Well said, Peter, and well thought out through. There is an element missing, however. How do the people in the group react when the group, its principles, its teachings, or its teacher are challenged? (And I pose this question with my experience with the Rama group as much in mind as my experience with TM).
In other words, I'm adding the notion of "over- identifying with the group" to the mix. If a person tends to react *emotionally* to criticism of the group, as if the criticism was of him or her personally, then IMO that person has turned the group they are part of into a cult. It's not only "does this person do everything the group or its leader or its dogma says, mind- lessly?" that determines its status as a cult IMO. The additional factor is whether the group actively fosters an *identification* with the group and being a member of the group that is unhealthy. I would say, having seen it often in the world of business, that Microsoft qualifies as a cult, because of the emotional (and often angry and out-of-control) reaction of Microsoft employees and fans when it or its products are criticized. I would have to say the same thing about Apple, for the same reasons. Again, as you said so well, not everyone who is part of the group falls for this over-identification. But if enough do so that people begin to perceive an "us vs. them" mentality among a large percentage of the group members, then IMO the group itself may have strayed over the line into being a "cult think- ing enabler," if not being an actual cult. The ability to identify with and feel empathy for people *outside* the group is what determines more than anything else whether a group has turned into a cult and is fostering cult thinking. The more that members can identify with those who are not part of the group, the less chance that they have drifted into cult thinking. And conversely, the more that they react emotionally to criticism or humor aimed at the group, the greater the chance that they have drifted into cult thinking. IMO, of course. I post this because it covers the bases of a *type* of cultist who doesn't really "get involved" with the day-to-day operations of the group. They stay somewhat separate, *so that* they can claim that they are not really part of the group, and thus preserve (in their own minds) their "independence." But where the rubber meets the road is how they react when this group that they are "independent" from is challenged. If they become emotional and angry or insulting, then IMO they are bigger cultists than those who are high-ranking members of the group who *don't* over-react. It's about *attachment* and *over-identification*, not involvement on a day to day basis per se. One of these "hangers on" could be more attached than the actual priesthood of the group. > --- In [email protected], Peter <drpetersutphen@> > wrote: > > If the question is whether the TMO is a cult or not is too simple a > question. It makes it appear as if its an all or nothing question and > that doesn't reflect the broad experiential reality of people in > their various levels of involvement/identification with the TMO. For > some people the TMO functions as a cult in their life. By this I mean > they have very little independent thought outside of the conceptual > tools offered by the TMO. They conceptualize their experience through > these constructs. When something doesn't fit the constructs they also > have a means of dealing with it: unstressing, negativity. The > conceptual tool box becomes a dogma for them: it is solely a belief > system and not based on their personal experience. They are > emotionally repressed and intellectually inflexible because they have > traded their authentic experiencing for a system of > thoughts/concepts. This is one extreme. The opposite is someone who > does their program solely because of > > the experience they have. They have little or no investment in the > conceptual tools offered by the TMO as a personal identity. They use > any spiritual traditions' conceptual tools in a utilitarian manner to > conceptually elucidate their experiencing. Who said it is irrelevant. > Concepts only have value in their ability to intellectually clarify > authentic experiencing. There is very little if any blind belief in a > system of thoughts/constructs. They are not in a cult, although they > might be doing their program every day in the dome. >
