There is no escape from a cult as a full person. After some time of being involved with it the brain becomes hardwired into that mode of thinking. Trying to escape simply means pulling out all the wires.

Especially if the leader was charismatic. Then one's whole personality becomes absorbed into that framework.
[What happens if you pull all the hardware out of your computer? It does not work anymore. Same here. This is why people hang on to false beliefs even after they know the beliefs are wrong.]

I do not mean to sound negative. After all one can change. But along with change in mental framework comes change in one's life situation.

People leave sometimes from  a cult and go into worse things.

My approach is to look at what I think was a proper framework while I was there [Yeshivat Mir in  NY.] and even though I can't be there right now, to at least try to be learning Torah and keeping Torah as much as possible in the most straight no nonsense fashion possible.

What is the way of Torah? To be honorable, truthful, trustworthy, capable, strong. It is to be the type of man you would want to be with you in a survival situation.  Not what cults are made from.Cults are about making people think they have all these virtues by means of serving their leader and the cult. Service to the leader is what makes a man a man in a cult. It is the opposite of Torah.

To escape from cults the best thing is to learn Jewish Philosophy of the Middle Ages. Philosophy has a drawback of not being able to postulate positive values but it does save from negative values.

To learn Jewish Philosophy from the Middle Ages however requires a bit of background. That is the Pre Socratics Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus. But there is also a need to supplement them with Post Middle Ages. And this part is hard. The idea of learning philosophy after the Middle Ages is on one hand dangerous because philosophy went off into post modern and other crazy directions. I had to do a lot of work to sift through it all and find the strands of  sense.
Briefly, after the Middle Ages philosophy got divided between England (the Empiricists) and Europe the Rationalists.  Kant came along and made a compromise. But his solution was unsatisfactory so the German idealist came along to continue the work of Kant. It is this strand of thought that is important as a supplement to Jewsih philosophy of the Middle Ages,

[Jewish though after the Middle Ages got off track into cults.]

Book on Bava Metzia   Book on Talmud




One idea I think to add is in Bava Kama on page 3a. The gemara at the beginning requires two extra verses to add quadrants 3 and 4 [אזלא ממילא ולא נאכלו השרשים] and the 3rd part of the Gemara which brings both tooth and foot from one verse does not require and extra verse to add the last quadrant. The מהדורא בתרא Of the Mahrasha says the reason for the last part of the Gemara is שקולים הם. Why question is why not say the same thing for the first part of the Gemara? Why is the first approach of the Gemara we don't say the same? In the first part of the Gemara we do not learn both foot and tooth from one verse --But we do compare them and say there is a היקש between them.

________________________________________________________________________________


The force of this question to me seems great. No matter how you roll the dice, you end up with the fact that the last part of the Gemara does not need four verses and the first part does need four. And between tooth and foot in the end of the Gemara we have to say שקולים and in the first part we say there is a היקש So no matter what you say for the end of the gemara you have to say for the beginning and if you say that for the beginning then you only need three verses.



(1) The force of this question to me seems great. No matter how you look at it, you end up with the fact that the last part of the גמרא does not need four פסוקים and the first part does need four. And between שן and רגל in the end of the גמרא we have to say שקולים and in the first part we say there is a היקש. So no matter what you say for the end of the גמרא you have to say for the beginning and if you say that for the beginning then you only need three פסוקים.








__________________________________________________________________________________


בבא קמא ג' ע''א The גמרא at the beginning requires two extra verses to add quadrant שלישי  and רביעי אזלא ממילא ולא נאכלו השרשים and the third part of the גמרא which brings both שן and רגל from one verse does not require and extra verse to add the last quadrant. The מהדורא בתרא Of the מהרש''א says the reason for the last part of the גמרא is שקולים הם. My question is why not say the same thing for the first part of the גמרא? Why in the first approach of the גמרא we don't say the same? In the first part of the גמרא we do not learn both רגל and שן from one verse. But we do compare them and say there is a היקש between them

בבא קמא ג' ע''א הגמרא בתחילה דורשת שני פסוקים נוספים להוסיף רביע שלישי ורביעי (אזלא ממילא ולא נאכל השרשים) ואת החלק השלישי של הגמרא מביאה  שן ורגל מפסוק אחד ואינה מחייבת פסוק נוסף כדי להוסיף את רביע האחרון. המהדורא בתרא של מהרש''א אומר כי הסיבה של חלק האחרון של הגמרא היא ששקולים הם. השאלה שלי היא למה לא אומרים את אותו הדבר עבור החלק הראשון של הגמרא? למה בגישה הראשונה של גמרא אנחנו לא אומרים את אותו הדבר?הגם שבחלקו הראשון של גמרא אינם לומדים שניהם רגל ושן מפסוק אחד. אבל אנחנו עושים השוואה ביניהם ואומרים שקיים היקש ביניהם.

