mmoderator:

"So Swami G "is a SatGuru" and the Dalai Lama is "not enlightened." And Swami G not only sings, she somehow can also send out "transmissions" and you received an "immense transmission."
You are now preaching beliefs, which is against the rules that you agreed to before posting at this message board.
Seems more like stating his personal opinion about two alleged spiritual teachers."

I would respectfully disagree here. Sounds more like he's stating his personal opinion about two individuals.
I'm sure you can agree that you and everyone here has engaged in that.
Moreover, I think you should not hold it over him as a threat to deletion or being blocked, which is the insinuation I get from comments like that.

Corboy, to me it doesn't appear simply leaving is enough to provoke the wrath of Guru G outside the group. It appears she only does that if people speak out after leaving. If you leave quietly, she'll only bash you in private.

That being said, your advice is good advice. Unless you want a public spat with the Guru, leaving quietly is advisable. You can still speak up anonymously after you leave, but you should be very careful not to give off any personal details lest the Guru figure out who you are. Even things you witnessed can give clues, so choose your words carefully. You shouldn't be afraid of Guru G, but at the same time, caution is advisable with somebody like her who has a history of releasing private information publicly.

Don't feel like a coward if you decide to stay anonymous or not say anything at all. Speaking out about a cult or a cult-like group is not a choice to be taken lightly. Also don't feel like you need to name yourself if you do speak out publicly. When somebody has a history of unethical, extrajudicial, retaliation, you shouldn't have to put yourself at risk. I'll quote part of a conversation earlier on this thread about this:

Quote
psyborgue

Quote
Icarus
Swami G posted a few more videos this evening. One again railing against anonymity and posters here. And another, entitled "Benefits of this Path," that is a ray of hope. On anonymity, I actually agree with her 100% on its dangers. A lot of people misuse anonymity to trash known others unfairly, to defame them, and to attack them unjustly. I would hope that that has not happened here. In fact, what I have observed in the last week or so that I've participated is that posters have referred to their true identities (as with Holly) and others that have stayed behind pseudonyms have tried to be fair and responsible.

I have to disagree with that. When you're dealing with cults, particularly an organization like the Church of Scientology, its very often not a good idea to identify yourself for reasons that should be self-explanatory. Guru G is right that she has a right to face her accuser in a court of law, but not on the internet. And if she feels that somebody has defamed her, even anonymously, she has the option to sue a Doe, and later attempt discover the identity of the person (One can defend one's self anonymously in court. For example, if there is no grounds to the case, it can be dismissed by a pre-trial motion to dismiss before things ever get to the discovery stage). Anonymity does not at all mean there is no accountability. It just provides safety to people from extrajudicial retaliation.

In the video Guru G says she has a right in a court of law to put the "truth of the situation" out there. In a way, she's right, but unless the evidence is relevant to the case, the judge is not going to let it be used as evidence. You can't defend yourself from accusation X by saying Y and Z about the other person, where Y and Z are in no way relevant to X. For example, Guru G released private correspondence, and apparently, details on an ex-member's sex life. She claims she did this to defend herself against accusations made against her, yet such "evidence" seems to have little or nothing at all to do with the accusations against her. They're not a defense. They are a retaliatory strike. Those sorts of retaliatory strikes she seems to like so much are exactly why anonymity is a good thing.

To Guru G (or close students)

On the subject of Sannyas:

Approx. when did she receive sannyas in India?
Approx. when did she spend time with Sri Rajiv?
Does she claim that he was/is a fully Realised SatGuru?
And that he specifically told her that she was fully Realised, and that she should go out on her own and assume the role of SatGuru with his full blessings?

I would have some follow-up questions & comments.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/02/2013 02:40AM by Guru Patrol.

corboy:

I agree with Psyborgue on this one.

Quote
Guru Patrol
mmoderator:

"So Swami G "is a SatGuru" and the Dalai Lama is "not enlightened." And Swami G not only sings, she somehow can also send out "transmissions" and you received an "immense transmission."
You are now preaching beliefs, which is against the rules that you agreed to before posting at this message board.
Seems more like stating his personal opinion about two alleged spiritual teachers."

