Oh just shut up, Barry.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote:
> > *Cult: a religion without political influence. Tom Wolfe.
> Love this. Tom always had a way with words.
> TM (unlike Catholicism, Judaism, and Hinduism in India)
> never had any political influence, so they went instead
> for "celebrity influence," courting famous people and
> trying to use *their* names and images to sell its
> As for cults, my definition tends more towards, "A cult
> is any organization in which its members perceive any
> criticism of the organization as criticism of them per-
> sonally, or even as an 'attack' against them personally,
> and then react angrily to that criticism." This would
> hold true IMO for spiritual organizations, corporations,
> political parties, whatever. It's the *behavior* that
> defines cultism, not the nature of the org.
> It's the overidentification with the group and the over-
> reaction to criticism that does it for me, and that
> defines a group as a cult and its members as cultists.
> That and certain classically cult behavioral patterns
> like playing "shoot the messenger" and attacking the
> critic while ignoring the criticisms.
> By that standard, there are a few people on FFL who
> are definitely cultists. There are also some TM
> practitioners on this forum who are not, but we rarely
> hear from them. Mainly it's the cultists who feel the
> need to follow up any criticism with samskaric
> attachment/aversion behavior and attack the critics.
> Whatever floats their boats, I guess. I just don't
> understand how they believe that they're presenting
> a positive view of the organization they're "protecting"
> or the technique it sells. If simple criticism can push
> their buttons this badly after 30-40 years of practicing
> it, then the technique really doesn't do much of anything
> useful at all, does it?