Elizabeth Clare Prophet Open Thread

a / May 20th, 2006, 11:58 am / #1

Is Elizabeth Clare Prophet your mother?

a / May 30th, 2006, 5:14 pm / #3

Gotcha.

Did some research, (I read the whole wikipedia ) Now I have a few questions.

What exactly was the state of Elizabeth Clare Prophets mental condition throughout her years as leader of Church Triumphant?

Is it safe to say she compares alot to Charles Manson?

Ergo; Manson had helter skelter, ECP had soviet war & Manson was jesus, ECP was a prophet prophesized from Revelations.
Both had ranches and inner circles, etc.

If you don’t mind me asking, was Mark Prophet just as “zealous”? Or rather is Church Universal his creation also?

How much money did ECP accumulate, personally, over the years?

Did ECP sincerely believe what she was preaching? Or did she make things up for money, fame, etc?

How much of Church Universal doctrine & structure is borrowed from other religions and how much is ECP’s creation?

Joana / June 12th, 2006, 7:31 am / #5

Sean hi! I have read what you wrotte on Wikipedia about your mother and the church. I think that it is important that you and your sisters tell the whole story as it is about the summit lighthouse, i say all of you because it is hard for people that have followed the doctrines taught by CUT to believe just what one person is saying. I have read many of your mum’s and dad’s books and lately some of the books members have wrotte. I must say i have tremendous admiration for your mother because in some ways she has helped many through her words and i just can not believe that this loving woman with such lovely speech and voice could have lived a life deceiving people from so many countries. As you have said it in your posts, there are many, too many people who believe and follow these teachings, and hold her word as indisputable truth. It would be very ineteresting to see the effect that you ( brothers and sisters) would have if the truth as you state it in here is told and comes out to those who still follow. If the truth is with you, you have a duty to us all.
cheers
Joana

Judy O'Neill / January 9th, 2008, 11:32 pm / #7

His Elizabeth still alive? My mother in law in Australia is a follower and trying to convert me.

legh w. / January 19th, 2008, 10:08 pm / #9

I was a student of the teachings from 1984 to 1987. I moved to montana and tried to get on staff at the ranch. As soon as I met the staffers at CUT, instinctively I knew something was very very wrong with what was going on there. I already had a strong faith in God before I studied the CUt materials, and over several months time I began to just KNOW that I needed to leave the organization - just to get away, far away, and not look back. I profoundly began to know that there was something evil about Claire Prophet, not just misguided, or deluded, but genuinely intentionally evil - especially after I met her in person. It was a bizarre meeting and it did not last long. Our reulsion toward one another was mutual, and I left the church, thankfully, shortly after that. That was nearly 22 years ago. Finding this website by her now atheist son just confirms that my instincts were right so many years ago. My own walk with God has only deepened through the years, and I credit my inner relations with Spirit for steering me quickly away from the glossy charade that Claire Prophet was running in Montana for so many years. She ruined many lives, and stole great sums of money from many sincere believers before her health was struck down and she was disabled by her own illnesses. If anything is karma, what happened to Claire Prophet in the end certainly was karma absolute. You will know them by their fruits. Look at the bitter fruit yielded by this woman and the train wreck that her teachings became in the end. The book of Revelations, interestingly, predicted this very phenomena in the last days. It is worth pondering. It’s sad that her son Sean was so scarred by growing up in the bizarre cult of CUT, that he has forsaken all faith in Diety.That is the saddest part in all of the long strange and disgusting story of Claire Prophet and what she has done to thousands of sincere God seeking souls, by exploiting their very real hunger for spiritual truth as a way to aggrandize herself and to privately amass secret fortunes for herself and her own inner circle. I personally knew of dozens of families, entire families, who turned over their entire estates and all their family’s wealth to the church. Well, in truth Claire Prophet was the church at that time. It was criminal what she was doing. She should have been prosecuted for it.

