> Even reports from those who live or lived at
> Sahaja seem just to confirm that social dynamics
> around moo are cultlike because he is being
> worshipped but that he is a human being after all,
> i don’t feel they show malicious intent or
> coercion. Please correct me if Im wrong.
It's not clear what the conclusion is here. You appear to say:
1. Dynamics are cultlike because:
a. He is being worshipped
b. but, in fact he is just a human
2. There is no malicious intent or coercion.
I agree beliefs are none of our business. As long as the reports of harm can be addressed/acknowledged.
In this case, harm reports have to be false in order for the beliefs to be upheld. And the shifting of focus to the "absolute" can sidestep pretty much any behavior. But ethics and the absolute are not the same playing field, and a closed environment with questionable ethics is one of the accusations here.
> Sahaja seem just to confirm that social dynamics
> around moo are cultlike because he is being
> worshipped but that he is a human being after all,
> i don’t feel they show malicious intent or
> coercion. Please correct me if Im wrong.
It's not clear what the conclusion is here. You appear to say:
1. Dynamics are cultlike because:
a. He is being worshipped
b. but, in fact he is just a human
2. There is no malicious intent or coercion.
I agree beliefs are none of our business. As long as the reports of harm can be addressed/acknowledged.
In this case, harm reports have to be false in order for the beliefs to be upheld. And the shifting of focus to the "absolute" can sidestep pretty much any behavior. But ethics and the absolute are not the same playing field, and a closed environment with questionable ethics is one of the accusations here.