> > > It's a common cult technique. What the cult is trying to > > > do is reinforce the idea that no one would ever *want* > > > to leave of their own accord. So it's better for the > > > cult to claim that they were kicked out for "conduct > > > unbecoming." Or, if they really can't hide the fact > > > that the person left on their own, to portray them > > > as crazy. > > > > Oddly enough, the "cult" did neither in Chopra's > > case. > > But Judy this is what the cult does every single day, > I've seen it so many times. It's just one aspect of > why I can't tkae them seriously anymore. > > Tapes with Chopra on aren't allowed to be played at > meetings, practise of Chopras techniques is discouraged. > Why do they do that if it's all smiles between them?
Exactly. It's the olde "Say one thing publicly but do quite another in private" dodge. That, too, is classic cult behavior. And the thing is, everyone including Judy is more than *aware* of this hypocrisy; it's just that some still want to point to the "official" public explanation as a way of distracting attention from the far more pervasive private behavior. Anyone who ever saw Lawson or any number of other people dump on Chopra from on high knows what the real story is. He is persona non grata in the TM organization, which means that if his name comes up, the faithful TBs should do what- ever is necessary to dump on him. That's just how things are *done* in the TMO. They can't *allow* anyone to just walk away Scot-free. There has to be a derogatory *reason* why they left. Preferably it's because they were "really" kicked out. If that can't be claimed, then insinuating that the person is crazy is a good second choice. Going down the list of other standard TM methods of dumping on an apostate, I'm sure you'll recog- nize many of them from this very forum: "He lacked courage. He was too afraid to do the things necessary to stick around." ( How much 'courage' does it take to assiduously avoid deal- ing with reality for 30 years? :-) "He was only in it for the money." ( As if the TMO and Maharishi aren't. :-) "He must have been confused by being exposed to Off The Program material or other teachers." ( Because everyone knows that other traditions, jealous of TM for being the 'highest path,' are out there waiting in the shadows, ready to waylay any hapless TMer and lure them away. :-) "He failed at his commitment to Maharishi and to the Holy Tradition." ( And just where did this idea that one *should* make such a commitment *come* from? ) "He failed, period." ( By all means, when some- one walks away from the TMO, the most important thing to say, and to repeat often, is that his decision to do so implies a huge *failure* on his part. The greater the person's former stature within the TMO, the greater his failure. This is by far the most important argument to make, because if you make it convincingly, everyone who is still in the cult who has *not* walked away can consider themselves 'successes' because they have avoided the temptation to be 'failures' like the person being trashed. ) "He 'stole' all his ideas from our teacher." ( Yeah, right. In the case of Chopra, show me *anything* that indicates that Maharishi knew *anything* about Ayurveda before he started milking Chopra for ideas. Maharishi stole from *him*, not vice-versa. Same with a lot of the physicists and scientists who walked away early on in the movement; the claim from TMers was that they had gotten *their* ideas from MMY and not vice-versa, which is ludicrous if one just reads the books they wrote before meeting him. ) This last one is the 'dump on the apostate' argument that pisses me off the most. It's the one that makes claims like "The Beatles were only successful because of Maharishi's ideas and/or energy," or that any of the other famous TMers along the way were only famous "because of" Maharishi. It's the exact opposite. If Maharishi hadn't ripped off these people's fame and ideas and reputations, *he* would be the one who was unknown. Credit where credit is due, people. Maharishi glommed onto these people and *used them* to further his own ends. If you think that those ends were justified, then you probably believe that the means (piggyback off someone else's fame or ideas) were justified. But ferchissakes, don't claim an inverse rela- tionship when these people get tired of being used and walk away. Don't claim that the energy in the scenario "really" came from Maharishi. His entire *life* has been based on finding creative people, getting them to believe in him and his ideas, and then using their fame or their money or their ideas to further his own ends. That's just what Maharishi DOES. > The first time I heard about him a "governor" took me to > one side and whispered "chopra was a man who stole all > MMYs ideas and left to make money out of them, it's best > not to talk about him" these people really believe that > he is a "rackshasa" who spurned MMY and therefore isn't > worthy of mention. What Turq was pointing out is this > need of people to have an "us and them" approach to it. > It doesn't matter if it's not official if it's all you > ever hear. Exactly. The "us vs. them" issue is what makes it a cult issue. *That* is the important thing, from a cult point of view. You want to -- as your highest goal *as* a cult -- to make sure that people feel "special" about being a part of the cult. Every influential member of the cult who walks away to some extent diminishes that aura of "specialness." So if you're a cult leader, you basically feel that you *have* to do something to "diminish the apostate" FIRST. It's like a "preemptive strike." BEFORE the apostate has a chance to tell anyone *why* he or she left, you make sure that all the current members of the cult "know" what the "real" story is. I have seen this *so* many times, in *so* many spiritual organizations, and it pisses me off every time. It's just all so fuckin' UNNECESSARY. Who CARES who "comes and goes" within such an org- anization? Where does the JEALOUSY that has to portray anyone who leaves as having failed, or having made a tremendous mistake or being "afraid" or of "lacking commitment" come from? > Another example, Peter Wright wrote the book on TM that > got me interested, but mention his name and you get a > comment like "we don't recommend that book because he > isn't into TM anymore" which is stupid enough as it is > but the reason he's another persona non grata is > because he described MMY as one guru among many. If you're speaking of Peter McWilliams, he committed an even greater "sin." He actually *preferred* one of the other gurus over Maharishi. Can't have that. :-) But the amazing thing is what you mention above. His book *no longer has value* because he's no longer on "our side," one of "us." Same with Chopra's books. The cultists don't really think this *through*. What it implies is that the books *never* had any value. > That's it, that's all it was. The cultmaniacs in the TMO > see this as a betrayal. And it's all because of the bottom-line marketing approach used by Maharishi since Day One, that TM is "the best." That is *so* much the *foundation* of everything TM that anything that challenges this idea just Cannot Be Allowed.