I have not a doubt in my mind that millions are stashed somewhere - I do not believe for one minute that she took little for herself. That is hogwash. The very first thing that an applicand to live on staff had to do in the late 8s was answer a barrage of intimate questions about their own private assets, net worth, real estate holdings and business interests. In fact, that was my first heads up that something was deeply wrong. No one asked me anything about my background, my spiritual beliefs etc… all they wanted to know was - was I rich or not?

During the 8 months I lived close to the ranch, I saw how she lived, what she wore, and the posh posh surrroundings of her personal quarters while staff on the ranch worked 120 hours a week and lived in military-like spartan bunglows. Claire Prophet was a perfect portrait of what a female version of an Antichrist might look like. Study her to learn how to discern the final apostate yet to come. There will be an imposter on the world scene one day who will trump her mask-erade by far. What she pulled off was just the opening salvo to the greater imposter to come. Wake up spiritual seekers. Learn to discern what it actually is that is standing before you claiming to have the solutions to all the worlds problems.

Watch between 2011 and 2017. ECP crossed paths with the world for a reason. It just happens not to have one thing to do with being a real spiritual leader. It has everything to do with being a false apostate in a female form. The male form to come will be much worse. Learn the lesson now, to avoid being pulled in again later in this new millenium.

Annette C. / February 12th, 2008, 6:44 pm / #11

In October 2006 I listened to a lecture that was in a Tape Album set named “Family Designs for the Golden Age”, put out by ECP & The Summit Lighthouse in the mid 70’s. At the time I was impressed with this comment by Elizabeth Prophet, and duely copied it out word-for-word. She is discussing marriage and spousal relationships, but my interest is in sharing the point that she is trying to steer her followers away from misguided zeal. It is not my interest to open the door on her personal life, whether or not she “practised what she preached”, or of anyone’s experience of her not practising what she preached, or whether or not there is such a thing a “Teaching,” “Christ,” “Light,” “Ascension,”or “Judgement”, but rather that here below is her clear statement of relative love, tolerance, and espousal of religious - or non-religious - freedom, as it may be - here. Quoting Elizabeth C Prophet:
“….the question is not what your spouse believes - what IS your spouse? A person can be a living example of the Light and not have the Teaching and not have religion……are they living the life of the Christ? - That’s after all what they will be judged on - ACTION, not thoughts, ACTION is what’s going to count in the hour of judgement, right? What did you DO on earth, not what did you believe. Who CARES what you believe? You can ascend if your a Mormon or a Catholic or a Jew or a Mohammedan or What-Have_you. It’s what you DID. What did you do?…….Leave your husbands and wives alone and don’t try to drag them to Church with you….It’s what you are that counts. It’s the light that counts.” end quote.

Thanks.

RZangpo2 / February 13th, 2008, 1:57 pm / #13

Interesting reading. I know nothing at all about CUT, ECP, or any of the other historical matters discussed here. But all of it reminds me of what my teacher once said. He was asked, “if someone asks us what Buddhists believe in, what should we say?” He answered, “Say that we believe in our own experience.”That’s pretty much been my guide. I believe in my own experience in preference to what anyone tells me, be they a scientific or a spiritual authority. (Not that I’m not capable of self-delusion. We all are. But it seems to me that in non-trivial matters, we have to wait for our own experience to reveal our self-deception to us. It does no good for someone else to say, “You’re wrong” when it comes to the things that matter most to us - such as faith. People have to be ready to hear and see for themselves that they are wrong.)

I am equally skeptical of the claims of religion and of science to explain everything. Of course, only a fool would reject scientific method as an analytical tool. That’s not what I mean. On the other hand, science does not have the answers to everything, because not every question has yet been asked - perhaps including some of the most important ones.

Here’s one example. It’s a story I tell my own students to illustrate the point that the mind is not identical with the brain. (Neither is the mind different from the brain, but that’s another argument.)

My son lost his cell phone, and his mother and I were were very worried about it. The next day he would be traveling back to boarding school, and without his cell phone, he would have no way to keep in touch with us en route.

