Quote
rrmoderator


Psychiatrist and author Robert Jay Lifton, who wrote "Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism" defined cults as follows:

"Certain psychological themes which recur in these various historical contexts also arise in the study of cults. Cults can be identified by three characteristics:

1. a charismatic leader who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose their power;

2. a process I call coercive persuasion or thought reform;

3. economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie."

The Krishna group in Hawaii certainly fulfills these 3 criteria for the definition of a cult, specifically "A charismatic leader who increasingly becomes an object of worship" [/size:926c65124d][/color:926c65124d]

and

"economic and other exploitation by the leader"[/color:926c65124d]


:shock:

initiate:

Quote

Boldly, I say, blame the “victim”!... this is one man’s opinion. I don’t need a cadre of experts to validate my point of view

This seems to about sum up your position, which as you point out is not supported by hard research and expert analysis. It is a subjective point of view, and nothing more.

Quote

The PLANS organization website you quote extensively from is the mouthpiece of Dan Dugan, who initiated the lawsuit and is full of inaccuracies and deceptions.

What specific beliefs that are attributed to Steiner and Anthroposophy in the previous posts from the PLANS site are you disputing? Please be specific.

Quote

use of the buzz word “cult-like”.

Yes, the personality-driven nature of Anthroposophy (i.e. it's all about Steiner and his philosophy, claims, etc.) does make it "cult-like."

Quote

Teachers are required to study Steiner,

This would be an example and support what the PLANS site says about the Waldorf Schools.

Quote

The veiled personal attack here? I guess the above educators, artists, the United Nations , ex-students, etc. all have “personal religious beliefs that predispose” them to think Waldorf education is of any value?

Rev. Moon has arranged for photo ops and speaking engagements with former US Presidents and has UN connections.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Soka Gakkai has NGO status at the UN.

See [www.culteducation.com]

"Cult" gurus Sai Baba and Sri Chinmoy have also been quite good at gathering photo ops and endorsements form notable people.

See [www.culteducation.com]

And also [www.culteducation.com]

Personal endorsements and a UN connection don't change the facts about Waldorf, or the controversial claims and beliefs of Rudolf Steiner, which animate the Waldorf Schools and form its foundation.

As for your personal beliefs, it would seem that Waldorf's Neo-Eastern and "New Age" orientation along with belifs about reincarnation and karma might cause you to be sypathetic to the schools. Many of the people who support Waldorf seem to feel that way.

However, the Waldorf Schools is not the subject or focus of this thread, but it does serve to illustrate that you have certain sympathies and your opinion about cult brainwashing is interesting to say the least.

Thank you for laying out your positions/opinions and making yourslef clear here on such points.

rrmoderator,
Your analysis (?) of my posts does not represent my point of view nor do your speculations about my personal beleifs. Attacking the person rather than debating the idea is clearly not the standard of intelligent discourse. Taking partial quotes without the whole idea fully formulated (out of context) is an unfair debate tactic and twists the original meaning. I have posted my views and they need no futher elaboration.

initiate:

Your posts are here on this thread for anyone to read if they are interested.

The context and the meaning of your statements is self-evident.

You have not stated your beliefs, but not specifically denied that they may be similar to some of those held by Waldorf Schools, and therefore this may explain your sympathy concerning Waldorf.

Note: You have not specifically detailed what, if any, beliefs held by Waldorf per the PLANS site statements previously posted on this thread were incorrectly stated.

Thanks again for this exchange, which helps to make your position and sympathies somewhat clearer to those who read this thread and your posts on this message board.

Quote
initiate
The PLANS organization website you quote extensively from is the mouthpiece of Dan Dugan, who initiated the lawsuit and is full of inaccuracies and deceptions.

Please clarify what is inaccurate about Dugan's characterization of Waldorf and Steiner. Also, is it not only Dugan who is critical of Waldorf. Please rebut this article and explain what Steiner's "real views" are on race.

Thank you, Initiate, in advance!

[www.skepticreport.com]

The Racial Teachings of Rudolf Steiner
by Sven Ove Hansson

Anthroposophs have long rejected the accusations of racist origins in Anthroposophy - there simply are no racist skeletons in the closet. 1, 2 This article will investigate just what the inventor of Anthroposophy, Rudolf Steiner 3 actually said about human races.

