulder so they wouldn't fall out of favour to (after all getting close to the leader is a step closer to Mataji = God). Your brother feels that all this is unjustified but the more he struggles against it the worse his predicament becomes. This is enough on its own to make someone very unhappy, especially when he'll be reluctant to associate with non-sahaja yogis. But let's take it a step further. Say he makes a complaint to Mataji believing that her divine judgement will set things right. In reality Mataji usually listens to her advisers (leader of SY) and takes the action suggested by them - especially where the one complaining is not well known to her. If she decides that your brother is in the wrong then he really will be on his own with even his God turned against him and now all the logical reasons that he is right will have to be dismissed as 'negativity'. At this moment he will be under intense pressure and has an opportunity for the scales to drop from his eyes. But Sahaja Yoga has its own logic. There are reasons why people believe in it relating to the experiences they have. Questioning of Sahaj is not encouraged. Doubt in Mataji is seen as a form of negativity and is not entertained. I think you see the [hypothetical] picture - although this is very unlikely to be exactly how things happened I hope this gives you some insight about how abuses of power in a cult are so easy and can be so far reaching. Best wishes, Simon Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 13:23:30 +0800 To: Vladimir Alexiev From: Simon M Subject: Re: Sri Mataji's Sahaja Yoga >Simon, thanks for your letter. I'm waiting for your further writings on SY >with interest. I'll contact the two sahaja yogas you mentioned in your letter. I would have though you brother's ex-girlfriend would be a good person to talk to. If you could find any ex-members of your brother's group they might also be helpful (although most who are chucked out and many/most who leave of their own accord keep their faith in Mataji - I read a book about cults once that said that this was a distinguishing feature of Sahaja Yoga). I also just came across an interesting article on the Psychology of Cults at: http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/psymove.html I think it's very accurate but Sahaja Yoga is a more extreme case than is referred to in the article because of the Mataji=God element. Simon M To: Simon M From: Vladimir Alexiev Subject: Re: Sri Mataji's Sahaja Yoga I'm currently looking at web pages about SY (luckily, altavista reports only 100 pages that mention it :-) I've found only one page critical of SY, but it doesn't seem to be the result of thorough research. Something that this browsing got me thinking about: I experienced a deja-vu while reading about kundalini, the chakras, the channels, the biography of Sri Mataji, etc. The reason is that my brother has been telling me about these things in almost the same words! This makes me suspect that if you ask any two SYins, they'd tell you almost the same thing. I was curious what the whole thing was about, so I asked, and I suppose he gave me the information that was most readily available in his head. But if you ask two quantum physicists, or two topologists, or two doctors to describe a complex enough thing in their area, they'd use very different words, and may even tell you different things. And the spiritual area that is the subject matter of SY is so complex that canned propaganda-like phrases sound pretty suspicious. Regards, Vlad Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 13:01:59 +0800 To: Vladimir Alexiev From: Simon M Subject: Sahaja Yoga on the Web >I'm currently looking at web pages about SY (luckily, altavista reports only >100 pages that mention it :-) I've recently looked at all the SY stuff on the web found by altavista, lycos, yahoo and dejanews. There's not that much really but a lot more than there was the first time I looked about 18 months ago. You would expect any group to give a one-sided account of their activities. I'm just giving another point of view. >I've found only one page critical of SY [the Observer article], but it >doesn't seem to be the result of thorough research. See comments below. >suspect that if you ask any two SYins, they'd tell you almost the same thing. Welcome to the wonderful world of cults! It all looks familiar to me. Most publicity stuff is probably based on previous publicity stuff. Ultimately it will all be based on what Mataji has said. They may have refined their self-promotion since I left with a more standardised approach, I don't know. There are some of Mataji's speeches though on one site. Interesting to see what the "Goddess" has to say. >the spiritual area that is the subject matter of SY is so complex that canned >propaganda-like phrases sound pretty suspicious. This is just the surface layer, the public front. Underneath it Sahaja Yogis may have their own individual understandings, emphases, etc. You'd have to know them well to get at it. >http://www.guardian.co.uk/cults/a-z-cults/y_cults.html I have written a response to this but, as it is not personal to you, I will publish it more widely. You should be receiving it about now. >http://www.halcyon.com/sahajnet/over_the_world.html >Phones of SY centers. I've seen these when I was trawling the Net for Sahaja Yoga email