Dear RRModerator and to whom it may concern,

Though you appear on the outside to run a "non-biased" group and support organizaiton for potentially dangerous 'cults', you are quite biased in your "swaddled" comments and steering of the overall conversation. I would actually be highly surprised if this post even makes it to your board.

None of those that have worked with Guruji and are here to speak about their experiences are "apologists". They are merely responding to a serious accusation in an attempt to provide clarity and personal experiences to negate the allegations being (crudely) presented.

The moderator has said this isn't about "Kundalini", yet allows vidoes to be posted by critics which show and speak to Kundalini directly. The moderator has said this isn't about "higher / college education" and has even made statements regarding unrelated persons who did happen to have degrees and were subsequently involved in dangerous practices; yet, the moderator himself/herself asked if Swami G had a degree. The moderator has asked about financial holdings / dealings of Guruji and this information was shared freely and honestly; yet, the Moderator then wants to add his/her own hidden inuendos with no factual statements what-so-ever.

The burden of proof lies with those making the claims of indescretion or even suggesting this is a 'cult':

IndiaSpark: your entire premise is based on your own opinions and held beliefs. You ask for proof that Kundalini is valid, that what Guru speaks of is true (Realization / Enlightenment) or that the various activities (Shaktipat, Kryias, Mudras, etc) in the videos are real. Yet, you have no proof that they are not. If you can provide a scentific statement / thesis, published report, etc that reveals the unreality of these things, then do so. If not, then you are simply left with speculation and the rather crass attempt to validate your own theories. You are not a former student of Guru; you've never even met her. You have watched a few videos, behaved rudely on a Public Board she offers and then decided to create a campaign of hate against her because you a) don't agree with what she shares and b) because you didn't get to throw your fits on her personal internet groups. Your actions lack credibility, sensiblity, fact or even an ounce of unbiased research.

RRModerator: You are also responsible for supplying proof that there is anything that even remotely resembles "cult" within your allegations. Where are the concerned family members of current students? Why are they not here backing up the claims of an embittered "atheist scientist"? Where are the former students speaking out about financial abuse, sexual abuse, physical abuse, brain washing, or forcing them to cut ties with friends, families, work, education, etc? Until you have something solid to present that shows clearly and most definitely there is a concern, other then the words of a person who remains anonymous and has never worked directly with Guruji (and posting her videos that she makes public), then there is nothing left to be said.

Quote
John A. Lobur
Quote:
sandman
Surely it is obvious that mystical, spiritual or religious experiences are both beyond critical thought and outside of intellectual pursuits.

Is it?

It is my observation that in contemporary culture, mystical, spiritual or religious experiences are not generally given much credence in the works of intellectuals or critical thinkers.

Quote
John A. Lobur
Have you ever read Augustine's Confessions or The City of God? Regardless of how one feels about Kierkegaard, one cannot deny that he is a first rate philosopher. Have you ever looked at Fear and Trembling? Kant (again, by any standard a towering intellect) had a very rational argument for religious belief in God . . . Have you read his Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone?

No, I haven't read those books. I am currently reading "The Horrors and Absurdities of Religion" by Arthur Schopenhauer.

Quote
John A. Lobur
Quote:
Sandman
It may be that an obviously rational explanation for such experiences is being overlooked.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. . . obviously rational explanation. There is no objective scientific criterion that proves the existence of God.

I mean that I may have overlooked a rational explanation for Swami G's spiritual powers that is obvious to you or others, not that I have overlooked scientific proof of the existence of God.

Quote
John A. Lobur
Which brings me to my next point. . . for a long time, especially after I left the Catholic church, my guiding principle has been very simple: whatever your path (and there are many valid paths out there, as the saying goes "many paths, one mountain") and whomever you are dealing with never believe anything that you cannot directly experience for yourself. This is the essence of Zen.

If that is not exercising critical thinking skills, what is? I think that is a good guiding principle for anyone to have, regardless of the path they have chosen.

Spirituality is generally said to be about direct experience. That there may be the freedom to make independent decisions based on experience is not a particularly good example of the exercise of critical thinking skills, no.

Quote
John A. Lobur
Because she has not, does not, and never will expect you to believe in something you cannot experience for yourself. She acknowledges that there are other valid paths out there, and that hers is not necessarily the one suited to any particular person. None are constrained to stay on her path and many -- the vast majority of students she has had in fact -- end up going their own way with no further ado. Can you find one person who alleges that they have had any trouble later on?

Swami G has rational credibility because she does not claim her "path" is the only "path"?

The question was: how can critical thinking skills and intellectual practices be used to demonstrate that Swami G has rational credibility?

Not "does Swami G claim that hers is the only path"?

If Swami G has rational credibility then it should be possible to describe it rationally, showing how critical thinking skills can be used to discern why and how she has credibility. If at the same time some authentic intellectual ideas can arise from that, even better and we don't have to agree on them.

