Barry, the reason you get smacked down so often is not because of your criticisms of TM. It's because you're a poisonous, low-vibe individual. You're chronically dishonest, and you treat the people you don't agree with like shit.
Proof: Many here make the same TM criticisms you do, and they are generally treated with respect because they're honest and they treat others with respect even in disagreement. The only thing you've "stumbled upon"--and goodness knows it was a long time ago, because you've been saying this for years--is a way to foist the blame for your own inexcusable behavior onto your critics, and even more absurdly and dishonestly onto the TMO. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > I honestly don't know which is sadder -- that Judy > > and Jimbo believe that FFL is all about a battle > > between themselves and me, or that they think > > they are winning. :-) > > I'll expand upon this, because in its 30 short words > I think I finally stumbled upon the ultimate test of > whether a spiritual or religious organization can be > accurately called a CULT or not. > > Those who are "anti-cult" have all sorts of "definitions" > of what constitutes "cult behavior," but they're often > so generalized that they apply equally to corporations, > sports fanatics, and political divisions such as Democrats > vs. Republicans. But there is one phenomenon that seems to > me to truly *define* cult thinking, and that's when people > who believe in or follow a particular philosophy or religion > or set of dogmatic beliefs take it upon themselves -- on > a volunteer, unpaid basis -- to "do battle" against anyone > who dares to criticize or demean or (the worst) laugh at > the things they consider holy. > > This strikes me as a *completely* ego-based activity, > which is why it seems so out of place in organizations > that preach (if not actually teach) pathways to what > they think of as enlightenment. The *dogma* of such > organizations is almost always couched in the language > of non-ego and non-attachment, but the activity of "doing > battle" with that organization's critics is *totally* > based on ego and attachment. Go figure. > > You all know the kinds of people I'm talking about. They > are the $cientologists who will do or say *anything* to > "get" the people who dare to criticize $cientology. They > are the Catholics who are willing to do the same with > those who criticize or lampoon *their* dogma. And, of > course, they are the TMers who do the same thing here > on Fairfield Life. > > Such people have clearly nominated themselves (in their > own heads, that is) as "defenders of the faith," as some > kind of "dharmic warrior" whose Purpose In Life is to > find some way to demonize and perform character assassin- > ation on those heretics who laugh at All Things TM. You > can *tell* how *involved* they are with what they see as > their "dharma," simply by watching the hatred creep into > the comments they make, and by noticing the gloating > behavior they trot out when they think they've delivered > some "zinger" that makes them (and thus their "side") > look good, and that makes the critic (and thus "the > other side") look bad. > > Such people have a tendency to declare "victory" after > having done something that most people would consider > mere ego-preening, behavior that would be embarrassing > in Jr. High School students. But to the unpaid volunteer > dharmic warriors, getting into long, convoluted arguments > with someone who represents "evil" while they represent > "good" is as noble a pursuit as Arjuna going out to kill > his own relatives on the equally ego-driven battlefields > of the Bhagavad Gita, simply because he was told to by > the leader of *his* cult. > > This behavior seems to me to be the ultimate definition > of what it is to be a cultist. Anyone who thinks and acts > like this is *by definition* more than a little attached > to the things or people they believe they are "defending." > Anyone who gets into pissing contests like this, and who > bases their *own* self worth on how effectively they've > put down one of their (and thus their org's) "enemies" > has *by definition* a host of ego problems. > > It would be one thing if these people were actually being > PAID by the organizations in question to do this. But > they're not. They're doing it for their *own* ego reasons. > *Their* egos are the ones inflated and made stronger every > time they chalk up what they believe to be a "win." *Their* > attachments get strengthened every time they "do battle." > > I think it's all very sad. And I've seen spiritual or > religious organizations in which this behavior *would never > be tolerated*. If anyone in a position of power with those > organizations ever caught one of their followers doing > such stuff, they would come down on them hard, and do > everything in their power to get them to stop behavior > that is, after all, perceived by most people without a > "horse in the race" as Just Fucking Embarrassing. Such > organizations I would not necessarily class as cults. > > But the organizations that actually support or *encourage* > such behavior, and that *applaud* it (such as $cientology > and the TMO), them I would definitely class as cults. > > How can you tell when you're in danger of becoming a cultist? > > When you believe that by doing verbal "battle" with someone > who criticizes the things you believe, you're doing something > "positive" or life-supporting. > > How can you tell that the organization in whose name you're > doing these things is a cult? > > When the organization itself or its followers applaud you or > hold you in some kind of esteem for doing them. >
