Quote
sam108

I'd also like to comment on claims of "sexual abuse". I think some people misinterpret
both the open attitude to relationships which is common (but not compulsory) in the Diamond Way
community, and also the traditional Tantric Buddhist spiritual approach to sexuality. Some people
like the idea of openness in relationships; other people find that concept hard to fathom. But there
is nothing specifically Diamond Way about that, it is also a broader (albeit minority) view within
Western culture, shared by groups of all sorts of different persuasions, spiritual or secular. I myself,
I have always been inclined to that attitude towards relationships, long before I ever even heard of
Diamond Way, so that aspect doesn't bother me. But I understand a lot of people can't understand it;
maybe they should just live and let live, rather than condemn them?

The other aspect of the sexual question -- traditionally, in Western culture, the sexual and spiritual
domains were considered largely disjoint, except in the specific case of marriage. So, the idea of
a spiritual teacher having a sexual relationship seems highly improper. But, I think the impropriety
really comes from the betrayal of trust -- in the Christian tradition, for instance, ministers of religion
are expected to behave in a way which excludes sexual relations with either anyone (celibacy), or
no one but their marital partner. Thus, for a religious functionary in that sort of tradition to engage
in a sexual relationship with a follower is to violate the teachings of their religion, and thus violate
the trust which the follower has placed in them as a minister. But, if a religion doesn't teach that,
then no such violation of trust occurs. I'd say the same thing about attempts to analogize medical
ethics into spirituality -- if you go to see a physician, you don't expect a sexual relationship, and
thus for a physician to engage in one is inappropriate. On the other hand, do you expect a sexual
relationship if you go to a spiritual teacher? Well, that really depends on the nature of their teachings.
If they teach e.g. "no sex outside of marriage", which would judge that such a relationship is improper,
and then seek to engage in one anyway, that suggests they are being abusive. Whereas, if they teach
"free love" (to use an old phrase), and offer you the opportunity to participate in that with them,
how is that a betrayal? It's not a betrayal; its just their being truthful to their own teachings.

I understand that, for someone to describe their experiences as "sexual abuse", they must be in
great personal pain. At the same time, I feel that the term should really be restricted to cases
involve minors, or those of restricted capacities (e.g. the intellectually disabled), or non-consensual
cases (i.e. rape). If an adult of sound mind consensually engages in sexual activity, then I don't
think we should call it abuse, even if they later regret doing it. I'm sure some people have had
sexual experiences in the context of Diamond Way which they later regretted -- just as people
have had sexual experiences they have regretted outside Diamond Way as well -- but unless they
involved lack of consent or other violations of the law, I don't think its fair to label them abuse.

Thanks for listening
Samuel

Quote
Outsider
Sam, I guess you are not a parent, picture this if you may, someone who was 100% monogamous and expected that of their partner until some time after coming into contact with DW. This person suddenly becomes enlightened after an extensive time in the bossom of a particular DW centre and becomes intimate with a DW teacher, guru, lama, yogi or whatever they label themselves on any given day (who is proud of their closesness to Ole Nydahl). Free love as you would suggest would indicate that any intamacy would be open knowledge to both parties rather than shrouded in lies (the case in mention) that were even passed on to the couples children.
DW may indeed be for some but when it comes between people and affects those not involved in such a manner, then its edicts, influences and morals have to be questioned objectively and instances like this brought into the open.
I have seen what I mention above happen and I would not wish it upon any other families but I have no doubt the troubled lambs of this world will continue to the fold of DW. We can all be intellectually disabled at times of extreme stress, grief or during relationship problems therefore we are all open to abuse and those who see their opportunities to abuse mind, body and spirit for their own gain.

Quote
dr. thomas
I found this on another site:

"The true beliefs of the group are kept secret from members until they are sufficiently brainwashed, and before that are lied to, just as Diamond Way lies to the public about it's true beliefs. Members only get to the really weird stuff once they get higher up in the hierarchy. Those higher up in this heirachy lie to both those lower down and to the public at large about their true beliefs. Their excuse for this is to simply say people are "not ready". (sounds like not sufficiently brainwashed to me!)"

Perhaps the members of Diamond Way could explain what this person might be referring to.

Quote
Emma C
'Hao' is a Diamond Way troll. He has posted exactly the same things on the Wikileaks link. Wouldn't be surprised if he's the same person as davidlondon/krampapa. Notice how the only people who try to legitimise Diamond Way are members who have just signed up and are members. At least this time he admitted he's been searching out information critical of the cult on Google.

Quote


Trolling as Phobia Implantation?

If you troll against sites your group or your leader consider negative, this might actually injure you and leave you more deeply trapped in a shame generating chain of afflictive emotion--chains woven by the leader and group dynamic that have led you to come here and swarm the board.

I have begun to wonder whether people actually have reason to want to get themselves banned from the RR.com message board?

That in some groups ejection from RR.com might become a badge of honor.

Or, that being banned from the message board could in some cases, actually be encouraged or even required as a condition for promotion to high rank within some organizations that dislike what RR.com is about.

For if these hypothetical persons later decided they wanted to leave that organization, they might feel afraid to defect, fearing they have no place else to go, and have burned all their bridges.

Worse, they might feel their previous trolling made them permanently unwelcome to RR.com and they'd hesitate to use RR.com as a resource for their own healing--a sort of phobia implantation.

Get a person to troll RR.com and get banned, to ensure that even if they later defect, they might never feel able to talk openly on RR.com.

If this is the case, and if people are encouraged to troll and be banned from RR.com to ensure they will if they later defect, feel avoidant of RR.com this would be a tragic outcome.

Again, I dont know if this is actually done, but its not a concept foreign to
espionage tactics--at least as described in spy novels.

If anyone has once been a troll here, and later genuinely recognizes that they would appreciate being able to enjoy an honest and respectful discussion in RR.com's unique and protected environment, plus its splendid
research archive--

In the words of the old Motel 6 ad, RR.com will keep the light on for you, and a place at the table when your trolling days are truly over.