--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > 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.
THis is from vague memory. PRhaps from this gorup or another: There once was a man who hated Lord SHiva. His hatred knew no bounds. Eery day he woiuld trek to the shrine, wend his way to the front of the worshippers and spit. Then walk off. This went on for years. One day, during monsoon season, the rains were so terrible that no-one came to the shrine, except that man. As always, he walked to the front and spit. As he turned to walk away, Lord SHiva himself appeared and offered to grant any boon. "WHy," asked the man, "since you know how I feel about you, do you do such a thing?" "Because," replied Shiva, "of all My followers, thou art the most faithful." It's not just the hangers on that can make a cult of something... He/she who has ears, let him/her hear. L.
