Following up on this, because I suspect that one or more of the cultists will try to pretend that they aren't cultists :-), the distinction I'm trying to make in my definition of what constitutes a cultist is about the "trigger" that sets them off.
It's NOT criticism of them personally. That's just how they interpret criticism of the organization or group they pathologically over-identify with. If you perceive criticism of an *idea* -- a belief or set of beliefs -- that you identify with as if it were an "attack" on you personally, then what you are demonstrating IMO is an over-attachment to that set of beliefs or idea, and a *lack* of self- knowledge -- where "you" start and where "you" end. Similarly, if you over-react and plunge into a new round of "shoot the messenger" because someone criticizes the consistent and repetitive behavior of the group -- *especially* when that group behavior mirrors your own behavior -- then you're a cultist. Normal people can discuss ideas, and even ideas they hold strongly, without having to resort to cultist, knee-jerk behavior when doing so. Normal people can recognize that human beings can hold different opinions about ideas and still be human beings. Cultists can't. They feel compelled to describe those who believe differently than they do as having some failing or as if their difference of belief is somehow malevolent, an "attack" on them *and* the things they believe in. A criticism of TM, its philosophy, and the behavior of its leaders is NOT an attack on religion -- it's a criticism of ideas. When someone who believes in those ideas reacts as if they'd been struck in the face, then I think most people would recognize that they have grown too attached to those ideas, and have lost their sense of boundaries -- where "they" leave off and their beliefs start up. The parallel in the larger world is the concerted attempt by some people to characterize any criticism of the State of Israel and its politics and policies as anti-semitism. There is simply NO QUESTION that a lot of TMers are cultists in this regard. When MJ rails about the TMO, they react as if he's railing against them personally, and they *over-react* as strongly as if they were black and he'd called them a nigger. That's INSANE in my view. Ideas are just ideas. Beliefs are just beliefs. Your ideas and your beliefs are not you. Get over it. --- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "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 > products. > > 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? >
