RE: virus: Hegel's Virus (was Altruism, Empathy, Etc.)

Dan Henry (
Thu, 24 Apr 1997 20:59:06 +0600

At 08:17 AM 4/24/97 EDT, Wright, James 7929 wrote:

>Have I any evidence that Buddhism is not in fact a cult in disguise? From
>David McF., in an earlier thread called "Cults and Religions":
>This checklist was on the front page of my newspaper this morning
>in an article about Heaven's Gate.
>Differences between a cult and a religion
>(attributed to the Cult Information Service Inc.)
> - Deceit in recruitment
> - Totalitarian society
> - Destroys family unit
> - Isolates membership
> - Keeps non-believers out
> - Intimidates critics
> - No deceit in recruitment
> - Allows freedom of thought
> - Promotes the family unit
> - Does not isolate members
> - Encourages participation
> - Welcomes criticism
>I think Buddhism passes the religion tests, although Zen is about as far
>from a religion as you can get; Buddhism definitely fails the cult tests.
>>(Note to DHR: I appreciate your humor. And I'm convinced that you're
>>more close-minded than anyone else on this list.)<
>I appreciate humor also, David R.'s and anyone else's. I do not recall a
>charge of closed-mindedness, else David would not need to spend time

I wasn't suggesting that Buddhism was a cult, only that Buddhism wasn't so
different from other religions, cults, belief systems, 'understanding
systems,' or whatever. All of them claim to be different. None would admit
to being merely a belief system; all claim to have some deeper understanding
of the truth.

By the way, I don't appreciate the difference between cult and religion
illustrated in the two lists above. The two religions I am most familiar
with (Catholicism & Mormonism) fail religious items 1, 2, 4 (Mormons only),
and 6. Further, they both satisfied most of the cult items at various
points in their history.

As far as I can tell, an anti-cult attitude is just religious bigotry
directed against a young religion.

The word 'close-minded' came from me, but here's the earlier post I derived
it from, beginning with a statement about the tone of DHR's posts:

>>I am terribly sorry, but I am still unable to put it in
>>descriptive language yet. As of now, it is only a 'sence'
>>that something about your posts is different from others
>>on the list. Perhaps is something in your style of writing.
>I see it too, and what it looks like to me is an unusually
>determined attempt to make everything fit into a
>pre-existing scheme, with a tendency to "lay down the
>law" as to how that's supposed to happen. The rest of
>us are generally interested in trying to understand
>what's going on. DHR seems more interested in
>expressing what for him is an already overarching
>understanding that requires only some of the details
>filled in.

I think this last paragraph describes almost every person on this list
(especially myself).