If you are a serious student of Steiner's writings, it quickly becomes obvious that the question of human races was not immaterial. Steiner returned again and again, and often quite detailed, to the origins and characteristics of human races. This is an important part of his writings on the progress and development of humanity. How do you get a black skin color?

The physiological characteristics which traditionally (but quite in conflict with modern biology) is called a human race are achieved through heritance. Steiner, who did not believe in biological Evolution, thought that it was only recent that the racial characteristics became hereditary. His spiritual science showed that "historically, the racial characteristics came from where people were born". 4 He also wrote in detail on how these racial characteristics had come about. In the case of the "negroes", they came from forces emanating from "a point in the heart of Africa. Just about all of the forces that specifically influences the human during her early childhood come from here." 5 This point works through "those people who throughout their lives are completely dependent on these powers, so that this point permanently infuses them with the first childhood characteristics. This is approximately a description of all the people - regarding their racial characteristics - that, so to speak, sets free the decisive forces from this point. What we call the black race is essentially conditioned by these characteristics." 6 According to Steiner, black people were, in effect, childish.

In a different context, he described the blacks as "the last remnants of the group of humans by which the intestines are hardened", 7 and wrote further:

"But the people that didn't develop their id, that was too exposed to the influence of the sun, they were like plants: They produced far too much carbon under their skin - and became black. That is why the negroes are black." 8

The Asian Peoples

The Asian peoples are, according to Steiner, conditioned by a point on the surface on the Earth that endows them with "the later characteristics of youth." 9 These peoples are, he thought, far too introvert:

"Look at these colours, from the Negro to the Yellow population found in Asia. From those you have bodies which are once again containers of the most different souls, starting with the totally passive negro-soul, completely devoted to the surroundings, the outer physis, to the passive soul's second level in the different parts of Asia." 10

Steiner didn't hesitate when it comes to judging separate Asian peoples. The huns were described as "the last remnants of old Atlantic peoples. They are deeply decadent, which shows in their decaying astral- and ether-bodies." 11

Furthermore, there were "such people, that are degenerated because the nervous system hardened at a much too early stage and didn't stay soft long enough - the last remnants of those are the Malayan race." 12

Another type of hardening relegated the Mongols to a "lower class of people". 13

The dying-out Indians

The group of people that Steiner found least appealing was the native American Indians. Even though these had a certain age in human life, Steiner considered their case to be connected with "the forces that have a lot to do with human extinction." 14 He described the Indians as "a degenerated human race", 15 which was the reason why they had succumbed to such a degree.

"It isn't because of the whims of the Europeans that the Indian population has died out, but because of the Indian population had to acquire those forces that led it to die out." 16

While he ascribed an abnormously weak Ego to the Africans, the Indians had the opposite problem. This was also the cause of their skin color (or rather the skin color Steiner thought they had):

"And they developed this Ego so strongly that it has gone into their skin color: They became copper-red. They have developed into decadence." 17

The white "race"

The "race" which Steiner described in positive terms was - not surprisingly - the white one. When listing the different "races", he described how they were inflicted by "hardening" of different organs. The list ended with those people who "did not become hardened at all". They were found in "those areas that comprise of today's Europe and Asia." 18

Elsewhere, he stated that "the most mature characteristica are found in the European area. It is simply (a natural) law." 19

When non-European peoples proved to be successful, Steiner explained this by claiming that they had learned from Europeans:

"It is often claimed that the Japanese are going through an important development based on their character - this is an illusion. There is no development made from their own abilities. The reason they were victorious in the latest war was that they used warships and cannons invented by the European peoples, thereby using a foreign culture. It is no development if a people has taken what another people's characteristics has produced - it has to develop based on its own nature. That is what counts!" 20

According to Steiner's teachings on soul travel, the same soul could assume different "races" in different lives. What race it would be depended on how you behaved in the previous life.

"A soul can be incarnated in any race, but if this soul doesn't become evil, it doesn't need to be reincarnated in a descending race, it will reincarnate later in a ascending race." 21

In other words, it is important to be a good person, so you won't be black, Japanese or even American Indian in your next life.

The Anthroposophical Defense

The Anthroposophs have mainly used three lines of defense, when Steiner's racism has been brought up. The first line of defense is to describe the quotes as "taken out of context".