That day, we happened to visit our friend S. I could tell you, based on my own experience of S, that she is clairvoyant, but let the facts speak for themselves. On hearing that our son’s cell phone was missing, she thought for a moment, then told him, “It’s in a pocket. It’s slipped down into a narrow space.” I asked, “Like between the cushions of a couch?” She said, “Sort of, but that’s not exactly what I had in mind.”

You can guess the rest. My son eventually found his cell phone in the pocket of a pair of jeans that had slid down between his bed and the wall.

Mind you, S had never been to our house. She had met our son only a few times, and did not know his habits regarding his clothing or other belongings. She had no way of knowing even that the side of his bed was flush to the wall, or any other details. Neither could she have colluded with my son to hide and then find his cell phone in some pre-arranged manner. But she was right.

I can think of only two explanations for this. Either S guessed where the cell phone was by sheer luck, or she somehow knew where it was by means other than direct sensory perception. The first alternative requires belief in an almost monstrously improbable coincidence. The second explanation is the simpler, and I believe the true one. (It also conforms better with my experience of S, which is that she is indeed clairvoyant.)

Is there any existing scientific theory that can explain this? No. Does that mean it didn’t happen? Not at all. My wife, my son, and I were all witnesses to it. I am not fool enough to believe that if science cannot explain a phenomenon, therefore that phenomenon cannot exist. That would be insulting my own experience, as well as my own intelligence.

Please note that I do not offer this story as proof of anything beyond itself. It just happens to be the most clear-cut instance of clairvoyance I know of. It, and many similar experiences, have convinced me that S is indeed clairvoyant. The corollary to this is that therefore, clairvoyance must be possible.

This is what my own experience and reason tell me. There is no reason for you to believe it. I could be a liar. Or the thing could have been managed by some trickery I could not detect and cannot imagine. But I am satisfied that my own explanation, i.e., clairvoyance, is the simplest and most straightforward. That’s my working hypothesis, until something that makes more sense comes along.

I repeat, I do not offer this incident as proof of anything except that it happened. I have no idea of the underlying principles or mechanisms. Nor do I conclude from it that God, angels, or other supernatural beings exist (although the existence of such beings is one possible explanation of how it happened). I am repeating it here simply to point out that science has not yet explained everything, and that it is a fallacy to believe that just because science has not explained something, that something must not - indeed cannot - exist. That belief is contradicted by experience - mine, anyway.

By the way, my own experience also tells me that people will always look for guidance to those they believe have superior wisdom. And some people do have superior wisdom. But the test of a genuine teacher is that they refuse to take advantage of others’ faith in them for their own gain or gratification.

That’s a tough test. You might say it’s impossible, since power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Still, my experience has been that such teachers do exist. I have had the good fortune to meet more than one such.

Tibetan Buddhism has a simple test for whether a teacher is worth following: (1) do they practice what they themselves teach? and (2) do they have compassion? If the answers are yes and yes, they may be considered trustworthy.

You may argue that “spiritual” teachers are unnecessary, and furthermore, that they invariably will deceive their followers, wittingly or unwittingly. However, I think it is beyond question that the holders of certain “spiritual” traditions have valuable knowledge to impart. In many cases, such knowledge has been passed down from teacher to student for generations.

For example, Buddhist mindfulness practice has been found by Western psychologists to be therapeutic in a number of ways. Cognitive-behavioral therapists are starting to teach it to their patients routinely. Also, the Dalai Lama’s monks (who must be extraordinarily patient) have been wired to monitors of various kinds. Meditation on compassion, for instance, has been shown to alter the structure of the brain itself. (And yes, a cause-effect relationship has been shown. The longer you’ve been doing the meditation, the greater the change.)

You may then argue, “If these techniques have been proven useful, then why not remove them from their ’spiritual’ context? Why not divest them of all the religious claptrap, and just adopt what works?” The answer, of course, is that you can indeed do that. The psychologists I mentioned have done that very thing.