addresses. They will receive my criticisms although I'll consider their anti-spamming rights if they request to be removed from the list. So far one has responded (still open minded it seems) with a request for further information. I'd like to remind you of that article on the psychology of cults that I recommended to you. I think it's very good, amazingly so since it is by a self-confessed cult member. Best wishes, Simon M To: Simon M Subject: Re: Sahaja Yoga on the Web > You would expect any group to give a one-sided account of their activities. Of course, but I was hoping I could see the other side of the story from someone else. Eg one can drawn himself in negative information about Scientology, but then Scientology compared to SY is like the mafia compared to a neighborhood association. (I guess some of my benign attitude towards SY comes from the stark contrast between it and Scientology.) > This is just the surface layer, the public front. Underneath it Sahaja Yogis > may have their own individual understandings, emphases, etc. You'd have to > know them well to get at it. Well, I knew my brother well, but I mostly got cliches out of him. Then again, we haven't talked about SY that much... > >http://www.guardian.co.uk/cults/a-z-cults/y_cults.html > I have written a response to this Your reponse mostly discusses the material side of things, probably because so does the Observer article. Now, I don't specifically have a problem with people giving money for something they believe in, even if they're being "mildly" cheated on it. By "mildly" I mean that no extensive misinformation and propaganda machine exists, no hard mind-washing techniques are employed, etc. Eg the 7th Day Adventist Church collects some 10% of people's profits for the church (I may be mistaken about the number), but no extortion is used, it's mostly voluntary, and all the money seems to go to good causes. It's more important for me to know whether the whole thing is a fantasy and a scam. The "scientific" explanations about kundalini sound pretty naive (I've read the kundalini FAQ), but I can't dismiss something just because there's no scientific explanation for it. Did you experience the waves and awakening and enlightenment and elation as described there? BTW, what was your reason for getting out (if it's not too personal)? I didn't know that Mataji would arrange weddings between SYis. This sounds pretty bad, for this is the one most important decision that one should be able to make for him/herself. Could you please elaborate on that? What are the typical SYis that get married this way? > I'd like to remind you of that article on the psychology of cults that I > recommended to you. I've read it, but didn't find it really astonishing. Pretty much the same group psychology processes are going on and are exploited in many legitimate organizations, be that an army or a Japanese company. That's not a bad thing per se, rather it's important whether it's put to good or bad use. Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 13:27:05 +0800 To: Vladimir Alexiev From: Simon M Subject: Re: Sahaja Yoga on the Web From what little I know of scientology I'd agree that it is probably worse than SY in many respects. >I knew my brother well, but I mostly got cliches out of him. Then again, we >haven't talked about SY that much... An SY could only share these things with another SY, and only one they were close to and could trust. >"mildly" cheated on it. By "mildly" I mean that no extensive misinformation >and propaganda machine exists, no hard mind-washing techniques are employed, >etc. There is no formal machinery of this type, but don't underestimate the informal. For the most part, the intent of all, possibly including Mataji, is good. But like William Blake said, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." >Eg the 7th Day Adventist Church collects some 10% of people's profits Sounds like a tithe, common in US protestant sects and I've seen it in at least 1 new religious movement. >It's more important for me to know whether the whole thing is a fantasy and a >scam. I wouldn't put it in either category. >The "scientific" explanations about kundalini sound pretty naive The author of Kundalini FAQ makes more sense than most. You should read his Siddhi-Mahayoga FAQ too, very relevant. Phillipa Pullar also attempts to give scientific explanations - also very unsatisfactory IMO. Have you tried the Kundalini mailing list? Since reading some of the stuff on Kundalini on the web in the past week, I'm beginning to feel that some kind of scientific or at least non-religious explanation may be possible. >Did you experience the waves? "the waves and awakening and enlightenment and elation" isn't the words I'd use but yes I had experiences, these experiences are genuine in many if not most cases. They may be exaggerated or given an SY gloss though. >I didn't know that Mataji would arrange weddings between SYis. This sounds >pretty bad, for this is the one most important decision that one should be >able to make for him/herself. Could you please elaborate on that? What are the >typical SYis that get married this way? Mataji is Indian. Arranged marriages are common in India. I'm sure it's perfectly natural for her. I think Indians usually take a little more care over the choosing though. For some it is not a