Not to defend Alex (a guy who sometimes just seems to be asking for it) he does NOT there complain most about good/evil, he complains about the lack of certainty regarding the extended consciousness - that nature of life. Why doesn't that author recognize first this, then with regard to the connected nature, explain why he wouldn't "feel" the pain ("feel" here means, make some expression with regard to the pain effected).
The undesirable nature of cults are that each finds some "un-natural" practices which are not expressed "up front" to new comers and certainly are denied or kept secret in some fashion.
I think Alex just wants academia to feel the pain that they seem to disassociate themselves from when "exploring" religions in published form.
The issue Alex does not want to acknowledge though (pardon my assuming to know), is that academia HAS to write about what is in the circle as within the circle. Not its relationship to issues or groups outside the circle. Not how it affects or opinion-ates outside the circle. Alex is outside the circle - not in the cult. He wants "outside-the-circle" (extended consciousness) addressed by academia with respect to their inside-the-circle specimens.
The undesirable nature of cults are that each finds some "un-natural" practices which are not expressed "up front" to new comers and certainly are denied or kept secret in some fashion.
I think Alex just wants academia to feel the pain that they seem to disassociate themselves from when "exploring" religions in published form.
The issue Alex does not want to acknowledge though (pardon my assuming to know), is that academia HAS to write about what is in the circle as within the circle. Not its relationship to issues or groups outside the circle. Not how it affects or opinion-ates outside the circle. Alex is outside the circle - not in the cult. He wants "outside-the-circle" (extended consciousness) addressed by academia with respect to their inside-the-circle specimens.