However, there is a fundamental difference in motivation. If you want to meditate in order to learn how to relax, then that is the greatest result you can expect. But if you want to meditate in order to cultivate insight in ways than can transform your life, then a greater commitment is called for. In such a case, I don’t think you can successfully separate the teachings from the tradition that carries them.

You see, the techniques exist in a context of accumulated knowledge and instruction (wisdom, if you like) that is a large part of their effectiveness. I don’t think they are easily separable. In other words, it’s a package deal.

Finally, I don’t think it’s necessary, in the name of reason, to devalue all “spiritual” traditions and teachers. There are a lot of charlatans out there, certainly. But they are imitating something that really exists.

I’ve seen people grow and mature in very beneficial ways as a result of finding and learning from a genuine teacher. The important thing is, at no stage in one’s relationship with such a teacher should one surrender one’s critical intelligence. If a teacher asks you to do so - to take things on faith, in other words - be very, very skeptical.

RZangpo2 / February 13th, 2008, 2:38 pm / #15

P.S. Having read this thread over, I suppose I should clarify my own position with regard to atheism.

I am not agnostic, in the sense of doubting whether or not God exists. I am convinced that God - at least the God of the Bible - cannot possibly exist, for a host of perfectly sound, logical reasons.

On the other hand, I don’t consider myself an atheist in the sense of “anti-theist.” I have no a priori position about other spiritual traditions, be they monotheistic, polytheistic, pantheistic, or anything else. As others have said on this site, the only way to evaluate whether a spiritual tradition is beneficial or not is to note its effect on individual followers. Appeals to history only lead to never-ending arguments. Has the Catholic Church done more harm than good since its foundation, or vice versa? I have no idea. I don’t even know how one would would presume to measure such a thing.

If I’m not a theist, an agnostic, or an atheist, what am I? Some Buddhists prefer the term “non-theistic” because it doesn’t imply being for or against anyone. It means exactly what it literally says - that the existence or nonexistence of God (or gods) is just not an issue for us.

RZangpo2 / February 13th, 2008, 2:55 pm / #17

BlackSun,

Oh well. I gave it my best shot. To sum up my own position: no, I don’t believe in God per se. Neither do I believe that all spiritual traditions are without value. As I said above, the only way to evaluate whether a spiritual tradition is beneficial or not is to note its effect on individual followers.

BTW, you neatly sidestepped the question of just how S found the cell phone.

BlackSun / February 13th, 2008, 3:03 pm / #19

RZangpo2,

BTW, you neatly sidestepped the question of just how S found the cell phone.

No, I didn’t. It doesn’t matter how she found the cell-phone. A lucky guess? Point is, it’s up to you to prove the implications of your story. Carl Sagan would note that it is another version of “counting the hits, ignoring the misses.” You’d have to test S in multiple situations of lost phones, and see how many times she got it right. If she did it better than random chance (50% of the time) then and only then could you conclude that something was going on. At that point, you’d have to determine a method for her insight or “clairvoyance,” which would involve coming up with a working theory.

But don’t bother. Plenty of well-funded experiments have taken place under controlled conditions, and no one has ever come up with better-than-chance results that were statistically significant.

One more thing: Just because you gave it your best shot doesn’t mean your premises are correct. I’m hitting you with a logically valid challenge: hold up your spiritual tradition to scientific scrutiny–and all you can do is repeat the “appeal to consequence.”

Just sayin’

RZangpo2 / February 13th, 2008, 3:19 pm / #21

P.P.S. I take exception to your characterizing my post this way:

“You say you’re not trying to prove the supernatural and then you turn around and claim S is clairvoyant as the ’simplest explanation’! You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth.”

I am not trying to prove the supernatural. There may be a perfectly natural explanation for clairvoyance; I just don’t know what it is.

As for taking exception to the words “I am convinced,” I don’t follow your point. If one observes a particular phenomenon over and over, then one can reasonably say, by inductive reasoning, that one is convinced of its existence.

