Why do you do this Barry - make me unhappy as I'm about go to bed. I hate you OK.
Wait you say I railed against Amma and then say I am a cultist? It doesn't make any sense Barry - I have lot of negative things to say against Maharishi, I suppose you forgot all that? Anyway that I railed against Amma is a fantasy, a fiction. I had certain very specific things to say against her and her cult, I did during August-September last year and I am done, it will just be rinse and repeat of very specific things as time and occasion demands it. I am not not like you - miserable, pathetic self railing against TM for last 30 -40 years is it? Stalk forums looking to dump my shit on others like you. I'm never going to be like you and MJ - some pathological need to speak against someone - blaming them for everything under the Sun - like the Steubenville rape and Penis snatching delusional beliefs in Africa..LOL You and MJ seriously need help for your pathological, delusional rantings. On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:31 PM, turquoiseb <[email protected]>wrote: > ** > > > It is worth pointing out that some TM cultists on > this forum never even learned TM. They just join in > the "piling on" against TM critics because they're > too dumb to do anything else, because they're used > to doing it and don't know how to do anything else, > and because they feed on the strokes they get from > other cultists when they do it. > > What MJ is doing is nothing more than what *you* > did (and which we mainly tolerated) when you railed > against Amma, the cult *you* were involved with. > > You need another trip back to India, Ravi. You > actually seemed human when you were posting from > there. Now you're just a troll. > > --- In [email protected], Ravi Chivukula <chivukula.ravi@...> > wrote: > > > > Thank you Barry, I appreciate it, MJ is surely nodding his head as he > reads > > this - unfortunately his hands err fingers tied at 50 posts. I called > them > > critics - but no, I should have called them cultists - as you rightly > point > > out. These cultists - Judy, Share, feste, Steve better watch out. MJ will > > come out with a fury that will be devastating. 30 anti-TM posts in the > > first day, with the same consistent cluelessness, retardedness that will > > have them breaking in to a cold sweat, which will be followed by 20 more > > random clueless, retarded responses to these cultists in the second day. > > You & I, I am sure will then step up to keep his message alive. Thanks > > Barry. > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 10:17 PM, turquoiseb <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > > ** > > > > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