This is a very weak defense. In a trivial way, all quotes are of course taken out of context, but it doesn't follow that they are misleading. To defend Steiner, it isn't enough to call quotes like the ones above "taken out of context" without also showing that there is an explanation in the text that shows that Steiner does not speak in a racist context.

No such explanation exists. That is why those Anthroposophs who use this argument are satisfied with the general accusation of out-of-context, and make no attempt of showing how those quotes aren't representative for the texts they are taken from.

One might wonder how the non-racist text would look like, where the author expresses his views with phrases like "the totally passive negro-soul" or "a degenerated human race".

The second line of defense is that Steiner's statements are said to be the norm for their time, and cannot be regarded as particularly noticable or perhaps even controversial. This claim can only convince those who are not familiar with the historical background. Steiner's quotes were made during the first decade of the 1900's, before the Nazi era. His wordings on non-European peoples were for their time unusually degrading and offensive, even within the German language area. Steiner belonged to those many who paved the way for Nazism through expressing the idea about the superiority of the "white" race.

The latest argument

Lately, some Anthroposophs have started using a third line of defense. Now, they claim that the texts from these and other quotes come from are not from the "official" Steiner. The majority of the quotes are not from this books, but from his lectures, that is, recordings of his lectures made by his staff.

This argument is very odd for those who know Anthroposophy and its history. Steiner's lectures have always been central within Anthroposophy. They make up the primary source to the so-called esoteric Anthroposophy, which cannot actively be presented to people outside the movement. The common wisdom among Anthroposophs is that unprepared people cannot understand these texts correctly. Earlier, many of these texts were kept strictly a secret. Nowadays, they are part of Steiner's printed collected works, published by a company which cooperates with the highest international leadership of Anthroposophy. The defense that the lectures cannot be used as sources have, to my knowledge, not earlier been put forth, when non-Anthroposophs criticize them in public. The lectures are still used internally in the Anthroposophic world.

In Steiner's printed books the statements about the human races are more subdued than in the lectures. This is part of a pattern: The books were meant to be read by non-Anthroposophs. Therefore, they are usually, regardless of subject, more general and careful in their expressions than the lectures.

A tough problem for Anthroposophy

Of course, it isn't just Anthroposophs who have skeletons in the closet. There are many other examples, e.g. the founder of modern mathematical logic and analytic philosophy, Gottlob Frege, who had racist views. This is not a problem for either, since they are separated from his racism. First and foremost, there are no analytic philosophers who use Frege's writings as a source for knowledge of life's various areas.

It is quite different in Anthroposophy. Steiner's comprehensive explanations of "human races" and their actions take up a large part of his writings on history, where concepts as root races and peoples souls are central. To remove the racial teaching from Anthroposophy is no easy task. It is not like removing an isolated tumor but like removing a tumor with many metastases. That is why this is so difficult for the Anthroposophs. What is at stake is the very foundation of the movement, namely the belief in Rudolf Steiner's spirit visions as a source of knowledge.

I think we did appreciate the information being given, although it had to be taken with a large dose of salt due to the obvious bias of its disseminator.
Unfortunately, these types of rebuttals seem to have the effect of stopping all exchange of information, valid or otherwise.
I was hoping that somewhere in there the truth would emerge.

barabara:

There is quite a bit of information that has been provided and is archived now about the Butler group.

But it is important to identify issues and keep some parameters as we move along.

It not a good for anyone to be mislead by false or misleading information about cults and brainwashing.

Setting some issues straight at this point appeared necessary.

Quote

Singer has stated there are six conditions in the cult conversion through coercion process.

They are as follows:

1. Keep the person unaware of what is going on and the changes taking place

2. Control the person's time and, if possible, physical environment.

3. Create a sense of powerlessness, covert fear, and dependency.

4. Suppress much of the person's old behavior and attitudes.

5. Instill new behavior and attitudes.

6. Put forth a closed system of logic; allow no real input or criticism.

While some people may be referred to as "experts" on "cult psychology" maybe we should see that when dealing with religious motivations and the human mind that "experts" on these topics are not all they are cracked up to be. Not that they are frauds or incompetent, it's just that while it is easy to judge someone as an expert computer programmer or an expert cook or an expert fashion designer or any type of "expert" where the expertise is something which is easily evident, when it comes to the human mind and religious motivations "expertise" is more subjective then objective. For every sociologist or psychologist who is referred to as an expert and held to be so by a cadre of believers, there are other sociologists and psychologists who have opposing views and are supported and refered to as "experts" by a cadre of believers.