You say that you don’t accept anecdotal evidence as evidence. I don’t see why not. In some cases - such as this one - anecdotal evidence is the best evidence we have. Even anecdotal evidence must be explained. Of course experimental, verifiable, repeatable evidence would be better, but I don’t know of any.

Meanwhile, another anecdote. A friend of mine was attending a talk by a teacher, L. At a certain point during the talk, my friend thought, “He looks like a frog.” L said, without missing a beat, “…or thinking that someone looks like a frog,” to illustrate the point he was making.

What is the best explanation for that? Dismissing it as an anecdote does not explain it. Nor do I think that illusion or coincidence are convincing explanations.

I hold no brief for the supernatural - none at all. My point, as I stated, is simply that some people hold the belief - in the name of “reason” or “skepticism” - that if existing scientific theory cannot explain a thing, then that thing must not exist. If you don’t think that way, then I congratulate you on your open-mindedness.

A last comment: I do not see the relevance of your point that “the senses lie.” The point is so self-evident as to be trivial. But I do not see how it relates to the subject at hand, unless you are saying that my wife, my son, my friend, and I all perceived things that didn’t exist. That argument is so far-fetched it does not deserve a response.

RZangpo2 / February 13th, 2008, 3:35 pm / #23

P.P.P.S. There is no invisible dragon in my garage. You are mischaracterizing my argument as a belief in something for which there is no evidence. I am speaking of something for which there is some evidence, anecdotal though it be.

A final (?) note: the people I know who are clairvoyant (such as S and L) have absolutely no interest in proving the fact. Maybe that is a precondition of clairvoyance; I don’t know.

RZangpo2 / February 13th, 2008, 4:01 pm / #25

RZangpo2: “Most of the claims that spiritual traditions make are untestable anyway.”

BlackSun: “Exactly my point.”

The point being what? The fact that claims based on faith are not provable either way is, again, so self-evident as to be trivial.

We have a fundamental disagreement. You believe that a spiritual tradition can only be valid if it can prove its claims. By that logic, a spiritual tradition can never be valid; neither can any spiritual belief or experience. Q.E.D. But you’ve proven nothing, except the (again) trivial point that faith is not objectively verifiable.

My argument in favor of at least some spiritual traditions, on the other hand, is based on utility. Do the followers of religion X or teacher Y thereby become better people? If the answer is yes, then I would argue that that in itself establishes the validity of the tradition in question.

[Please note, I am not arguing (as some do) that faith is necessary to morality. Any fool can see that it isn’t.]

To bring this to a more personal level: you have been hurt, and have seen others hurt, by what I would characterize as blind faith. You know what? So have I. I was educated in the Orthodox Jewish tradition, and couldn’t get away from it fast enough. The people who taught me routinely said one thing and did another, or tried to make me believe “facts” for which there was no evidence at all. At times, their hypocrisy rose to the level of abuse. I do not defend people like this; let them defend themselves if they can.

What I do defend is faith based on evidence. That evidence, to me, is utility. If it works as advertised, it’s fine with me. If it doesn’t, I’ve no use for it.

Such an argument from utility can only apply to concrete cases. The major world religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism) are so huge that both the best and the worst of human nature can easily be found in them. I would not try to argue for something so broad. On the other hand, genuine teachers (as I’ve defined them above) are to be found within them. Needles in a haystack, I agree. But there are some nonetheless.

RZangpo2 / February 13th, 2008, 4:15 pm / #27

That’s argumentum ad populum. It does not matter how many people believe a thing. It doesn’t make it true.

I am talking about perception, not belief. But no matter. I agree that we’ve taken this discussion as far as we can.

I don’t have time to read all the books you mention. (I don’t even have time for this discussion; I’m going to be late for dinner as it is.)

Life is short. If we are wise, we determine for ourselves what has value, and pursue it. You have no time to go my way, and I have no time to go yours. We are ships passing in the night, as it were.

