Comment by Schnabel on Jan van der Lans (Unfinished discussion)
			Forum

Posted by: Andries ® 02/20/2005, 09:16:39 Author Profile Edit Alert Moderators

Continuing an unfinished discussion http://www.forum8.org/forum8/posts/13234.html The late Dutch professor in psychology of religion Jan van der Lans at the Radboud University Nijmegen has mentioned three dangers when the personal contact between the guru and the disciple is absent. 1. it increases the chance of idealization of the guru by the student (myth making and deification) 2. meditation should be performed under personal support by the the guru to keep emotions under control and to prevent psychological harm 3. it increases the chance of false mysticism. Mysticsm and critical reflection should go together. The great mystics have asked themselves whether their experiences were either genuine or an illusion/from the devil. Dr. Paul Schnabel commented on van der Lans' remarks in his book "Between stigma & charisma: new religious movements and mental health", (1982) (Dutch language) Chapter "Monism, mysticism and meditation", section "The deified guru" page 142 "What van der Lans mentions here is the risk that the guru become and institution of absolute surrender and total transfer. The students gets the opportunity to project his own fantasies of grandeur upon the guru, without the guru having the possibility of having the critical function that can counter this. It even seems that the guru is inclined to stimulate this projection and uncritical attitude both in words, in pictures and in writing. This is certainly the case for guru Maharaj Ji and for Bhagwan/Osho/Rajneesh but it has also happened - desired or not - in the case of Anandamurti and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi." In other words, according to Schnabel, Maharaji certainly stimulates 1. an uncritical attitude of the student towards the guru and towards the student's mystical interpretations of his own experiences and 2. the student's projection of fantasies of grandeur upon the guru Andries (amended) Modified by Andries at Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 08:48:49

Previous

Recommend View All Current page

Next

Replies to this message

In the PRESENT --- Silviab ( Sun, Feb 20, 2005, 09:56:22 ) ( 392 bytes ) Unfinished indeed -- you never answered me --- Jim ( Sun, Feb 20, 2005, 16:48:33 ) ( 674 bytes ) +1 Re: Unfinished indeed -- you never answered me --- Andries ( Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 13:59:51 ) ( 1793 bytes ) +2 Incompetent? A victim of his surroundings? That's absurd, Andries --- Jim ( Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 14:28:31 ) ( 785 bytes ) +2 Re: Incompetent? A victim of his surroundings? That's absurd, Andries --- Andries ( Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 14:46:53 ) ( 1016 bytes ) +1 Andries, what the hell is wrong with you? --- Jim ( Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 15:05:47 ) ( 1602 bytes ) +1 Re: Andries, what the hell is wrong with you? --- Andries ( Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 15:37:06 ) ( 310 bytes ) +1 What stupid stuff are you saying NOW, Andries? --- Jim ( Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 16:55:35 ) ( 656 bytes ) +3 Re: Andries' stuff is not stupid! --- paddy ( Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 22:26:43 ) ( 717 bytes ) Re: Let's make a fund for Maharaji enabling him to quit --- Andries ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 02:35:22 ) ( 455 bytes ) +2 Uh, excuse me, Andries -- but I think that we already did! --- Jim ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 14:25:13 ) ( 44 bytes ) The appalling truth is... --- Neville B ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 14:36:10 ) ( 185 bytes ) He did say a breakthrough sentence James. --- bill ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 08:00:29 ) ( 177 bytes ) +1 I think Andries qualifies as an expremie now! --- bill ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 08:08:07 ) ( 479 bytes ) +1 Is that a joke Bill? --- Bunny ( Thu, Feb 24, 2005, 04:30:11 ) ( 552 bytes ) +2 Re: Is that a joke Bill? --- Cynthia ( Thu, Feb 24, 2005, 05:16:16 ) ( 3415 bytes ) +1 He is an ---ex lover-- of a guru ! .......an ex- premie ! --- bill ( Thu, Feb 24, 2005, 09:05:53 ) ( 1031 bytes ) +2 Make that --sanfording-- (no text) --- bill ( Thu, Feb 24, 2005, 09:09:30 ) ( 0 bytes ) Re: He is an ---ex lover-- of a guru ! .......an