My point is that using the "argument from authority" when debating the nature of the human mind and religious motivation is really in itself a "cult" like methodology. "They" are the "chosen ones" and we should unquestioningly accept their pronouncements as truth from on high.

Singer may have theories and other "experts" may have theories but they shouldn't be deified as the gurus on the human mind and religious motivation, they are not perfect human beings without possibility of error.

"Cults" are about religion. You can try to psychoanalyze religious motivation and religious people and you may be able to gain insight. But their is no reliable psychoanalytic template that will suffice to cover all people in all religions and in all circumstances.

For instance in the above from Singer we see these 6 "conditions" in the "cult conversion through coercion process". That template is not a divine revelation and therefore we should be wary of worshipping at the altar of the psychological insight it proclaims to possess.

Quote

1. Keep the person unaware of what is going on and the changes taking place

When dealing with "cults" it should be understood that cults are, for the most part, religions. They have a dogma and they usually have what is to them a moral and ethical worldview and ontology. Religions are dealing with ideas of faith. Faith is the essential ingredient in a cult or religion which separates the believer or follower from others outside of the religion or cult. In order for the above first condition to be worthy of being seen as a universal template it would have to be shown that there are people in the cult or religion who are "aware of what is going on and the changes taking place" (insert sinister music of choice) and are actively trying to hide "what is going on and the changes taking place" from newcomers.

Here is the problem with this theory; what usually happens in cults and religions is that "what is going on and the changes taking place" is not something which is trying to be hidden from newcomers. This may not be true for front organizations of cults or religions which do not openly espouse the front organization's true purpose and affiliation (scientology and their front organizations for example). But aside from those few the rest are open and upfront about what they are trying to do to you i.e convert you through coercion. Isn't that what everyone expects when confronted by a religious group? They proselytize. They try to convince you that they have the words of God and they are God's messengers and you are in darkness and in need of the light and saving grace of their religion. Who doesn't know this when confronted with a religious group, be it a "cult" or mainstream religion?

Quote

2. Control the person's time and, if possible, physical environment.

For the most part cult members see their community as a fortress within a land of people who are against their religious tenets. In the mainstream religions if someone joins a monestary or becomes a priest it is looked at as socially acceptable behavior and you won't find "experts" telling us that these people have been coerced into giving up control of their time and physical environment. Instead they have "found a calling for ahigher purpose". When the same type of behavior is exhibited in people involved with cults then it is worrisome to "experts". I see a bias against non mainstream religions in Singer's 2nd condition.

Quote

3. Create a sense of powerlessness, covert fear, and dependency.

Again more of the same as the previous condition. In mainstream religions generally speaking we are taught that we are powerless in the face of Satan or immoral society and that we should fear them and depend on the Church or religious teachings of the mullah, or pastor or rabbi so we don't become a victim of the evil immoral society that surrounds us. In every mainstream religion there are large numbers of people who don't the dire warnings and fear mongering seriously, and then there are many who do and whose lives revolve around the church or synagogue or mosque because they fear and feel powerless to live a life away from the "safe" confines of the church and the religious leaders. So again I see a bias against non mainstream religions here by Singer. For followers of mainstream religions it is not a worry if they have the same behavior as cult members?

Quote

4. Suppress much of the person's old behavior and attitudes.

Again more of the same. If a person goes to shul or catholic school or a any other mainstream religious school they are taught to conform to the religious behavior and attitude of the religion. All mainstream religion try to "suppress much of the person's old behavior and attitudes" to conform to their religious dogma or the religious leader's ideology. This universally understood and accepted as normal religious behavior. But when seen in a non mainstream religion or cult then it becomes worrisome? So again a bias is seen here by Singer.

Quote

5. Instill new behavior and attitudes.

Again more of the same. All religions try to instill new behavior and attitudes if your present behavior and attitudes differ from the religious teachings. So, again another bias.