Nevertheless, I wish you only the best.

RZangpo2 / February 14th, 2008, 8:41 pm / #29

Louis,

Your friend, who you identify only by initial, didn’t make a claim that had astronomical odds. She said pocket, ‘IN BROAD VAGUE TERMS!’ She didn’t even specify coat, pants or a pocket on a backpack. She also didn’t identify what pair of pants? Jeans (most likely for a youth) Khakis (also a good choice) cords? color? Left pocket? right? etc.

You conveniently overlook the fact that my friend’s statement had two parts: that the phone was (a) in a pocket (b) that had fallen down into a narrow space. Yes, anyone might have guessed that the my son left the phone in his pocket. It’s the combination of “pocket” and “narrow space” that, in my opinion, puts the thing beyond the realm of coincidence.

As to my identifying my friend only by her initial, I don’t see what that has to do with my argument. I did not ask her permission to post her full name here, and I see no need to do so. It’s what she did that matters, not what her full name is.

Finally, I take offense at your using the descriptive phrase “gullible moron.” I see no need to descend to name-calling in this discussion.

Louis / February 15th, 2008, 12:52 am / #31

Ok my last view of this thread was of a pre-post approved state and it was much smaller…

Anyway.

You conveniently overlook the fact that my friend’s statement had two parts: that the phone was (a) in a pocket (b) that had fallen down into a narrow space. Yes, anyone might have guessed that the my son left the phone in his pocket. It’s the combination of “pocket” and “narrow space” that, in my opinion, puts the thing beyond the realm of coincidence.

I didn’t overlook it. Fallen down a narrow space is still vague. I mean if the bloody thing was right out in the open, chances are it would have been seen. SUH!

If I was to hedge the bet, I would have said something similar… Makes apologetics easier when the details don’t quite match up.

I am still underwhelmed.

Again, you and I disagree. How can anyone test an article of faith, such as whether God exists, whether Jesus died for your sins, whether Mohammed was divinely inspired, or whether the Buddha was truly enlightened? (I don’t believe in the first three; I do believe in the fourth.) These matters of faith are not amenable to the sort of testing I believe you are referring to. Or am I missing something?

Here is one test.

I know the above is for the deluded Christian perspective and it is a rather deadpan delivery, but it still makes my point.

As to whether Buddha was enlightened? Excuse me, ‘Truly Enlightened’… that is the claim? As opposed to, erm… ‘Falsely Enlightened?’ or ‘Imitation Enlightened?’ …he had good stage lighting?

You mean Prajna: pure and unqualified knowledge?

Sorry man, I’ll take the qualified knowledge any day over that gobbledygook.

Finally, I take offense at your using the descriptive phrase “gullible moron.” I see no need to descend to name-calling in this discussion.

I waited for Sean to reply before replying to you. Why?

Take a look at the title of the thread genius! You’ve hijacked the thread subject. You opened with the statement:

Interesting reading. I know nothing at all about CUT, ECP, or any of the other historical matters discussed here.

I didn’t initially reply, because I thought there was a good chance Sean might just delete your stuff. Once he replied, then I responded.

So you think I am name calling?

You post something that really doesn’t belong in this thread, present anecdotal evidence as proof, (yes, in your head it is sufficient; to the critical thinker, not so much.)

Have you even read the rules for submissions?

HERE

Not legitimately testing your friend, before convincing yourself of something when the evidence is VERY weak… and then claim critical thought…

Yeah, you do seem like a gullible moron. If I stop there, I have let you off easy.

RZangpo2 / February 15th, 2008, 6:23 am / #33

Louis,

Your point that I hijacked the thread is well taken. (Still, you could simply have said so, rather than calling me a “gullible moron.”) OTOH, didn’t ECP herself claim clairvoyance? If so, that would make my contributions at least tangentially relevant.

I have one more point to make; then I’ll shut up.

