Stormig Posted October 23, 2004 Report Share Posted October 23, 2004 First a disclaimer: I'm not reading this thread - at least not entirely. I do not hold a stake in either camp concerning the chimnroy franchise, nor am I truly interested. But I see a quote like the one above - and I can't help but think that it should be the opposite way around: the courts are there to prove guilt, not innoncence. If there have been illegalities, rapes and/or other crimes punishable by law, then let charges be laid, and the offender tried in a court of law. If not, then all of this evidence is nothing short of heresy (however unfortunate that may seem to some of you.) I'm not too sure about the technical legalities - maybe we should ask Gams - but as I understand it, dishonesty and charlantism aren't criminal acts (in and of themselves). style_images/master/snapback.png Yes, difference between Roman law and modern. But today if they can't prove guilt, they're let go. Sometimes, even, circumstances/evidences have them actually short of proven innocent. Either way, I couldn't care less about this Chi-boo-boo person. Innocent or guilty, none of my concern, really. Like you said (and I said), there is the court. Now, a person like Tim McVeigh or some towelhead trying to blow up the Big Ben or Eiffel Tower or a kook that uses sarin gas somewhere in Japan, yeah, that catches my attention. As for all these online yaps, they should serve as advice for caution when approaching these people. It's not difficult to believe how aggressive they can be, if even you look at door-to-door salespersons. And in fact, as they say, there is at least a bit of truth to everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted October 23, 2004 Report Share Posted October 23, 2004 (edited) If there have been illegalities, rapes and/or other crimes punishable by law, then let charges be laid, and the offender tried in a court of law. If not, then all of this evidence is nothing short of heresy (however unfortunate that may seem to some of you.) I'm not too sure about the technical legalities - maybe we should ask Gams - but as I understand it, dishonesty and charlantism aren't criminal acts (in and of themselves). style_images/master/snapback.png That's easier said than done... when the one that is accused has the best lawyers one can get always answering for him and the victims are left without any ressources... it is even worst than a typical rape by close friends and families... because the agressor not only was the center of their worlds and that they are hysteric about being cursed, but as well they're afraid of society and the way they will be viewed by others more than a rape by a member of the family... this is a very hard sentiment to discribe... those people are seen by society as vulnerable people that havn't listened to warnings and got into a sect... the society mentality is: "You didn't wanted to listen to us, now assume what happened." then all of this evidence is nothing short of heresy I disagree, if this were to be true, all the evidences that were not used during the Turkish military tribunal or the Permanent People Tribunal would be considered as "short of heresy." Beside that, like I said, "proving" something by using the standard "beyond any reasonable dought" does not require a tribunal. You witness someone having killed another, so as some others... tribunal or not, for you this "beyond any reasonable dought" is what you have seen... regardless of a tribunal decision. Tribunals are not bulet proof, they can make mistakes. What I know is that there are many witnesses, ex-members, with their full names known, their terapists in some cases are known, in other cases the clinic where they had abortion being pregnant by Chinmoy(I think this reminds you something about a Guru here in Quebec). I am really not confortable to have someone being defended on this board with the same standards used to deny the Armenian genocide. I am really not confortable with the way the victims are treated with the same standards as the Turks treat our victims. I am just using pure common sense... Photographers, artists, many witnesses, victims, with their names known, all concords, common sense tell me this is enough to be brageg as "beyond any reasonable dought." I don't care how the best lawyers of Chinmoy will twist the situation. OJ Simpson, from common sense was guilty... but this didn't changed anything to the fact that he was released. I will expose the criminal that Chinmoy is, the raper he is, the manipulator he is, people can still claim that only courts "prove" this won't affect me... as I will bring as much evidences as needed to make people realise that the: "beyond reasonable dought" is achieved. Here quoting from the article I have posted. This remind me someone. The reporter from the Gazeta do Povo, talking with followers of Sri Chinmoy and Sai Baba, noticed 3 reactions to accusations of sexual abuse: the devotee doesn't believe they are true; doesn't even want to hear the stories; or admits that the accusations are true, but that the master being "one with the Divine", can do whatever he likes, as his will is God's Will. The professor at UFPR Victor Eduardo Silva Bento, doctor of psychoanalysis for the University of Paris, explained that these reactions correspond to the three psychic structures (make ups) of Freudian man. According to Bento, the one saying "It's not possible that it is true", is the neurotic; the one who doesn't want to hear is psychotic; and the one who justifies the actions as the master's right is perverse." The perverse is the one who tries to de-rail reality. He admits that it is true, but a legitimate truth by another law, the master is a god", he said. Edited October 23, 2004 by Fadix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 An ex-devotee, who has been through various therapy sessions after leaving the sect said she is recuperating form the trauma day by day. This is the person likely to have had hallucinations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 I will answer anyone who is honest enough, talking to a self proclaimed internet judge with a definite agneda to trash an innocent man is a waste of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 (edited) I'm not too sure about the technical legalities - maybe we should ask Gams - but as I understand it, dishonesty and charlantism aren't criminal acts (in and of themselves). style_images/master/snapback.png Even in that case, they should be able to prove. On the other hand, things