Quote

6. Put forth a closed system of logic; allow no real input or criticism

This one is a little bit off. Again it shows a bias against non mainstream religions but also it generalizes to broadly. Not all cults nor do all religions have a "closed system of logic" nor do they all allow "no real input or criticism". It varies widely from cult to cult and from religion to religion. Cults and mainstream religions usually come in 2 varieties as far as theology goes.

The first type is where there is a single leader whose views are sacrosanct. This grouping can be split furthur into those cults and religions where the leader can do wrong, period, and those that have to at the very least present a public persona as a staunch follower of the teachings of the cult or religion, without doing so he would be ousted from authority.

The second type is where there may or may not be a single leader, and the leadership changes now and then, or their is a "council of elders" who change now and then.

In both types of religions and cults there are those that have a very closed system of logic disallowing criticism i.e. the huge mass of "evangelicals" who teach that the new testament is the literal and perfect word of God. The Catholic Church where the Pope is the last word and officially God's mouthpiece on earth. Islam where the Quran is the absolute and perfect word of Allah, no criticism allowed...or else. Ultra orthodox Judaism where the torah is the final and perfect word and rabbis are heald up as god's messengers on earth. Within "cults" you also will find similar groups where the theology of the group is beyond reproach and the leader is God's messenger on earth.

But also in many religions and cults there is plenty of room for criticism and a policy of speaking your own "realization". Since this thread is about Chris Butler I'll show the difference between his Hare Krishna group and the largest Hare Krishna group iskcon. In iskcon you will find plenty of criticism all of the time by members, it is a very contentious group theologically speaking. But they have to prove their philosophical and theological differences with each other by reference to the scriptures and previous highly regarded gurus and saints. In fact that is the tradition in most all hindu sects. They argue theology using the same scriptures but with opposing interpretations. And even if something cannot be explicitly found to be corroborated in a scripture, you can still claim your point is authentic because the traditions themselves teach that the scriptures come from God revealing truth to humans. So you can claim God revealed this truth to you and still be in accord somewhat with the hindu traditions. This happens all of the time. In iskcon anyone can voice an opinion on the theological direction of any decision and he won't be shut down, he or she may not be taken seriously, but that depends on the situation e.g. how cogent is their argument, how long they have been in the sect, how respected they are by their peers, etc. They are not against arguing or debating a point, in fact it seems like that is what they do all of the time.

In Chris Butler's group you had fearless leader #1 who was the God and if you criticized his views you were on very shaky ground if you wanted to remain in the group.

In iskcon the leadership is decentralized and not autocratic. You have to always prove yourself worthy of being in a leadership position in your public persona by appearing to follow all the rules and social norms of iskcon, otherwise you will be at least temporarily removed from your leadership position. This has happened repeatedly. Of the original 11 gurus who were the main leaders when iskcon started it's current post-Bhaktivedanta stage, 2 are left. The rest were removed from power or were forced to resign. Becoming a leader is dependent on merit (leadership skills in some are or another) or connections (connections = the largesse and friendship of other leaders, or if you are a source of a continuous and large amount of revenue). Also in iskcon the properties are not owned by individuals, by properties I mean the official iskcon temples and farms and restaurants.

In Chris Butler's group the leadership is centralized and autocratic. Chris is the law. Of course he also has to have a public persona of being a person who practices what he preaches if he wants to retain his following, but even if he fails at that, still no one can remove him from power. His power is the willingness of others to support him. How much of that support he has parlayed into his own bank accounts and investments is unknown.

So in conclusion Singer's reasoning is not a very good indicator of a "cult" because her template applies universally i.e to mainstream religions as well. And it is not taking into account the wide variety of how "cults" are organized and run. It's at once both too broad and too constrictive. Is she an "expert" on "cults"? I would say maybe in some areas. But her attempt to make a template for deciding if some group is a "cult" is really showing her religious bias and ignorance, and not much else.

Quote
just-googling

Quote
rrmoderator


Psychiatrist and author Robert Jay Lifton, who wrote "Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism" defined cults as follows:

"Certain psychological themes which recur in these various historical contexts also arise in the study of cults. Cults can be identified by three characteristics:

1. a charismatic leader who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose their power;

2. a process I call coercive persuasion or thought reform;

3. economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie."