choice. Mataji will tell them to and they obey the divine command. Arranged marriages are very common, the norm. This is one of the things the SYs know that would not help their reputation and they keep quiet about it. Usually people are married to SY of other countries. Generally men and women are encouraged to see each other as brothers and sisters. There is not supposed to be sex before marriage and I believe this is largely followed. Mataji encourages people to get married so that their sex urges are taken care of although she also holds it as an ideal that people should only have sex for the purpose of having children. I think most are practical enough to accept that they cannot live up to this ideal and use birth control. There may be some kind of a pre-marriage lecuture on these things, I'd have to check up and let you know. Homosexuality was condemned, males were said to be possessed by female spirits. I never heard her speak of masturbation, those I was close to all assumed that it was not acceptable. SYs are also encouraged to have children, they believe there is a pool of saints waiting for rebirth. >> I'd like to remind you of that article on the psychology of cults >I've read it, but didn't find it really astonishing. That's not a bad thing >per se, rather it's important whether it's put to good or bad use. I can't imagine an SY ever writing something like that. Some of the comments seemed relevant to your case. From: Simon Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 21:19:16 +0800 To: Vladimir Alexiev Subject: Other SY stuff - long again >> I'm talking about spontaneous experiences although certain situations make >> them more likely. Therefore you don't practise them. >Hmm, but I thought that SY includes a substantial amount of induced (not >spontaneous) experiences? Yes and no. My description above is from the SY point of view. An outsider may take the view you put forward. You could say there is a continuum but even the more 'induced' ones can feel like they emerge spontaneously and from outside. Others come unexpectedly, sometimes to a group. The extreme stuff is rare and unknown to some. >Well, I've read that one of the major ways of achieving it is through >assistance from a guru, thus not through "sweating it out" by the SYin >(though I still wouldn't call this approach "spontaneous"); but the other >approach is through goal-directed practice, right? Yes, a distinction make in Kurt Keutzer's faqs. Bear in mind that from the SY perspective everything happens by Mataji's will. >> I wouldn't necessarily say the experiences were +ve. If you believe they are >> +ve you will feel they are +ve. >This is no doubt a bit of a vicious circle, but I'm prepared to give it >credit, since in the psychological realm feeling good is indeed very close to >actually being well. If you're a normal person and you feel a certain sensation moving through your body you might say, "Oh, what a funny feeling!" and forget about it. If you take such a feeling as a sign of God's grace, then you will feel very happy that god has graced you. >So to sum it up, you didn't feel your "vital energy", or whatever, being >released and making one whole with God? No. Others may claim such things and some of them may be telling the truth. >What kind of injustices were these, the leaders getting disproportionate >amounts of material goods; I wasn't aware of "the leaders getting disproportionate amounts of material goods" in general although I heard that some did embezzle. >people being treated badly; Yes. >> A group of like-minded people with our minds strongly focused on a common >> purpose - is the only possible explanation I can offer. >Interesting. One of my favorite books is Cat's Cradle by Vonnegut, and there >he talks (half-jokingly) about "karasses", being informal spontaneous >associations of people that have innate soul kinship. One could be in a karas >with the people he'd least expect to. Yes, it's a common idea. Experience strongly supports it, however, I'm open to psychological explanations. >> Nobody says that the leaders are divine. >I meant mostly Sri Mataji, I guess. She's the only one for whom divinity is claimed. Some of her power rubs off on those who control access to her. >whether people were treated badly, abused, this kind of things. But so far >you haven't mentioned much, if any, of this. The impression I get is that you >bailed out being religiously, spiritually, perhaps even intellectually >disillusioned; but not morally or etically apalled by things that were going >on in SY. some of us weren't happy with the way a case of sexual abuse was handled. We felt there were other wrongs. However, fundamentalist religion takes precedence over more natural morality. The religious objections came to take precedence over the moral ones, although they may have bolstered each other. We left because we no longer believed SY was true. There are aspects of SY that I consider immoral. I draw attention to these in the stuff I send out. >Initially I thought you felt like you had a "mission" to bring SY in the >clear (I would even say "an ax to grind", but that's an unjustifiably strong >term for this case). But now I'm not so sure. Now you sound more like you're >trying to clarify things for yourself. My aim in this project is more like the former. As people ask me questions I have