I witnessed the cell phone incident first-hand; the “frog” story (which none of you have addressed) was told to me by a friend I consider trustworthy. I have the following story at third-hand, so take it with as many grains of salt as you like. I offer it not as just another anecdote of claimed clairvoyance, but also to point out the problems with demanding experimental proof of the phenomenon.

My teacher was supposed to be an incarnate lama; that is, someone who incarnates over and over again for the benefit of others. He said that as a child, he sometimes had memories of his previous life; but as he got older, these faded away and became less frequent.

When he was about eight, he and his attendants visited a monastery where he had never been before. (Not in this life anyway; his predecessor had been there.) When he got there, he recognized the place, and was able to recall (without being cued) where everything in the monastery was located, and even who some of the people were. (This is more impressive when one realizes the vast size, innumerable rooms, and quasi-random layout of these places.)

I don’t offer this story so much as proof that it happened, since I can’t personally verify it. But on its face, it implies that clairvoyance happens spontaneously and unpredictably, and cannot be willed to happen by the subject. (This conforms with other accounts I have heard.)

If this is so, it would seem to raise an insuperable obstacle to experimental verification.

Finally - to return to the topic of the thread- it seems quite possible to me that someone might be clairvoyant, and yet be deluded about the meaning of what they perceive. This happens all the time in the case of ordinary sense perceptions. We are mistaken about what we perceive; we misinterpret coincidences; we draw unjustified conclusions; we convince ourselves we have perceived things that never happened. (Consider, for example, the notorious unreliability of eyewitness testimony.)

This being the case, it seems to me possible to reconcile the conflicting accounts given above of ECP. Some say she was inspired (or at least, inspiring) while BlackSun, who has reason to know, says that she was contradictory, deluded, self-serving, and destructive.

I can well imagine that both are true. As another teacher of mine says, it is no big deal to get information about other people through clairvoyance (once you know how to do it). The real challenge is to know how to be helpful by knowing what to say and when to say it. Blurting out everything one knows about a person can do more harm than good, as ordinary experience tells us.

Gullible Moron signing off.

RZangpo2 / February 15th, 2008, 10:45 am / #35

Is that the only test for a genuine teacher? How about if they have real knowlege or wisdom? And I mean the kind that can be proven. Not vague aphorisms and feel-good new-age jargon.

I mentioned two tests of a genuine teacher (the second of which has two branches). To quote my earlier post,

By the way, my own experience also tells me that people will always look for guidance to those they believe have superior wisdom…. But the test of a genuine teacher is that they refuse to take advantage of others’ faith in them for their own gain or gratification….
Tibetan Buddhism has a simple test for whether a teacher is worth following: (1) do they practice what they themselves teach? and (2) do they have compassion? If the answers are yes and yes, they may be considered trustworthy.

Whether or not they have superior wisdom to impart (and I would argue that my own teachers do, in the form of psychological insight, compassion, skillful ways of working with others, etc.), surely you would agree that any teacher who passes the above two tests is at least harmless. (I am using “harmless” here in a limited sense. I do not refer to whether or not the teachings themselves are true - that is for individuals to decide for themselves. I mean that one who passes the above tests is not likely to harm their students either materially or psychologically.)

Judging by what you tell us here, ECP, though she may have had the best of intentions, ultimately failed both of these tests. That is tragic, and I have nothing but compassion for her and for those she may have harmed.

Meditation has never been proved to do anything than cause relaxation and changes in brain-waves. I think it’s beneficial to the brain, the same way exercise is beneficial to the body. But making further “spiritual” claims is a totally subjective and therefore suspect enterprise.

I disagree. As I explain above, meditation on compassion has been shown to cause changes in the architecture of the brain itself. (My source is a recent article in the New York Times. If I find a link, I’ll post it here.)