ex- premie ! --- Cynthia ( Thu, Feb 24, 2005, 12:22:05 ) ( 337 bytes ) Re: Why do you think I edit those guru and cult articles in Wikipedia? --- Andries ( Thu, Feb 24, 2005, 06:27:14 ) ( 321 bytes ) +1 I did think you cared Andries --- Bunny ( Thu, Feb 24, 2005, 07:08:25 ) ( 763 bytes ) Incompetent? A victim of his surroundings? Devil's Advocate --- NikW ( Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 15:00:48 ) ( 851 bytes ) +2 Re: Incompetent? A victim of his surroundings? Devil's Advocate --- Andries ( Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 15:05:15 ) ( 116 bytes ) +3 What?!?!! --- Cynthia ( Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 15:20:52 ) ( 1260 bytes ) +2 Re: What?!?!! okay, okay Cynthia I am sorry and wrong --- Andries ( Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 15:25:18 ) ( 75 bytes ) +1 Re: What?!?!! okay, okay Cynthia I am sorry and wrong --- Cynthia ( Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 15:26:48 ) ( 166 bytes ) Re: Cynthia what is the DECA project? (it is not in EPO's glossary) (no text) --- Andries ( Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 15:40:35 ) ( 0 bytes ) +1 Re: Cynthia what is the DECA project? (it is not in EPO's glossary) --- Cynthia ( Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 16:13:32 ) ( 1072 bytes ) Maharaji is responsible for this actions --- Mike Finch ( Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 15:53:08 ) ( 1692 bytes ) +1 Re: Maharaji is responsible for this actions --- paddy ( Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 22:35:41 ) ( 404 bytes ) +1 Satpal --- Mike Finch ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 03:12:52 ) ( 718 bytes ) +1 Re; "Never Deviated" --- Joe ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 13:31:22 ) ( 544 bytes ) +2 M quitting as satguru? I don't think so --- Mike Finch ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 14:29:05 ) ( 1147 bytes ) +2 Yes, that's what I would have bet on -- mercurial, grossly inconsistent --- Jim ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 14:44:18 ) ( 248 bytes ) Fear that Mata Ji was Right --- Joe ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 14:50:29 ) ( 940 bytes ) I know about 2 "deviations".... --- la-ex ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 16:52:48 ) ( 1254 bytes ) +1 Disfunctional co-dependancy or conspirital collusion? --- Bunny ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 05:44:57 ) ( 861 bytes ) +1 Spot on, Goddess (no text) --- Neville B ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 11:31:39 ) ( 0 bytes ) Andries, Prem Rawat IS NOT A PROFESSIONAL PILOT! --- Cynthia ( Fri, Feb 25, 2005, 05:40:21 ) ( 1153 bytes ) They're not 'outsiders' in that sense when they've seen the evidence --- Jim ( Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 15:08:41 ) ( 220 bytes ) +1 Re: Hitler was not forced to be the leader and partially crazy unlike Rawat --- Andries ( Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 15:46:35 ) ( 383 bytes ) +5 I think Rawat believes his delusions --- JHB ( Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 16:37:02 ) ( 696 bytes ) What is this "black and white thinking" you keep dissing? --- Jim ( Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 16:46:11 ) ( 138 bytes ) Ludicrous. Hitler was a Corrupt Politician, Rawat's a Corrupt Businessman --- Jonathan ( Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 17:08:28 ) ( 949 bytes ) +1 Re: Ludicrous. Hitler was a Corrupt Politician, Rawat's a Corrupt Businessman --- Songster ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 22:09:24 ) ( 860 bytes ) Hi, Andries --- Neville B ( Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 17:28:13 ) ( 690 bytes ) +3 Hi, Neville --- Jonathan ( Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 17:40:47 ) ( 476 bytes ) +3 Re: Hi,Jonathan --- Cynthia ( Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 18:21:53 ) ( 208 bytes ) Hi, Jonathan --- Neville B ( Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 18:39:53 ) ( 445 bytes ) +1 Hi, Cynthia & Neville! --- Jonathan ( Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 20:34:01 ) ( 1870 bytes ) link +1 Two interesting questions about M --- Mike Finch ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 02:54:42 ) ( 2781 bytes ) +3 Re: Two interesting questions about M --- NikW ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 04:52:42 ) ( 769 bytes ) Very Eloquent