of spiritual/religious nature cannot be claimed as charlatanism. For example, someone says that he speaks with God, other's do not believe. He is unable to prove it to anyone, because this is not something that can be proved. This is neither dishonesty nor charlatanism. If that was the case, all religions would be accused of charlatanism. Christian religion maintains that Jesus did miracles and is the Son of God. Perhaps an internet zealot could accuse Christians of charlatanism? Edited October 24, 2004 by Sasun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 Adriano discovered a forum of ex-followers on the Internet, which carried testimonies that convinced him to leave. By the way, surfing the web is also forbidden the disciples. "Chinmoy is a kind of Hitler of the spiritual world. He got to the point of pressuring Yahoo to dismantle the democratic forum set up by the Internet surfing ex- disciples" stated the journalist. Of course, a spiritual person has no right to protect his name against malicious slandering. <_< Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 This is the person likely to have had hallucinations. style_images/master/snapback.png You got that wrong. Homeopathy seems to work, and there are medical literature showing it does... even thought there are only few molecules of the substances left in the medication... people praying, meditating or having faith live longer when fighting against Cancer. Placebo works etc... those are all phenomenon that are accetable by many scientists. I am not denying that for the one having faith he may observe something. This does not mean that Chinmoy is responsable of anything here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 I will answer anyone who is honest enough, talking to a self proclaimed internet judge with a definite agneda to trash an innocent man is a waste of time. style_images/master/snapback.png Have you just asked yourself why I am trashing this man? For what reason I have specificaly decided to trash him and not another? Jaspers was a Christian philosopher with a strong Faith... I never trash him because of his faith, on the contrary I believe him to be one of the best philosophers of the 20nt century. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 Even in that case, they should be able to prove. On the other hand, things of spiritual/religious nature cannot be claimed as charlatanism. For example, someone says that he speaks with God, other's do not believe. He is unable to prove it to anyone, because this is not something that can be proved. This is neither dishonesty nor charlatanism. If that was the case, all religions would be accused of charlatanism. Christian religion maintains that Jesus did miracles and is the Son of God. Perhaps an internet zealot could accuse Christians of charlatanism? style_images/master/snapback.png Exactly my point... you can neither "prove" or "disprove" faith... but it was one of your arguments to refer to some powers, or Jesus(your comparaison) to do just that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 Of course, a spiritual person has no right to protect his name against malicious slandering. <_< style_images/master/snapback.png This could work both side... it depend on if either or not you believe he's innocent. I on the other hand can see that as an attemp against the UN convention of human rights and freedom of speech, as well as the supression of the victims freedom of speech. No one has tried to shut Chinmoys sites or forums... no one has deleted pro-chinmoy posts in the ex-disciples forum... on the other hand, some anti-chinmoy sites were shut, many other treatened, when a victim post on their forum, their posts removed. Beside that, why should I believe what is writen in Chinmoys forum. If Chinmoy forbidden disciples to surf the web, whom are those writting if not Chinmoys selected individuals? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 Beside that, why should I believe what is writen in Chinmoys forum. Nobody has aver been accused or defamed on that forum, these are peaceful spiritual people minding their own business and not hurting anyone. You may choose to believe or not believe in what they say, but there is no reason at all to close that website. If Chinmoy forbidden disciples to surf the web, whom are those writting if not Chinmoys selected individuals? style_images/master/snapback.png This is utter crap. Sri Chinmoy's disciples are not forbidden to surf the web, or fobidden to do anything they wish to do. I have seen with my own eyes disciples browsing the web. The only things that a disciple must do in order to remain a disciple are maintaining vegetarianism, abstinance from sex, smoking, alcohol, drugs, and attending weekly regular meditations in their respective centers, praying and meditating everyday at regular hours in their homes. These are required in ALL yoga paths, in every serious eastern spiritual practice these are required. That is why monks and nuns are celibate. If someone doesn't meet the requirements, they are asked to leave the path. Like it or not, this is it, it is not for fun. The rest is hearsay... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 Have you just asked yourself why I am trashing this man? For what reason I have specificaly decided to trash him and not another? style_images/master/snapback.png I don't know, you should ask yourself. Likewise, I don't know why Jesus was so cruelly executed while he had done no harm to anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 (edited) If you ask me, anyone who asks his followers to abstain from meat is a sick sick man and should burn in hell. Edit: Oh yah and sex too but won't make much difference for me anyway unless by sex he doesn't just mean sex with other people. Edited October 24, 2004 by Seapahn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 For alleged abortion, there could be DNA tests. For forged photo, let them show the original negative that was forged. For death threats, let them produce any recorded tape, or email (or a dead fish in the envelop?), some kind of evidence that this happened. All accusations should be backed up by facts - no facts, no proof. A person who is undergoing a psychological treatment may have had hallucinations under drug influence that she was raped, or may have been induced by anti-cultist "workers" to really believe that she was raped. I have read cases like that, where the person first told that she was abused by a "cult", then eventually confessed that it did not happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 Nobody has aver been accused or defamed on that forum, these are peaceful spiritual people minding their own business and not hurting anyone. You may choose to believe or not believe in what they say, but there is no reason at all to close that website. This wasn't what I said. I said why should those accusing Chinmoy should get their posts deleted, while the free Chinmoy forum founded by ex-disciples permit pro-Chinmoy postings? Lets make an experiment, post one of the testimonies and see how long it will last. This is utter crap. Sri Chinmoy's disciples are not forbidden to surf the web, or fobidden to do anything they wish to do. I have seen with my own eyes disciples browsing the web. I have posted two refferences that say else... but let suppose that Sasun is better informed than an ex-disciple. http://www.chinmoycult.com/ Would you claim that this site is not forbidden? Just to see how honnest you are. The rest is hearsay... Says who? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 I don't know, you should ask yourself. Likewise, I don't know why Jesus was so cruelly executed while he had done no harm to anyone. style_images/master/snapback.png You use a Faith to support another one yet again. Give me a rational reason explaining why out of billions of people I decided to attack Chinmoy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 For alleged abortion, there could be DNA tests. For forged photo, let them show the original negative that was forged. For death threats, let them produce any recorded tape, or email (or a dead fish in the envelop?), some kind of evidence that this happened. All accusations should be backed up by facts - no facts, no proof. This is stupid... Journalists have interviewed many abused people with real names,... one of the photograph is a famous painter internationaly known, I showed you how much results there is of his name in google... as for those having abortion... after the abortion... how could anyone ask for DNA test? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 Give me a rational reason explaining why out of billions of people I decided to attack Chinmoy. Cause you knew you were going to get one someone's nerves? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 (edited) If you ask me, anyone who asks his followers to abstain from meat is a sick sick man and should burn in hell. Edit: Oh yah and sex too but won't make much difference for me anyway unless by sex he doesn't just mean sex with other people. style_images/master/snapback.png More so when there are witnesses having seen the one that ask to abstain eating meat himself or sex. Edited October 24, 2004 by Fadix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 Cause you knew you were going to get one someone's nerves? style_images/master/snapback.png You get out of here and go folding one WU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 I have posted two refferences that say else... but let suppose that Sasun is better informed than an ex-disciple. http://www.chinmoycult.com/ Would you claim that this site is not forbidden? Just to see how honnest you are. style_images/master/snapback.png Why are you questioning my honesty? What do you mean forbidden? People live in their own homes and can do things privately. However, they are strongly advised not to associate with people hostile to their path (not that they would want to anyway), not to pick up fights with anyone, be it an ex-disciple or someone else making claims, etc... a yogi has to maintain a calm mindset in order to be able to concentrate and meditate, this is a generic rule true to all yaga paths. The site that you are mentioning falls in that category, therefore I am guessing it is quite possible they were advised not to visit such sites. But who can tell who vistis and who doesn't? It is not possible to forbid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 You use a Faith to support another one yet again. For me it is a fact. Give me a rational reason explaining why out of billions of people I decided to attack Chinmoy. style_images/master/snapback.png I said I don't know, but maybe because you think that gurus, religious people are psychopaths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 Why are you questioning my honesty? What do you mean forbidden? People live in their own homes and can do things privately. However, they are strongly advised not to associate with people hostile to their path (not that they would want to anyway), not to pick up fights with anyone, be it an ex-disciple or someone else making claims, etc... a yogi has to maintain a calm mindset in order to be able to concentrate and meditate, this is a generic rule true to all yaga paths. The site that you are mentioning falls in that category, therefore I am guessing it is quite possible they were advised not to visit such sites. But who can tell who vistis and who doesn't? It is not possible to forbid. style_images/master/snapback.png OK now, why Chinmoy has attempted to close this site? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 (edited) For me it is a fact. I said I don't know, but maybe because you think that gurus, religious people are psychopaths. style_images/master/snapback.png For you, but it still is faith and you can't use a faith to support another one. Oh and, why don't you use the same standards you ask others to use yourself so you won't accuse me with wrong informations. How do I think that religious people are psychopaths? Do you even know what a psychopath is? I think you are confusing psychotic with psychopath. But again, I do not consider religious people psychotic, but of course there may be psychotic religious person. As for Gurus, many are psychotics I'm afaid, many such cases of psychosis, that we may consider mild schizophrenia with less of what is known as "negative symptoms." But my conclusion is based on various cases. Edited October 24, 2004 by Fadix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 OK now, why Chinmoy has attempted to close this site? style_images/master/snapback.png If a certain website published all kinds of lies that I am a rapist, issue death threats, defraud people of money, and other charges, I would be very upset and try to talk to the ISP and have the site closed. Having said this, that site is not closed, but some pages are missing, and it says "the info was not 100% accurate" therefore the pages were removed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.