I would respectfully disagree here. Sounds more like he's stating his personal opinion about two individuals.
I'm sure you can agree that you and everyone here has engaged in that.
Moreover, I think you should not hold it over him as a threat to deletion or being blocked, which is the insinuation I get from comments like that.

I tend to agree with you. While beliefs are generally not as relevant as practices to a topic like this, knowing that the Guru is held up on such a high pedestal, how she views other spiritual leaders, and how dissent = "disrespect" is relevant. Just because the poster views these things in a positive light shouldn't be cause for a rule violation, but then again, I don't make the rules.

I understand Rick wants to minimize proselytizing and preaching and provide a safe place, but allowing such things can also provide an opportunity to gain further insight into the group (as was shown just previously). Forbidding the expression of personal belief also feeds into the Guru's narrative that the Rick Ross forum is tightly controlled to stifle dissent. It's a powerful narrative. Guru G sets people up to violate rules, and when they do, and get banned or lose pre-approved status, she screams "Rick Ross censors" to the highest heavens. Unnecessarily feeding into this narrative is not a good thing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/02/2013 02:48AM by psyborgue.

I received this message from Nicholas aka Tanmay, a longtine devotee of Swami G:

I am posting this only because like Tanmay, I was caught in this ridiculous
web previously of feeling the need to defend her constantly to "anti Swami G'ers" LOL.
Maybe at some point Tanmay will be able to recognize his own behavior
As I have and be able to, and laugh and move forward. Or not.

Nicholas message:
"I posted a reply to RRModerator but it doesn't seem to have made the cut for what is allowed to go through. This is what I've tried to post: The answer is simple rrmoderator.. I'm not here for or against Guru Swami G. I am here again to set the record straight because what I was previously doing even in the yahoo groups is holding onto false beliefs that were karmic barriers on the path of self realization. I am not preaching beliefs. The transmissions themselves are not concepts, beliefs, or theories. Nonetheless, what I and all else say is totally irrelevant to a Satguru who has already experienced all there is to experience in terms of the path of self realization and in terms of Kundalini awakening. Guru Swami G is a Guru to some, and a teacher and guide to many but what she offers in terms of the path is a pointer for those who wish to become self realized. The teachings are laid out very clearly and 100% gratis on her website for people who wish to learn what the path she teaches is about and for those genuine seekers who wish to do the hard work it may take and deal with karma and other layers that must be stripped in order for self realization to occur. Guru Swami G has done nothing wrong in my opinion. Guru Swami G is not one of those Gurus of the world that is not involved with her sadhakas.. Anyone can write Guru Swami G and she replies. That is her style. She's not one of those Gurus that travels to cities and makes loads of money but does not meet with her devotees. If she wanted to do that I am absolutely certain she could tour and get rich off of people.. but she's not doing that! She could make a ton of money and she is very wise, she knows the scriptures, she knows the authentic teachings. This is a Satguru we are speaking about. Do you know how many people wish to have the chance to even be in the same presence as a teacher let alone be a disciple of a Satguru? I'm thankful for what Guru Swami G is doing and is continuing to do. Tasmai Sri Gurave namah. OM shanti So this whole forum is about having an agenda just as Guru Swami G says.. and I'll let everyone else know this as well. "

Hi All, yes agree with you Psyborgue; to be honest, IMO, I find variations on the "I am dirt and the leader/pastor/guru is a saint of whom I am not worthy"to be the most telling communications from followers of religious groups.

NicholasRehl having free speech would be both fair and useful. (Re your pm though Nicholas: every group of people always has somewhat of an agenda;a website for spiritually abused people as in this case may not be the place you want to post if that is going to upset you.
Out of interest though, do you see Swami Gs website being different in this respect, and not having an agenda?
Do you feel/in your experience/ are people who have negative things to say allowed to post about it on Swami Gs website?
(Or is that committing a sin against the guru, and something you believe they should/and or will be punished for?)

Some points it might be helpful for you to consider : Nicholas.believe it or not there are a lot of people out there, good bad and indifferent in whose presence, or following their talks, people have had wonderful religious experiences.

Its much more common than you might think, an IMO isn't necessarily linked at all to how good decent or even enlightened a person the speaker actually is.

Derren Brown, the noted mentalist, does a great job in several different episodes giving people religious experiences.