to think things over. >> >Did they subject themselves to arranged marriages? >> No one ever spoke of 'subjecting' themselves to it. Amongst my close friends >> we spoke of our reluctance to do so and the conflict we'd be in if we were >> instructed to do so. >Ok, so one could refuse, but it would take some moral strength to do it, >because one's peers would disapprove of that? I'd prefer the term 'ego strength'. People would also be worried about divine disapproval. >> >> Mataji will tell them to and they obey the divine command. >> People might have their apprehensions but it would be considered an honour. >> What is Brlblrl? >Mild form of disgust mixed with disbelief and puzzlement :-) An appropriate reaction. >> An ex-Sahaja Yogini told my friend that Mataji asked her to sleep with her. >Whoa. >> I would not necessarily say that this indicates lesbian tendancies >Yeah, like in "Hair" they ask one of the hippies who's about to be recruited >in the army "Are you homosexual?". He answers "No. But I don't think I'd >refuse i Mick Jagger crawled in my bed :-)" I'm honestly only 50:50 on what this indicates. Your story reminds me of a heterosexual friend who said he'd rather go to bed with a beautiful man than an ugly woman. >> she didn't stand for any 'hanky-panky'. This is open to interpretation but I >> suspect that it means that she didn't have sex with him often. >Or unusual sexual practices. I don't think so. I think that would be out of the question, unthinkable. >I remember my brother referring to sexual practices used as a means of >achieving peace of mind with slight ("waste of time"). Mataji CONDEMNS these practices to the max. There's an anti-tantric trend in Hinduism. But note her connection with Rajneesh. >> Mataji often asked an SY to massage her feet (BTW I know women who say they >> prefer this to sex) This subject came up in convo the other day. This woman turned to her husband and said, "If ever I leave you it's because I've found someone to rub my feet." >Funny enough, in that Vonnegut book mentioned above he describes "boku maru", >a practice whereas two people would try to unite their souls by rubbing their >feet together. I've got a description on tape an transcribed by this guy saying that when he rubbed Mataji's feet once he felt he was becoming one with them or something. This guy was an honest fellow and not given to BS imo. I'll look it out for you. >> What I mentioned above is really the UNTHINKABLE in SY. >Doesn't sound that awful to me :-) An SY might claim to feel physically sick if they heard it. >> >> >group psychology processes... not a bad thing per se, rather it's >> >> >important whether it's put to good or bad use. >> There's also a question of democracy. Who decides what is good use? >Well, who decides what's moral and what's not? We all do. There's a certain >consensus at which unbiased honest people can agree, or mostly agree, >naturally. Eg we both would agree that Scientology is bad, and we both would >agree that collecting donations for a starving African country is good. Of >course, many Scientologists and many racists might disagree with us, but I'd >say they are not free of prejudice in these cases. If I'm being subjected to group psychology processes without my knowledge I would consider it an infrigement of my liberty. >What you've told me so far about SY doesn't make me shiver from the thought >that SYis are being subjected to group psychology methods. It's not scientology. >The reason is simply that I haven't seen SY abusing these people, i.e. >misusing the power of group persuasion. The power comes from the connection with Mataji more than the group. I'd say the group just augments/potentiates it. >Perhaps SYis are paying a lot for it, but they're also >getting something out of that religion. They do it of their own accord, They think they are getting something out of it. Like if I give you a 100 dollar bill every week you'll think you're getting something and feel happy. When you find out they're all counterfeit then you'll realise that you've got nothing and all your former happiness will feel hollow. >and I haven't seen hard brainwashing techniques being applied. There aren't any that I'm aware of. I haven't attacked SY because I think it's the worst cult in the world. There's plenty of anti-scientology stuff on the Net, I don't have anything to contribute to it and I don't feel I have any special responsibility to do so. This is not the case with SY. >> It is unthinkable that any SY would apply any kind of a critical analysis >> to SY. >Hmm, not so good... I think that one should always be able to reminisce over >what he thinks is important, and even make some jokes about it. Some SYs can have a laugh and a joke about 'divine' things, but at the end of the day the doubts are anti-God and demonic and are not entertained. Date: Wed, 06 Aug 1997 00:45:50 +0800 To: vladimir@cs.ualberta.ca From: Simon Subject: Italian nrm journal >> BTW There's an Italian academic... in an Italian nrm journal... There's a >> link to the Journal on Gene Thursby's site. >Can you give me better directions? That site is huge... Actually, having searched it, it wasn't there. Fortunately I remembered the guy's name - Davide Ventura - and searched for it. Here it is: http://www.glauco.it/gris/somm2.htm Some more stuff by Davide Ventura on SY in Italian: http://www.glauco.it/gris/saha.htm He's also mentioned in connection with SY here: http://www.glauco.it/gris/indice2.htm Sahaja Yoga (French) Court Supervises Children Cult Observer Vol. 9, No. 3 1992 see: http://www.csj.org/co.html For pictures of Mataji being worshipped at a puja (as Krishna in this case I suspect - because of the flute): http://www.glauco.it/gris/sah_foto.htm BTW the Dr Umesh Rai in the following link is an SY who has written a book about SY and its 'medical benefits': http://rafale.certix.fr/~asy/express.html Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 13:29:00 +0100 To: Vladimir Alexiev From: Simon Subject: Re: Hi! >> I blame the theocratic group dynamics above anything or anyone else. >Ok, this answers my question. I understand this, it's also my conviction that >leadership corrupts even the cleanest idea. On the other hand, no movement is >viable without any organization at all; how would people come to know about SY >in the first place if there was no "evangelization" and "preaching" of SY >around the world? So do you think that SY leaders have so much corrupted the >SY religion and practice as to make it not worth the effort? I doubt there's anything worth propagating in the first place. >> I find your position a little odd. I wouldn't waste a 2nd thought on SY if I >> hadn't been involved. >Understandible, and you also got deeply involved, because you found it's worth >it (SY itself, not SY's org nor leaders). More beacause of what it promised and claimed it was than what it actually delivered. >> Leaders come and go (Mataji kicks them out even after 20 years' devoted >> service). >Tell me more. Are there any specific reasons, or no typical reasons? The 20 years guy was the leader of UK. He had been one of mataji's 1st group of followers in London in 1972. I believe the problem was that his wife wrote a book that mataji didn't like yet he supported his wife. The wife writes for tv is quite successful. This book was based on SY and characters she knew in it. Apparently the cult in the book was led by a guy called 'Father' (in SY mataji is referred to as 'Mother'). Mataji gave some lame excuse as to why she had kicked the guy out, she said that his form of puja (worship) hadn't changed much over the years and he was stuck in one style. I think his being kicked out was quite traumatic for his daughter who had been brought up in SY. He used to run a geographical information service or something until mataji told him to sell it. This guy would know a hell of a lot about SY and mataji. The last I heard he was still in fear of mataji and wouldn't cooperate with anti-cultists. Another leader got kicked out for some kind of misbehaviour including sexual abuse. This guy was some kind of world leader (mataji would have 3 of them) and may have been leader of Australia at some time. This guy was treated 2nd to mataji in many ways, especially in Australia where they had lots of his talks taped (usually only mataji's are listened to). The sexual abuse wasn't enough for him to get kicked out (even though it was homosexual which one might have thought would have been doubley abhorrent to mataji unless ....), mataji blamed the victims. I think it was a combination of flagrant disobedience and an outcry against him (although most dared not say anything against him until after he had got the boot). I heard that soon after he got the boot he had acid thrown in his face while getting cash out of a hole- in-the-wall machine. Many saw this as divine retribution. he was an osteopath although he had done other things like spiritualist healing (I heard he had his own tv show) and racing camels in saudi arabia. He would know a lot about SY. The last I heard he was waiting to be invited back into SY. One of the US leaders got kicked out . He had tried to get some kind of legal rights so that only he could use the name of SY or something. There may have been some financial irregularities. The normal SYs won't speak about these things very much. These are they only national leaders that I can remember being kicked out, I'm sure there were more, it was very common for leaders to get the boot. Local leaders also frequently got the boot. Basically anyone who did anything against mataji would probably get the boot. Outside SY blokes often don't want to make commitments, in SY they are more likely to want to. Basically, you'd be a fool not to marry someone who you loved if mataji gave the ok (no insult to your bro). Why? Because then you were either stuck on your own or married off to some woman by someone else's dictate (who might look like a dog and not even speak your language). OTOH if your local leader didn't like you, that would probably stand in the way of an arranged marriage. >You can give me (at least) lots of info. Remember how surprised I was byt he >info about arranged marriages? This is the kind of info I think would be of >value. If I ever get out of 'reply' mode you may find more but I think that is one thing that makes people prick up their ears. >> >How strongly are such things forced upon SYis? At one place I worked toilet paper was banned to force people to use water. Usually it's all by unofficial group dynamics (potentiated by the divine BS) that we discussed earlier. If GOD IN HUMAN FORM has said stick camphor and clarified butter up your nose then