Response, Mike. It's a BEST OF! --- Jonathan ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 08:15:28 ) ( 501 bytes ) Re: Two interesting questions about M --- paddy ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 13:51:05 ) ( 1526 bytes ) +1 Maharaji's inner feelings --- Mike Finch ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 14:57:57 ) ( 1184 bytes ) +2 Re: Maharaji's inner feelings --- Cynthia ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 15:38:56 ) ( 364 bytes ) Isn't that expulsion into the true l;ight? (no text) --- paddy ( Thu, Feb 24, 2005, 00:33:13 ) ( 0 bytes ) Re: Hi, Neville --- Andries ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 03:01:53 ) ( 135 bytes ) Re: Hi, Andries --- Cynthia ( Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 18:31:56 ) ( 546 bytes ) +1 Cult apologism --- NikW ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 05:14:10 ) ( 1490 bytes ) +2 Re: Cult apologism --- dant ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 05:43:56 ) ( 1743 bytes ) +3 Arggh! You guys got there first--and said it better than I did (no text) --- Neville B ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 06:08:23 ) ( 0 bytes ) Re: Outdated references --- Andries ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 13:45:22 ) ( 233 bytes ) Re: Vivisection doesn't warrant human sacrifice --- paddy ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 14:01:50 ) ( 357 bytes ) Re: Great post (no text) --- paddy ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 13:57:51 ) ( 0 bytes ) Here's why Andries is irritating --- Jim ( Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 21:54:38 ) ( 2200 bytes ) +1 You call it irritating; I call it useful --- Neville B ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 06:03:46 ) ( 1745 bytes ) +4 Re: You call it irritating; I call it useful --- Cynthia ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 07:44:09 ) ( 6204 bytes ) +2 Well if you put it that way --- dant ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 08:05:05 ) ( 433 bytes ) Re: Very little of what you write about me is true --- Andries ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 08:30:34 ) ( 1389 bytes ) +1 Re: Very little of what you write about me is true (amended) --- Cynthia ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 09:26:07 ) ( 2252 bytes ) +1 Re: (OT) Cynthia and others, could you please sign the petition? --- Andries ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 10:15:11 ) ( 159 bytes ) +2 You've got it Andries. --- Cynthia ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 11:25:29 ) ( 523 bytes ) Done! (no text) --- Neville B ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 12:06:13 ) ( 0 bytes ) You call it useful; I call it useless --- Jonathan ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 08:39:37 ) ( 1206 bytes ) +1 Re:Untrue and unfair --- Andries ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 08:41:58 ) ( 188 bytes ) +1 Schnabelism. Are You A Schnabelist? lol --- Jonathan ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 08:50:15 ) ( 380 bytes ) What the hell is this "black and white thinking"? --- Jim ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 11:45:02 ) ( 4458 bytes ) +1 Re: What the hell is this "black and white thinking"? - A visual a... --- cq ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 12:48:59 ) ( 365 bytes ) file img shades of grey or fuzzy thinking? --- lesley ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 14:17:45 ) ( 1286 bytes ) +2 Black and white or just too lazy for complexity? --- Neville B ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 14:32:23 ) ( 266 bytes ) +2 Again, what is the "B&W thinking" we should be avoiding?! --- Jim ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 14:50:57 ) ( 435 bytes ) +1 What a difference two inverted commas make --- Neville B ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 15:38:22 ) ( 820 bytes ) +3 why not? --- dant ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 15:47:25 ) ( 73 bytes ) Re: What a difference two inverted commas make --- Cynthia ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 15:54:07 ) ( 1430 bytes ) +1 Hang on a minute, Cynthia --- Neville B ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 18:29:31 ) ( 933 bytes ) +1 Re: Hang on a minute, Cynthia (edited with correction) --- Cynthia ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 20:02:26 ) ( 4967 bytes ) +3 Thank You Cynthia! --- Hilltop ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 23:12:37 ) ( 1103 bytes ) +1 Re: The reason is that I am in the middle of a propaganda war --- Andries ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 05:07:42 ) ( 1202 bytes ) +1 Re: The reason is that I am in the middle of a propaganda war (OT) (Edited) --- Cynthia ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 06:38:42 ) ( 6258 bytes ) A couple of points, Cynthia --- Neville B ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 04:05:52 ) ( 780 bytes ) +2 Re: Andries' agenda, see my post to Hilltop (NT) --- Andries ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 05:28:10 ) ( 0 bytes ) link Re: A couple of points, Cynthia --- Cynthia ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 06:56:38 ) ( 75 bytes ) Excellent Reply, Cynthia! ANDRIES, PLEASE READ IT! (nt) --- Jonathan ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 05:59:35 ) ( 13 bytes ) +2 Re: (OT) I NEVER wrote or suggested that I have a PhD + forum guidelines --- Andries ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 06:30:24 ) ( 456 bytes ) Jonathan...(OT) --- Cynthia ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 07:31:57 ) ( 304 bytes ) +1 Cynthia...(OT) --- Jonathan ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 09:05:54 ) ( 82 bytes ) Here's what happened re Geaves --- Jim ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 15:55:04 ) ( 2281 bytes ) are you equating black and white with simplistic thinking? --- lesley ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 14:28:27 ) ( 590 bytes ) +1 Re: are you equating black and white with simplistic thinking? --- Andries ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 15:07:43 ) ( 360 bytes ) +2 Come on, Andries is full of s**t! This post here proves it! --- Jim ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 15:25:40 ) ( 1313 bytes ) +2 Re: Come on, Andries is full of s**t! This post here proves it! --- Andries ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 15:32:42 ) ( 743 bytes ) +4 No, you're wrong, clueless and evasive to boot --- Jim ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 15:38:50 ) ( 996 bytes ) +1 Re: No, you're wrong, clueless and evasive to boot --- Cynthia ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 16:26:46 ) ( 384 bytes ) Responding to your additonal text now --- Jim ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 16:30:27 ) ( 1529 bytes ) +1 "So enough with the insults already". --- cq ( Sat, Feb 26, 2005, 11:38:52 ) ( 22 bytes ) I agree with you about half --- Joe ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 16:47:22 ) ( 2100 bytes ) Your Tautologies are Incorrect --- Jonathan ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 17:05:43 ) ( 1381 bytes ) You might disagree with Andries, but why insult him? --- cq ( Sat, Feb 26, 2005, 11:36:31 ) ( 111 bytes ) +1 Good question. I've been wondering the same (no text) --- Neville B ( Sun, Feb 27, 2005, 03:59:10 ) ( 0 bytes ) "right to exercise freedom of religion" --- Bunny ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 17:19:30 ) ( 1036 bytes ) you mean one judgement fits all circumstances? --- cq ( Thu, Feb 24, 2005, 03:14:37 ) ( 487 bytes ) +1 You're not getting it, Chris --- Jim ( Thu, Feb 24, 2005, 10:48:35 ) ( 151 bytes ) +2 Thank you Jim --- lesley ( Thu, Feb 24, 2005, 14:15:48 ) ( 450 bytes ) +1 you didn't answer the question. --- cq ( Fri, Feb 25, 2005, 13:14:40 ) ( 680 bytes ) +1 I did not answer because --- lesley ( Fri, Feb 25, 2005, 15:43:47 ) ( 2683 bytes ) +1 Thanks for trying to explain, Lesley --- cq ( Sat, Feb 26, 2005, 11:33:17 ) ( 544 bytes ) Getting what, Jim? Your attempt to obfuscate speaks volumes --- cq ( Fri, Feb 25, 2005, 13:32:03 ) ( 619 bytes ) +1 Oh yeah, Chris, you got me good! Great eye there, fella! LOL! --- Jim ( Fri, Feb 25, 2005, 14:21:49 ) ( 403 bytes ) +1 I'm confused? So give us that practical example then! (no text) --- cq ( Sat, Feb 26, 2005, 07:51:11 ) ( 0 bytes ) Re: Hitler was not forced to be the leader and partially crazy unlike Rawat --- NikW ( Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 17:46:47 ) ( 1449 bytes ) SSB vs. PPSR --- dant ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 07:47:59 ) ( 810 bytes ) +1 Re: SSB vs. PPSR: I miss the first hand sexual abuse horror testimonies --- Andries ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 14:33:32 ) ( 179 bytes ) +4 So What? --- Jonathan ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 14:51:02 ) ( 987 bytes ) You're right, Andries. Dettmers might well be lying. Thanks for pointing th... --- Jim ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 14:56:34 ) ( 269 bytes ) +1 Re: You're right, Andries. Dettmers might well be lying. Thanks for pointin... --- Andries ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 15:21:54 ) ( 189 bytes ) +1 Give me a break, Andries!!!!!!! Yes, you DO irritate me! --- Jim ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 15:30:09 ) ( 947 bytes ) +1 Re: Give me a break, Andries!!!!!!! Yes, you DO irritate me! --- Andries ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 15:43:35 ) ( 232 bytes ) +1 You are avoiding my point entirely, Andries!!!!!! --- Jim ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 16:01:17 ) ( 36 bytes ) +1 Re: I did not avoid your point at all --- Andries ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 16:09:36 ) ( 540 bytes ) +4 Re: I did not avoid your point at all --- Cynthia ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 16:16:21 ) ( 508 bytes ) Read Between the Lines! --- Jonathan ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 16:17:23 ) ( 502 bytes ) Sophia Collier's wrong --- Jim ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 16:21:18 ) ( 2038 bytes ) brain surgery --- dant ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 16:49:58 ) ( 2320 bytes ) +1 Re: brain surgery -- also we were his children...(edited) --- Cynthia ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 17:25:01 ) ( 1908 bytes ) +1 Yes, Cynthia, but to be fair we were also his brother and sister --- Jim ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 17:29:35 ) ( 74 bytes ) +1 LOL! --- Cynthia ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 17:33:23 ) ( 6 bytes ) where is your empathy Andries? --- dant ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 15:30:25 ) ( 1287 bytes ) +2 Re: where is your empathy Andries? --- Andries ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 15:51:22 ) ( 321 bytes ) You Might Be Right; You Might Be Wrong --- Jonathan ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 16:02:04 ) ( 1667 bytes ) What's the chance of getting first hand testimonies? --- JHB ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 18:04:07 ) ( 544 bytes ) +2 Yeah but now you're asking Andries to believe YOU, aren't you? (no text) --- Jim ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 18:06:18 ) ( 0 bytes ) Re: What's the chance of getting first hand testimonies? --- Cynthia ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 20:54:03 ) ( 327 bytes ) WHY RESTART A DISCUSSION ONLY TO AVOID IT, ANDRIES? (no text) --- Jim ( Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 13:36:59 ) ( 0 bytes ) +1 Re: Geesh Jim, give me some time (NT) (no text) --- Andries ( Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 13:50:16 ) ( 0 bytes ) +1 It's either gosh or sheesh --- dant ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 12:06:53 ) ( 49 bytes ) Original message ---   ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 15:17:31 ) ( bytes ) +1 Re: SSB vs. PPSR: I miss the first hand sexual abuse horror testimonies --- Andries ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 15:17:31 ) ( 199 bytes ) +1 Re: SSB vs. PPSR: I miss the first hand sexual abuse horror testimonies --- Cynthia ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 15:24:13 ) ( 1126 bytes ) +1 In defence of Paddy, this much must be said --- Jim ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 15:35:58 ) ( 216 bytes ) +1 now wait one second bud --- dant ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 15:44:25 ) ( 49 bytes ) +2 Really? --- Jim ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 15:56:08 ) ( 90 bytes ) Re: now wait one second bud --- Cynthia ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 16:07:03 ) ( 355 bytes ) Original message ---   ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 06:41:03 ) ( bytes ) +1 Re: No, never and nowhere Cynthia must be mistaken (NT) (no text) --- Andries ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 06:41:03 ) ( 0 bytes ) +1 Cynthia was mistaken (OT) --- Cynthia ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 07:11:29 ) ( 213 bytes ) Original message ---   ( Thu, Feb 24, 2005, 07:36:51 ) ( bytes ) +1 It's in the guidlines --- Bunny ( Thu, Feb 24, 2005, 07:36:51 ) ( 495 bytes )