--- On Sat, 12/27/08, TurquoiseB <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: TurquoiseB <[email protected]>
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: CULT EXPERT WRITES ON THE TM PROGRAM
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Saturday, December 27, 2008, 5:03 AM
> 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.
Agreed. With identification/attachment comes a defense of whom or what one is
invested in. Its automatic. But again, its not all or nothing, there are
degrees of defensiveness. Thirty years ago I'd defend MMY and the TMO almost
like a rabid dog. Now, I'd listen to the person and probably agree with most of
what they said as long as they were speaking from their authentic experience.
Rabidly hating the TMO and MMY is just as invested/attached/identified as
rabidly loving it.
> 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.
Agreed. Some groups make it very easy to have a cult relationship with them,
and some make it more difficult. Some foster this relationship deliberately and
some are more innocent. For the most part the TMO is on the more innocent side
of this scale, but when they want a donation or want you to do something they
can ramp-up the cult mechanics to manipulate you to comply. But again, I don't
see this as insidious on their part. Someone with a huge psychological
investment in the group is speaking out of that investment to fan-the-flames of
the lessor invested ones.
> 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.
Sure. But, IMHO, cults are matters of degree, not all or nothing. I can't
imagine a group that does not foster a "cult" mentality to some degree. It
seems like we humans, with our biologically driven need to form social
relationships, are susceptible to a group identity. Social psychology talks
about this, especially Solomon Asch's research on conformity and Stanley
Milgram's research on obedience.
> 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.
Excellent point, but so few with any degree of group identity can authentically
do this. For example, the "Christain" elderly woman who lives next door to me
is really bothered that I attended an Episcopal church. She's constantly giving
me and my wife CD's with fundamentalist lectures from her pastor basically
telling me that I'm wrong and how only members of her denomination will be
saved. Hmmm, probably best for her not to see my puja table with pictures of
Ramana Maharishi, Anandamoi-Ma, Buddha, Krishna, Shiva, Christ SSRS, MMY and
Guru Dev on it!
I think a true test of "cult-freeness" would be how much do you see others as
the same as you and not as "other". "What you have done to the least of these
creatures, you have also done unto me."
> 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.
Interesting. You'd think there would be almost a perfect correlation between
psychological investment and involvement with the group, but I could see how
this would not necessarily be the case. I still think it would be a high
correlation though, but again, not perfect.
> 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.
Point covered above.
>
> > --- 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.
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> To subscribe, send a message to:
> [email protected]
>
> Or go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