Has it been experimentally proven that meditation causes insight to increase, self-deception to decrease, psychological resilience and compassion to grow stronger, etc.? Not that I know of. Perhaps that’s because of the difficulty of designing such an experiment (how to measure the above-mentioned qualities, how long to continue the study, etc. On the latter question, I would argue for a period of years - the longer the better - which could make such a study unwieldy). Or perhaps it’s just because no one has gotten around to it yet.

Are you suggesting that I should wait for experimental proof of the above-mentioned benefits before taking up meditation? I hope not. As I said, life is too short. One has to take such evidence as one has - even if it is anecdotal, or the product of inductive reasoning - and use one’s own judgment to evaluate it. Then you decide.

Admittedly, in such a case one cannot reliably predict the outcome of the choice one makes. But life is like that.

In any case, I think the position your words imply is unreasonable. If we waited for experimental verification before we did anything (ate anything, went anywhere, etc.), ordinary life would become impossible. Your position also raises the question of how much evidence is enough - indeed, if any amount of evidence can ever be enough.

As I stated above - and you agreed - not everything in life has yet been tested and proved. People with common sense understand this. They take note of experimental proof where it exists, but do not base their major life decisions on the existence or non-existence of such proof. (For example, could one have proven that I would be happy with my wife? Or for that matter, that I would not have been happier single, or with someone else? There would have to be at least two of me to perform a controlled experiment, and in any case, by the time the results were in, I would be dead.)

The decision whether to follow a particular spiritual tradition or teacher, I would argue, is more in the nature of “whom shall I marry?”, rather than “can its claims be proved?” It also helps to be able to think for oneself, and to decide for oneself whether something is beneficial or harmful. In any particular case, experimental proof of benefit or harm is unlikely to exist. One has to use one’s own judgment to determine that, based on what one has learned and experienced. At the end of the day, that is what we base most of our decisions on.

To cite just one example, you seem to hold the opinion that on balance, ECP did more harm than good. Others who have posted here seem to disagree. Did you conduct a study to decide the question before leaving CUT? Of course not. You looked at your own experience - first-hand as well as that reliably reported by others - and decided for yourself. What else could anyone in your position reasonably have done?

Annette C. / February 15th, 2008, 2:44 pm / #37

RZangpo2, - I really enjoyed your entries on this post.
Signed,
“Faith Addict”.

RZangpo2 / February 16th, 2008, 1:53 pm / #39

RZangpo2, - I really enjoyed your entries on this post.
Signed,
“Faith Addict”.

I’m glad you liked them - thanks!

GM

BlackSun / March 2nd, 2008, 7:07 pm / #41

Danielle,

Yes, this is my site. I comment here often using the handle BlackSun.

Cannot Say / April 22nd, 2008, 7:59 am / #43

Sean, every now and again I revist the blacksunjournal to catchup on your writings of CUT. with the latest news regarding the YFZ ranch, I’ve found myself in discussions with my family and fellow CUT friends on the subject of cults. My mother told me when the CUT came to Livingston, she remembers the local catholic church saying that its families had opened its door to any CUT youth who wanted to escape it. Not sure if this really happened, or if this is just another embelleshed memory of those days. I am a true CUT baby myself, having recently turned 21. I would say I’m still involved in some capacity, but having moved from MT, I find myself more distant, and yet, I cannot silence the thoughts that were so ingrained in me since I was born, I feel like a sinner when I enjoy any intimate moments, and immediately justify my issue as unresolved karma from my past lives. sigh. I think having a Faith is good for me, but I do realized I say that because I absolutely cannot imagine thinking any different.

As elementary students, we talked about you Sean, like you where a prince.

My youths generation is not farming the Ranch but created the teen retreats; glad to see Merci’s paper up, remember her departure, but mostly remember how much I missed her, our friendship was never the same.

Anyway, I like your site, glad you have it, Ive even checked out hexanet.

ps. on my own website I just made black & red my theme, because i enjoy the design, but havent brought myself to show my parents or still involved CUT friends of mine, because of what they will say about the colors. SIGH. YFZ ranch kids couldnt wear red either, but for a little bit of different reason.