people will comply without force. >You wrote (a bit) about your experience, and it sounded profound and >worthwhile. Would you describe it as "the memoirs of a sucker"? Yeah, profound-sounding BS. Yeah, sorry about giving the impression of profundity - it must be because I was describing how I felt at the time. >> >you said yourself that SY isn't about "duping people", at least not in >> >such categorical and simplistic terms. >Let's precise the discussion a bit. What kind of duping do you have in mind? >Monetary? People are duped out of money and that is more or less intentional somewhere up the hierarchy. That's not the big issue to me but I mention it because SYs think/claim it doesn't happen. >Are there SYis that haven't payed anything for their SY practices? Yeah, new recruits. Usually start paying within a year. >> Do you have to be duped by an individual person(s) who is consciously >> duping you or could you be duped by your test results into thinking that >> you s/w is ok? >I love going into analogies on my own turf, thanks :-) But I can't quite make >the analogy with SY. For lack of anything better, I interpret this as "Do you >have to be duped by SY leaders, or could you be duped by your own SY >experiences", but I'm not sure this is what you had in mind. It's not. I meant 'duping', perhaps in an extended sense of the word, where it does not have to have an agent that is conscious of deceit. >I tend to think that in the spheres of spiritual life (and psychiatric >disorders :-) THINKING that you're ok is pretty much the same as "actually" >being ok. This takes a couple of provisos: I disagree although it depends what you mean by 'ok'. >- your thinking that you're ok should persist for a considerable period of > time. Surely 'being OK' can persist for a short period of time. >- your thinking that you're ok should come of your own volition and > conviction, thus even removing the external factor that initially caused > that thinking won't make your feeling good vanish. no man is an island >- your actions borne from that thinking should not cause others harm, nor > thread on commonly accepted moral norms. depends what you mean by 'ok' >So I'd say that if someone thinks they experienced the divine touch in the >form of kundalini awakening, even though they may be objectively wrong, this >does not preclude them from being subjectively right. subjectively right + objectively wrong = objectively deluded >I mean that science in general and physics in particular may establish (or >simply postulate) the non- existence of god and other supernatural forces; >that biology may establish the non-existence of any force or field situated >and acting in the particular ways that SY prescribes for kundalini; that >common sense may dismiss all this as pure nonsense; yet it doesn't change >whether someone felt soemthing, and felt good about it. If this feeling good >brings them peace of mind and doesn't make them act foolish, why call it >duping? Because it is. I've given you a similar analogy before but ... Say I offer you a nugget the size of a baby's head and tell you it's gold and all you have to do is wash my car for a month to get it. Being a trusting chap you take up the offer and after your 4th weekly wash and wax you are rewarded. You might take it home and feel financially secure. If your career goes well you'll never have to sell your nugget and you'll be happy in your delusion - for delusion it is (the nugget is iron pyrates). Would you have been duped? If your answer is 'no', I suggest that you run all your financial transactions by your wife :-) Please come down to my simple level. I just meant that if there is a gap in your test criteria that you're in danger of being duped into thinking the program works. Nobody's consciously duping you but you're duped. >Hmmm, it seems I'm driving here towards the idea of a religion where mankind >(or at least the collective body of worshippers) is the highest God. And why >not? :-O Hold your horses !!! If you're founding a new religious movement just stop the wagon and let me get off. >Here's a guy with an ax to grind against SY. Of course I've got an axe to grind ... if you mean a subjective/interested aim although I wouldn't say selfish (unless you include the satisfaction of pro-social impulses as selfishness). Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 18:27:41 +0000 To: Vladimir Alexiev From: Simon Subject: Re: Hi! & Hi! & ............ >> From the SY perspective MATAJI IS GOD, WHAT SHE SAYS GOES, SHE IS ALWAY >> RIGHT, SHE KNOWS EVERYTHING, SHE IS ALL POWERFUL, SHE CAN CREATE AND >> DESTROY UNIVERSES... >I definitely think you should post this :). I will. >Now, I dislike this a lot. How does this get indoctrinated into people? Usually not at once, gradually, when somebody thinks you're ready to know (although hints aren't hidden). >BTW when I talked to my brother, he talked about her in terms of endearment, >that she's the mother and stuff, but I didnt't think he perceives her as the >absolute leader. Maybe I should have talked about this aspect more with >him... SYs don't tell this to non-SYs. I don't think I ever told any of my family that mataji = god. No, I didn't. Fortunately! I'd never live it down :-) >> People usually get her blessing for marriages. I've never heard of it not >> happening. I think there would be