The Krishna group in Hawaii certainly fulfills these 3 criteria for the definition of a cult, specifically "A charismatic leader who increasingly becomes an object of worship"

and

"economic and other exploitation by the leader"


:shock:

One of my favorite New Age Neo-Pagan authors R.J. Stewart wrote something that I agree with in his “The Underworld Initiation.” Stewart wrote that “The value of any transcendent tradition should be found within its liberating qualities. A tradition of any sort, has no other ultimate value. The use of tradition for traditions sake is a perversion, a tool of suppression.”
The worship of Guru as being “As good as God” is legitimized by the “Holy Writ” of many millions of Hindu’s, it is indeed a part and practice of Hindu religion legitimized by the Bhagavad Gita and other Vedic literatures. Similarly in the West Guru is worshiped in the form of Christ Jesus, so unless one is willing to ascribe the whole of Hinduism or Christianity to Cult status I do not think that it is a particularly good idea to consider the worship of a charismastic individual to be anything other than incidental. Cults do it but non-cults do it also/ I think the only question should be whether it ever delivers the real value of tradition, does it ever establish one in transcendence, does it ever attain one to liberation? I say that it can, that it may, and that it does dnot from belief but from experience, the thing, the only thing which physicists agree imparts to us real as opposed to conceptual knowledge. I do not believe that faith in Guru can be liberating I know that it can be. Srila Prabhupada was Guru. I tested him as the Vaisnava how to book Nectar of Instruction demands of any prospective disciple. He passed and no one who wasn’t a transparent via medium to the Supreme could have.

I found one reference to the school in the philippines; a court case involving a young, but apparently not underage girl. Seems similar to Poland to me, but I'm not sure.

[www.lawphil.net]

Quote

He theorized that sometime in May 1991, Rutchel started to reside with him in Cebu City because of her desire to undertake spiritual studies at the Chaitanya Mission. On the same day, the trial Court issued an order directing the public respondents to bring the body of Rutchel before it on December 9, 1991, at 10:40 P.M., and to show cause why Rutchel Apostol had been deprived of her liberty and/or petitioner was denied rightful custody of Rutchel.
On December 9, 1991, the public respondents did not produce the body of Rutchel Apostol. As a result, the Trial Court issued another Order giving them five (5) days to submit their opposition to the petition, and resetting the hearing to December 27, 1991, at 10:00 A.M.
Before the investigation ended, Ms. Rutchel Apostol offered three (3) conditions to her mother which her mother rejected, namely:
1. That she be allowed to go to the mission in Cebu for one (1) month;
2. That when summer classes will open, she will enroll and be allowed to visit the Chaitanya Mission in Iloilo; and
3. That after she will finish her college course, she will be left free to go where she pleases. 2
On August 11, 1992, Eduardo Balagtas took an appeal to the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP. No. 28155, asseverating:
Although the original respondents were the policemen who forcibly took away Rutchel Apostol from the Chaitanya Mission, and whom the petitioner believed were in custody of Rutchel Apostol, the petition was deemed amended when the policemen in their comment to the petition alleged that it is the parents of Rutchel Apostol who are now in actual custody of Rutchel Apostol and the parents of Rutchel Apostol admitted that they are in custody of Rutchel Apostol and submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court by allowing the Commissioner appointed by this Honorable Court to examine Rutchel Apostol in their house in Iloilo City.
xxx xxx xxx
It is to be stressed that since Rutchel Apostol is now 19 years of age, she has now reached the age of majority and is now emancipated from parental control:
Art. 234. Emancipation takes place by the attainment of majority. Unless otherwise provided, majority commences at the age of eighteen years.
Since Rutchel Apostol has reached the age of majority, the parents of Rutchel Apostol cannot keep her in their custody against her will:
In a case, the petitioner asked for writ of habeas corpus to return his daughter, who had already reached the age of majority, to her parental home which she left without his consent as father nor the consent of her mother. In denying the application, the Supreme Court held: There can be no question that parental authority, which includes the right to custody, terminates upon a child reaching the age of majority, at which age the child acquires the right, power and privilege to control his person

___________________________________________
No address for the Chaitanya Mission was given, and a web link I found no longer works.

I did find this website, which lists 8 Chaitanya meditation centers in the Philippines. It will be interesting to see if it gets removed:
[www.mantra101.ionichost.com]

Does anyone have a link to a similar record of the court case in Poland?