An interesting metaphor-- although based on an experiment
which failed to be replicatable -- involved the idea
that a frog (cold-blooded, and thus having its internal
temperature determined by outside temperature) placed in
a pot of boiling water, would immediately perceive the
danger and hop out. However, according to this metaphor,
place the frog in a pot of cold water and gradually --
very slowly -- increase the temperature, and the frog
would stay there until it boiled to death.

While untrue, I feel that the metaphor is still a useful
one, because it reveals a lot about how people's belief
systems evolve over time, and how the people holding
these belief systems become unaware that they were
either taught to them, or that they have over time come
to regard the beliefs as fact.

Take a belief that has arisen on this forum recently,
that saying something less than flattering about one's
spiritual teacher is not only questionable, but a Bad
Thing, something that renders the speaker a Bad Person.

Where could such a belief have come from? It's not as
if anyone was born with it. It pretty much has to have
been taught to them. And why does this belief center
on "spiritual" teachers? If you heard of someone going
a bit haywire and trying to demonize someone for saying
less than flattering things about one of your university
or high-school teachers, would you feel the same need
or desire to get in their faces and call them names,
or spend inordinate amounts of time trying to get others
to see them as negatively as you do?

I'm suggesting that this is learned behavior, and that
the learning took place gradually, over many years or
decades, and that as a result many have forgotten that
is IS learned behavior, and that it was taught to them.
They just accept the behavior as if it's not only
natural and normal, it's high dharma or being a kind
of spiritual warrior or following the will of God to
bash those who dare to say something less than flatter-
ing about the spiritual teacher *who taught them to
believe in this meme*.

Believers in the meme think nothing of considering a
person who is -- bottom line -- nothing but a teacher,
on the same level as any other teacher, as superhuman,
or their Master. They make up bhaktified poems praising
the teacher the same way that other seekers make up
poems about God. They come to believe that the things
the teacher said are synonymous with the word of God.
Many develop an inability to distinguish the teacher
*from* God. And they consider all of this natural
and normal.

It's this "natural and normal" thang that I think
relates to the frog in a pot metaphor. People who have
been taught this meme in my experience often lose
touch with how they would be perceived by someone who
doesn't believe it, someone who didn't experience the
same year-after-year, decade-after-decade imprinting
and (dare I say it) indoctrination they did. The
"heat" was raised under their belief system so grad-
ually, and over so long a period, that they have come
to regard it as not only fact, but as something self-
evident. Some will deny that it was, in fact, taught
to them. And many, when their somewhat aberrant
behavior is pointed out to them, are by that time
so close to boiling that they are incapable of seeing
themselves as other non-indoctrinated people might
see them. They think these people are WRONG, or
that they are "attacking" them personally by saying
something less than flattering about the person who
has taught them that saying anything less than flat-
tering about him made them a Bad Person.

I think it's a Good Thing to step back every so often
from the belief systems and behaviors one assumes to
be "natural and normal" and check oneself out in the
mirror of Other People's Perceptions. These other
people who hear your beliefs or watch your behavior
and look upon them as the polar opposite of "natural
and normal" just might be onto something. They might
be warning you that you're starting to look a little
pinkish, and that you might want to check the temper-
ature of the belief system pot you're swimming in.

Reply via email to