The din Torah (court case) that Reb Nachman had with the Satan was that Reb Nachman would be able to present his advice to the world so people would have the benefit of his ideas-but that his inyan [his "thing"] would be surrounded by a kelipa [evil force] such that who so ever would come into it would be affected by a kelipa of insanity and ugly behavior.

My conclusion is that there really is no reason to be in Uman. It is not just the kelipa of insanity around the ziun itself. It is that it does not seem like the biggest deal in the first place. It does have the effect of getting people away from Gemara  and it does not seem worth it. It does not seem like one gets that much benefit from the whole thing or as much as one loses by dropping out of the yeshiva world. It might save from worse kelipot but besides that I don't know.


 It is not that Reb Nachman did not have some good ideas. Rather there is just too much cult  activity involved. And it seems to me that it entices people away from the straight Lithuanian yeshiva path . And from what I have seen over the years this is universal. No one ever becomes a better person from involvement with it. If anything I think it takes people from otherwise decent things they are doing and tends to degrade them. The ideas themselves of Reb Nachman I tend to think highly of but then people hear about them and get involved with Breslov and that changes them. I have tried to mention some of these issues to people but my impression is it is beyond redemption. 

Ideas in Bava Metzia updated  I wanted to add an answer there on a question on Shmuel that I had asked in my original booklet.

Ideas in Shas


My basic idea about learning Torah is that it is best done at home alone. Get yourself a Gemara and don't depend on there being a Beit Midrash. The problem with depending on some close by synagogue or such for learning is dealing with the kelipot [evil forces]. Unless you are in the area of an authentic Lithuanian yeshiva, the other options are mainly bad-cults or worse. Why bother? 

Torah is Monotheism

I do not seem to be able to get people on board with my idea of Torah being Monotheism. Most people have never heard of it. And the religious world is hopelessly pantheistic. I have no idea from where the problem stems from. Clearly the Gra tried his hand at getting Torah Judaism back in track but failed miserably. His excommunication was and is ignored even by his closest disciples.

No one wants to believe that the Gra knew what he was doing.

The only Institution that I know of that takes the Gra seriously is the yeshiva Aderet Eliyahu in the Old City of Jerusalem. But that place is more concerned with the general path of the Gra more that the issue of the basic world view of Torah.

Worship of tzadikim seems to have gone unnoticed as being a kind of idolatry. And Idolatry is supposed to be forbidden --or thus I thought.

There were people in the past that thought I had the ability to awaken others towards the authentic Torah. But it seems to me today that I missed the boat somehow.
The cults just grow and grow and the truth is just stomped on more and more.

The idea that Torah is Monotheism is basically expressed by Saadia Gaon and the Rambam and all the rishonim that wrote about the basic world view of Torah. Surprisingly enough the Ari agrees with this. The Ari does not attempt to change the world view of Torah in the slightest. But today these facts are ignored and distorted.

Without Torah one can not say that wrong is wrong. And without philosophy one can't say that a cult is  a cult. But the opposite is not true. With philosophy alone one can justify any wrong. With Torah one can justify any cult. Any set of delusions can be justified.

Thus I see the philosophers of the Middle Ages as providing an important function. The combining of Torah with philosophy allows one to say wrong is wrong and also to identify  cults that are disguised as legitimate Torah institutions.

So what I am suggesting is to learn Saadia Gaon, Ibn Gavirol, the Guide for the Perplexed of the Rambam, Abravenal (Isaac and Yehuda), Crescas and Joseph Albo with the same rigor and depth as one would do on Gemara Rshi and Tosphot. 

Virtue and knowledge are identical and thus in theory possible to teach. I would like to suggest a  three pronged approach. Musar, Hashkafa world view, outdoor survival skills.

The first idea in that of Israel Salanter. It deals mainly with study of the type of character traits the Torah requires of us. There is a promise of Isaac Blasser that by this study one is cured of physical and spiritual sickness.
The second deals with the study of what kind of world view the Torah has. That started mainly from Saadia Gaon, Ibn Gavirol and included the Guide for the Perplexed of the Rambam, and goes up until Joseph Albo, and Cresas. these were the major rigorous thinkers along these lines. The idea here is that the Torah is not an empty vessel that one can put any ideas into it that he wants. It has a specific world view. Agree with it or not, one has to know it. The problems that began with people putting their delusions into the Torah and dressing them up in verses has continued until this day and shows no sign of abating.
The third is outdoor skills. I am thinking of what the Boy Scouts and Girls Scouts used to be doing. That is the idea of instilling good values by means of action, not just words. honor, loyalty, team work, hard work, cleanliness trustworthiness. etc