a stigma if she didn't give it >Each and every one of them? How many SY are there in the world? Well, certainly in countries where she makes regular visits. I can only really speak about England for sure. An eg of a blessing is the couple are amongst the crowd that meets Mataji at the airport and the man says, "I want to marry this person, would it be OK?" She'll say, "Oh, yes, yes, fine." She wouldn't say no unless she knew them and had some reason (?). >> Some of the practices she prescribes might not be good for you. I don't know >> about camphor in the nose, it always made me sneeze >You were dead serious about the camphor?! Sure. We also used to burn it sometimes as an offering to Shiva, it made this awful black smoke that settled it little specks everywhere. >> >withdrawal from everyday life (though many said this is not typical. What >> >would you say?) >> You can't really be fully open with non-SYs about your beliefs so most >> external relationships will be somewhat superficial. >Well, I guess one could have a deep relationship that does not involve their >spiritual life at all... SY is at the centre of their lives. I often had to BS people with phoney motives for my actions to hide the true SY ones. >How about more mundane things, like a job, everyday >chores, etc? (Having a bed in your room :-) Job and chores and bed are all fine by SY. >> >you can't be so quick in dismissing altogether something that just >> >a few years ago you thought was so important and good. >> Oh yes I can. >So do you say that there no such thing as kundalini? Maybe there is, I dunno. >That you were outright duped? Pretty much although I'd hold back on saying 'outright'. Why? Because part of it was self-deception. People believe partly because they want to believe. >I know that many of the experiences are physio-psychological (eg tingling in >the hands), so it wouldn't be too hard to convince someone they're >experiencing them. An important point. Some of the experiences would have been felt by people before but they wouldn't have paid much attention to them. Furthermore, I believe that the more you pay attention to these sensations, the clearer they will become. >But what they describe as elation/bliss/spiritual happiness: if someone is >convinced they experience such emotions, then they really do. I'd agree with you to a point. elation/bliss/happiness maybe but I wouldn't necessarily say spiritual happiness. 'Spiritual' to me suggests an objective judgement, not just a feeling. From what you write it appears that you don't make this distinction. There are probably hundreds of positions on what 'spiritual' means which is why I'm not keen on using the word. Even bliss I'd hold back on because I wouldn't say that I've ever experienced it. Blissful experiences yes. But bliss to me suggests such an intense, purely positive, totally fulfilling experience that I don't claim experience of it so don't really want to comment on it. However, I think others, SYs included, use the word more freely to mean 'a blissful experience' rather than 'the experience of pure bliss'. Maybe this is my cult conditioning. But generally I have my doubts about your view of the psychological as purely subjective. There is often an objective physiological ground to psychological states. >And what did they they to dupe you? Ok, they gave you to read the official >literature, sat down with you and asked you to do some things, but how did >they make you think stuff that you now say was totally bogus? I guess a >salesman can swindle me easily (eg sell me something that doesn't work), but >I should be able to see this the first or the second time I try it. It's more like buying a dodgey endowment policy. It's a while before you realise you've been conned because what you were offered wasn't supposed to pay off immediately. The 'immediate benefits' is just a part of the story, the part that newcomer get preached. >>> thinking you feel good is pretty much the same as actually feeling good.) >> Last time you talked of 'being OK' which I rejected. >Yes, but on physical grounds (you could be doing bad things to your body and >not knowing it). I've forgotten the argument, but I'm sure it was a lot more subtle, convincing and downright marvellous that that. IMO being OK ~= feeling OK nor do I think one necessarily implies the other. I don't necessarily see the psychological as purely subjective. >> Now you're saying 'feeling good' which I cannot argue with because the above >> is pretty much tautological. >I'm just considering the spiritual/emotional sphere. In my view they are distinct although you are free to define them so that they are the same or overlapping. >It's not purely tautological, because it implies the claim that unlike the >physical sphere, in the emotional sphere you can't be wrong about whether >you're doing well. I accept that if you feel you are feeling OK then you are feeling OK and it still sounds tautological. Same goes for feeling that you are feeling that you feel OK :-) I don't accept the you are necessarily emotionally OK if you feel you are emotionally OK. It depends how you define 'emotionally OK'. If you define it 'feeling that you are OK' then you are back to your tautology. I don't see it as subjective. When people are manic they feel fantastic yet are not OK. >> feeling good is not the same as being