Quote
John A. Lobur
Quote:
Sandman
Lastly, can you please give a rational explanation of "Shaktipat" as shown in these videos cited earlier:

Probably not one that will satisfy you. The miracles at Medjugorjie can't be rationally explained either. . . does that make them invalid? From what I have experienced, and the people I have spoken to, everyone's experience of this is different. There is a lot of information of Swami G's website and she has written books too, and there is a good deal of video up. I encourage you to explore it on your own, if only from an anthropological perspective.

You have suggested that your approach to these matters is as a professor with a PHD and as "an accredited, recognized and respected professional intellectual with critical thinking ability", and that you have stated as much in an attempt to offset any impression that Swami G lacks rational credibility or appeals to the gullible. You have cited the works of well-known philosophers whom you say had rational arguments for the existence of God, and this in order to show that a rational explanation of the credibility of Swami G's teachings is possible. Yet you have failed to provide one.

Shaktipat is central to her teachings, so with regard to the way in which you have referred to yourself you ought to be able to provide an explanation of it. You've implied that Shaktipat is a miracle without even giving a subjective interpretation of it and instead you are recommending a website. None of my questions have been answered.

I had hoped for more, but thanks for your time anyway.

John A. Lobur,



'........never believe anything that you cannot directly experience for yourself. This is the essence of Zen.'

I think you will find in the practice of zen, as opposed to the popular view of it, that there is an expectation that even those personal direct experiences be subjected to rigorous critical examination---and not blindly accepted as evidence of anything other than a subjective mental experience.

The essence of zen is paying attention and developing a flexible mind, not jumping to premature conclusions.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/17/2010 07:01PM by Stoic.

To whom it may concern:

One of the most common devices used by cult apologists and/or "Internet Trolls" to subvert a thread is to get it off topic.

Please don't stray from the topic and focus of this thread.

The topic is "Guru Swami G."

Please address that topic and make sure that comments posted here are directly relevant to the preaching and practices of that group.

Personal attacks are against the rules.

sarojini:

I have not stated that Swami G and her followers constitute a "cult."

I have come to some conclusions though about Swami G, based upon the admissions here made by her followers.

The group is personality-driven, which is the single most salient characteristic of groups called "cults."

Swami G provides no meaningful financial transparency regarding the purported nonprofit "Zen-Way" and its use of donations. Moreover, Swami G has no meaningful accountability to anyone and appears to be essentially her own authority.

Swami G largely lives off the money provided by her followers.

Swami G has a history of "cult" involvement, which she has admitted publicly.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/18/2010 01:04AM by rrmoderator.

Quote
sarojini
Dear RRModerator and to whom it may concern,

IndiaSpark: your entire premise is based on your own opinions and held beliefs. You ask for proof that Kundalini is valid, that what Guru speaks of is true (Realization / Enlightenment) or that the various activities (Shaktipat, Kryias, Mudras, etc) in the videos are real. Yet, you have no proof that they are not. If you can provide a scentific statement / thesis, published report, etc that reveals the unreality of these things, then do so. If not, then you are simply left with speculation and the rather crass attempt to validate your own theories. You are not a former student of Guru; you've never even met her. You have watched a few videos, behaved rudely on a Public Board she offers and then decided to create a campaign of hate against her because you a) don't agree with what she shares and b) because you didn't get to throw your fits on her personal internet groups. Your actions lack credibility, sensiblity, fact or even an ounce of unbiased research.

Sarojini or Holly : As I have said before, it is not for me to prove that your esoteric ideas and claims are real. It is up to you. Get your research published in a science journal if you are so sure. I do not need to practice your exotic voodoo to know that it is nonsense. In fact no one in their right mind should. There is no research published in any respectable peer reviewed science journal for any of the primitive hindu ideas you propagate. Credibility is something that you cannot even talk about as your group is far from it.

If you notice my first post here, I merely provided the links to see if people here knew anything about your strange group. But then you and your guru were soon posting here. Your group has been sufficiently exposed here as a result and you will be watched by people who are anti cult. That you can be sure.

With apology to the moderator, I know this is somewhat off topic. I politely ask for the opportunity to reply to indiaspark.

Quote
Indiaspark
I do not need to practice your exotic voodoo to know that it is nonsense. In fact no one in their right mind should. There is no research published in any respectable peer reviewed science journal for any of the primitive hindu ideas you propagate.

This is patently and outrageously false. Anyone with even a nominal familiarity with the internet would know this is simply not true. Are you trying to deliberately mislead people?

Here is a peer reviewed example of research I found within minutes.

Peer reviewed article from the university of Bonn

In it, one reads

Quote

Hinduism, Buddhism or Taoism, found their way to Europe in the late 19th century and brought along a complex terminology that highly influenced our parlance. In these cases meditation only refers to a purely religious purpose, but a close look illustrates, that implications of meditation can reach far beyond that. Not only religious movements such as the Hatha Yoga, but also more secular schools like eastern martial arts employ meditation. Furthermore, seemingly non-spiritual activities, like dancing, e.g. the whirling dance, which is the spiritual practice of the Moulavi-Order of the Sufi tradition in Turkey, or singing, like Christian chorales or Buddhist chanting, can be used as a meditative technique. In some traditions, like the ‘red tantra’, even sexual impulses and activities are part of the meditative spectrum. Thus, one could try to achieve a definition of meditation through its effects on the meditator, but that will not clarify the picture either.

