From: "[email protected] [FairfieldLife]" <[email protected]>
Yes, indeed. In the sociological classification of religious movements, a cult is a religious group with socially deviant or novel beliefs and practices. Well the TMO has novel beliefs and practices so I would happily call it a cult. But that label has no negative connotation for me. It's just a useful category. The problem is that "cult" has, over time, acquired negative meanings such as coercion and social withdrawal. Now ask yourself: out of all the people who have learned TM and then decided the technique was not for them, how many have come under pressure from the TMO to get back with the program if they knew what was good for them? Zero! That's how many. Contrast that with the experience of those who've turned against Scientology and have started to talk publically against Dianetics. So Scientology is a cult in the full negative sense. Although I suspect that the TMO has cult-like behaviour (in a negative sense) for those who penetrate the upper echelons after becoming teachers or administrators, for those who are simply meditators, TM is not - repeat not - a sinister cult. While I think your analysis is more balanced than many, s3raphita, I should point out that "pressure to keep cult members from leaving the cult" is FAR from the most defining characteristic of a cult, and in fact is more the exception than the rule. For example, in the TM organization cult, people are theoretically free to leave any time they want. Theoretically. Anyone who had been around for some time, however, knew that they would be giving up their friends and family by doing so, because those people would in all likelihood write them off and treat them as untouchable heretics after they left. The larger truth is that the more inbred and divorced from reality the cult is, the more likely it is to want any member who starts to display doubts about the group TO leave, so that they don't "infect" others with their ideas. I would suggest that the defining characteristics of a cult are more like those proposed by Rick Ross (below). I may not like the guy, but I think his list is pretty fair, and covers the full range of modern cultic groups -- from religious/spiritual cults to corporate/political cults. How many of the following criteria do you believe do NOT apply to someone who has chosen to live within one of the inner circles of the TM organization cult -- Fairfield, MUM, Vlodrop, or one of their other locations? Ten warning signs of a potentially unsafe group/leader of a potentially unsafe group/leader. 1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability. 2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry. 3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement. 4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions. 5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil. 6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances. 7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader. 8. Followers feel they can never be "good enough". 9. The group/leader is always right. 10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible. Ten warning signs regarding people involved with a potentially unsafe group/leader regarding people involved in/with a potentially unsafe group/leader regarding people involved in/with a potentially unsafe group/leader. 1. Extreme obsessiveness regarding the group/leader resulting in the exclusion of almost every practical consideration. 2. Individual identity, the group, the leader and/or God as distinct and separate categories of existence become increasingly blurred. Instead, in the follower's mind these identities become substantially and increasingly fused--as that person's involvement with the group/leader continues and deepens. 3. Whenever the group/leader is criticized or questioned it is characterized as "persecution". 4. Uncharacteristically stilted and seemingly programmed conversation and mannerisms, cloning of the group/leader in personal behavior. 5. Dependency upon the group/leader for problem solving, solutions, and definitions without meaningful reflective thought. A seeming inability to think independently or analyze situations without group/leader involvement. 6. Hyperactivity centered on the group/leader agenda, which seems to supercede any personal goals or individual interests. 7. A dramatic loss of spontaneity and sense of humor. 8. Increasing isolation from family and old friends unless they demonstrate an interest in the group/leader. 9. Anything the group/leader does can be justified no matter how harsh or harmful. 10. Former followers are at best-considered negative or worse evil and under bad influences. They can not be trusted and personal contact is avoided.