OK. Drugs can make you feel good. >The trouble with drugs is that you'll feel very much un-well later. To a greater or lesser extent. >Let's explore this aspect with SY. Also, you're becoming a slave to drugs. SY also makes you a slave. You must subdue your ego to the will of mataji. >> >My brother went to India and of course he had to pay for his airfare >> I can assure the cost of the India tour covers much more than the air fare >Could be, I don't know it for sure. I do. I know the price of the tour and I know the cost of a ticket to india. One is 4 - 6 times the other. >> people may be paying for one thing and the money may end up paying for >> something else. >What do people agree to pay for? (What are the specific reasons cited?) travel, tents, food, pujas (worship), entertainers, 'projects in India', travel insurance (I presume), .... >> Freud thought cocaine was a wonder drug. >I'm sure it makes you feel wonderful right when you take it (otherwise people >won't be paying big money to get it). The problem with it is that it >- makes you non-functional when you're on it. This is not so bad by itself, if > its influence can be limited. People don't need to be functional all the > time. I wonder if some of the extreme SY highs make you dysfunctional, I dunno >- it totally breaks you down in a few years. SY doesn't cause you to lose years, just to waste them >- it makes you depend on it. SY does this, it becomes the SY's whole life. I remember mataji saying to everyone, "Just ask yourself, what are you with Sahaja Yoga?" ie you are nothing without her. >Does SY have some of these adverse "side effects"? Do you consider yourself >harmed by your SY practice, or is it just the time wasted? Mostly time wasted, lost opportunities. Lack of exercise can't have done me any good. Money wasted. I did depend on it at the time. It could have adversely affected my psychological development. >> I never said that kundalini doesn't exist, nor did I say what it was, nor >> did I say that SY really does tap into kundalini as they claim. All of >> these are open questions for me. >So how were you duped? duped into believing the vibrations came from god, duped into believing mataji is god and that sy is her plan to save mankind (sounds stupid now) >> Cocaine does exist though. >It has objectively measurable adverse effects. My bank balance, stomach and psychological development can also be measured. >> >> If your career goes well you'll never have to sell your nugget and >> >> you'll be happy in your delusion >> >does SY promise that kundalini experiences will definitely last for a >> >lifetime, and that they will provide against any spiritual fiasco? >> It offers a path to god and the salvation of mankind. >How does this relate to being/feeling well? God is joy/bliss. God's grace is experienced as such. >I'm not interested in any god, and I don't believe in the salvation of >mankind (though I certainly would be interested if someone could convince me >they hold the key to that). Does this mean I could not be duped into SY? No. You'll get spun some other yarn that you're more receptive to. The god & divine plan stuff won't be emphasised to newcomers. More health and feeling good. >> >you're saying that when you're well, you're well even without kindalini, >> >and when you're not well, no kundalini will help. >> I did not, nor do I, say that. >Then what does your analogy with the fake golden nugget mean? It's not about health. Health is just an aspect of SY. Emphasised to the newcomer but overshadowed by all the religious stuff once you get into it. >You're right that someone can dupe you into thinking you got a real nugget, >and feeling good about it. But the value of a nugget is not in allowing you >to feel good about it; it's only got financial value (or not). >The value of a spiritual >teaching is exactly in making you feel good. No. It's also about truth. In SY (like Hinduism) Truth and Bliss are facets of god. I like to feel good but if someone offered to stick an electrode into my head that made me feel good all the time (and had no adverse effects), I wouldn't take it. Would you? >So in order to show a defect in >that taching, you have to explain why is that value ephemeral/fake. sy is not just about 'feeling good'. I don't think any religion/spiritual path says "our teaching is BS but that doesn't matter because it makes us feel good". Woolly spriritually minded people including SYs do, however, say "I know it's true because it makes me feel good." This is BS IMO. >> >I saw that kundalini (or the illusion of it) made my brother calmer >> >and more balanced. >> How do you know it wasn't all the things that went along with it: >Could be, but what's wrong with that? When I hike in the mountain and feel >wonderful, it's the things that go with it (exercise, good air, good views) >that give the positive effect. It's not the hiking itself, nor the mountain >itself. Yet I prefer to say that I like mountain hiking, not these other >things. Also, I'm not saying that you couldn't get the same things in other >ways. I don't think illusion is good. I don't think the things that go along with the SY illusion are all good. There's a world of difference between becoming a slave to a religious cult and going for a walk in the mountains, even if it is true that they both make you 'feel good'. Simon