If you can step back from the feel good fuzzy, it can be useful to also see how someone behaves in daily life.


And it is always good to remember that how someone treats others is how they are potentially likely to treat you.

By the way, a great way imo to control someone is having them believe that they are dirt in comparison to you, and that you alone hold the key to their salvation.
Had that game played with me as a kid growing up in a high demand group. Now I look for ethical behavior , and general human decency even in the face of provocation when choosing who to respect.

Some people have the ability to make others feel that they are in heaven,, while letting them know that they really belong in hell ; as a general rule, I am not interested in people who play with that dynamic.
If there are facts about GuruG that you believe are being wrongly reported, then certainly go for it. Everyone deserves a fair hearing.
To be honest though, most of us are very familiar with hero worship, and by itself imo that is less than likely to be persuasive .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/02/2013 04:36AM by yasmin.

I need to correct myself I mispoke regarding Nicholas as Tanmay-
I thought I had read his name as Tanmay but I misread that name.
I do not know the name he was actually given in the group.
FooFoo (LOL)
I had an official swami sounding holy name while in the group,
My new name I choose is much more real..
:-)

To whom it may concern:

"NicholasRehl" has been banned from this message board.

Apparently Swami G. is quite interested and concerned about this thread.

"Words" do appear to deeply affect purported "SatGuru."

Trolling will not be allowed on this thread and/or this message board.

IMO -- NicholasRehl was either Swami G. posting under an alias or one of her devotees attempting to subvert this thead.

To clarify:

On this page (39)
[forum.culteducation.com]

Nicholas Rehl wrote July 31, 2013 10:50AM



Quote:
Firstly, people are already told before they enter the yahoo group that they are not to bring in a set of beliefs. Unfortunately, I did just that. I had a set of beliefs about the Dalai Lama being some Boddhisatva. When I posted that about the Dalai Lama a Sadhaka of Guru Swami G's informed me that Guru Swami G teaches he has had past abuses and is not enlightened because of different abuses. Instead of being honest and searching to see if the Dalai Lama actually did have these abuses I argued and then said Guru Swami G is wrong and then said something to the effect of asking or saying if she thought she was God to judge a man such as the Dalai Lama.

In response: rrmoderator wrote

July 31, 2013 11:38AM


Quote:
NicholasRehl:
So Swami G "is a SatGuru" and the Dalai Lama is "not enlightened." And Swami G not only sings, she somehow can also send out "transmissions" and you received an "immense transmission."

You claim, "words could NEVER harm a Satguru OR benefit a Satguru," nevertheless you keep posting your apologies.

But why keep posting if words don't matter?



Guru Patrol wrote a post. It seems to quote the moderator, yet does not faithfully replicate the text of Mr Ross's reply to Mr Rehl.

First it was Rehl who quoted another sadhak that the Dalai Lama was not enlightened and that there had been past abuses. (see post above)

I had a set of beliefs about the Dalai Lama being some Boddhisatva. When I posted that about the Dalai Lama a Sadhaka of Guru Swami G's informed me that Guru Swami G teaches he has had past abuses and is not enlightened because of different abuses.

Guru Patrol has slushed together utterances from two different persons: RRmoderator and Mr Rehl.


Quote:
Quote:
mmoderator:
"So Swami G "is a SatGuru" and the Dalai Lama is "not enlightened." And Swami G not only sings, she somehow can also send out "transmissions" and you received an "immense transmission."

You are now preaching beliefs, which is against the rules that you agreed to before posting at this message board.
Seems more like stating his personal opinion about two alleged spiritual teachers."



Guru Patrol then wrote

I would respectfully disagree here. Sounds more like he's stating his personal opinion about two individuals.
I'm sure you can agree that you and everyone here has engaged in that.
Moreover, I think you should not hold it over him as a threat to deletion or being blocked, which is the insinuation I get from comments like that.


Corboy: Mr Ross is reminding Mr Rehl that Mr Rehl is violating the rules which he agreed to when registering for this message board.

**If**Guru Patrol presumes to suggest that I seem to be getting obsessed or am putting a lot of energy into this, I will feel free to remind her that that patronizing language is often used by by persons confronted with information that displeases them.