One also reads:

Quote

Depending on the tradition we study, meditation is a way to establish a sense of calmness and serenity; a method to concentrate and focus on a single point; a way to stop the constant verbal thinking and relax the mind; a way to relieve stress and alleviate depression; a way to reduce anxieties and to build up self-esteem. It may be only used to benefit the health, like stabilize the cardio-vascular system or, to the other extreme, to seek to get in contact with god, or to reach hard to define ‘peak experiences’ like ‘samadhi’, ‘nirvana’ or ‘oneness’.

The tradition of the group I belong to would perhaps best be described as an amalgam of both. The study suggests that the word meditation implies a variety of methods and experiences, and the empirical data is derived from several traditions.

Scientific studies have been done of the cognitive states involved in both:

Quote

This divergence is reflected in the scientific studies of meditation. One instructive example is to compare studies on Indian Yogis and Japanese Buddhist monks. In the early sixties, a couple of studies showed that Yogi masters, while in meditation, exhibited no response to external stimuli, e.g. to pain when their hand was placed in cold water. Even auditory stimuli showed no effect on the simultaneously recorded EEG as in control subjects [6] and [7]. These findings are consistent with the theory of certain Yogi practices, which are supposed to cut off every sensory input and reach a state of complete internalized attention with extremely reduced body functions.
On the other hand, studies from the sixties and seventies on the meditation of Japanese Zen Monks demonstrated, that these meditators showed an EEG response to repetitive auditory stimuli that did not habituate as in control subjects [8]. Again, these findings correspond nicely to the demands of Zen meditation, namely a state of highly concentrated mindfulness, just witnessing whatever goes through the mind, without trying to suppress external stimuli. Both studies referred to the state of their subject as ‘meditation’.

In the conclusion, one reads:

Quote

.....brain/mind states related to an advanced/expert level of meditation training are unique. Such unique states may be reached, because meditation training may not only be associated with the occurrence of certain electrophysiological signatures, but may also stimulate cortical plasticity and involve changes in neural structures. In other words, the constituents of the brain, i.e. the dynamical systems supporting neurophysiological processes, are modified. These modifications may supply the neural basis for unique brain/mind states associated with new electrophysiological signatures (see chapter 5).

So neural phenomena unique to meditation has been scientifically demonstrated. That is to say that the things pointed to by what you term primitive Hindu ideas have identifiable, isolatable and unique sigantures that can be scientifically verified.

Here is another on I found within minutes. It is most assuredly peer-reviewed. Just look at the variety of traditions it covers and take a look at the bibliography it has if you are wondering if there is any literature out there.

Peer reviewed article

John A. Lobur:

Your post was not about "Guru Swamin G."

If you post again off topic it will not be approved and will not appear on this board.

Please stay on topic.

Indiaspark:

Please focus like a laser on the topic of this thread.

Again, the most common method Internet trolls or cult apologists use to subvert a thread is to pull that thread off topic.

The topic of this thread is not Hinduism, meditation, yoga or whatever, it is "Guru Swami G."

Stay on topic.

To whom it may concern:

Neo-eastern cults often use "meditation" or what can be seen as trance induction/hypnosis, to render participants more suggestible. In such an altered dissociative state they become malleable and can then be relatively easily persuaded to feel and believe almost anything.

In trance an individual's perception of reality can be greatly altered, e.g. "a sense of calmness and serenity; a method to concentrate and focus on a single point; a way to stop the constant verbal thinking and relax the mind..."

This is directly relevant to Swami G.

Watching her YouTube videos you can see people that appear to be in various states of trance.

But "meditation may not always be good for you," said noted clinical psychologist and cult expert Margaret Singer.

Here are some interesting links to better understand this phenomenon.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Also see [www.culteducation.com]

The research sponsored and subsequent claims made by Transcendental Meditation (TM) founded by Maharishi, perhaps the most well-known organization that promotes meditation, has been criticized.

See [www.culteducation.com]

There are many neo-eastern groups, some that have been called "cults," which seem use "meditation" or "stilling the mind," as one tool to gain undue influence over adherents.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Note that two of the groups listed under Neo-Eastern within the archives are the Holy Order of Mans and ISKCON.

Swami G has admitted to historical ties to both of these groups and she once lived within Hare Krishna ashrams.

To better understand how "thought reform" or "coercive persuasion" works see the following:

[www.culteducation.com]

[www.culteducation.com]

To better understand the distinctions between various forms of persuasion, such as education, advertising, propaganda, indoctrination and thought reform see the following:

[www.culteducation.com]

Noted scientist Carl Sagan put together what has been called a "baloney detection kit," to examine the claims of anyone or any group.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Now to stay on topic the above information should be applied to Swami G.

Can she stand such scrutiny?

Lets keep the discussion here focused to the topic and within the rules.

Personal attacks are against the rules.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/18/2010 04:35AM by rrmoderator.