[FairfieldLife] Re: is TM a cult?
I been out of town giving a paper on the Fairfield meditating community at an academic conference for a group that studies groups like ours here in Fairfield and am now catching up on these recent threads… good considerations. Thanks, this one offered here is really an interesting site for the overview it gives: http://www.religioustolerance.org/cults.htm http://www.religioustolerance.org/cults.htm ..a ™ sect for some practitioners, a new religious movement with other practitioners and then seen as a cult for others playing the pejorative card. ... In 1998-MAY, the Associated Press decided to avoid the use of the word "cult" because it had acquired a pejorative aura; they have since given preference to the term "sect." I love the quip from Emily.mae: that those in the TM village believe TM is the best not clear that ultimately, "separation of church and state" would be smiled upon by the TM structure. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : And another correction: In this case, it would seem that the TM org and/or MMY followers would qualify as part of a "religious movement" with Melton. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : About J. Gordon Melton's work as a cult apologist (according to this article): http://www.apologeticsindex.org/m06.html http://www.apologeticsindex.org/m06.html His views are that organizations such as Scientology, Children of God, Jonestown, etc. are not cults but rather "new religious movements" or in another interview I read with him personally "minority religions." In this case, it would seem that the TM org would qualify as a "religion" with Melton. As an aside, I think this is the basis for how the chanting pundits are allowed into the U.S.—under the category of "religious workers." FFL had a long discussion on this some time ago (when the the pundits organized a protest). ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Correction: The definition David Orme-Johnson has adopted from J. Gordon Melton (his own personal definition). ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : From your link: The word “cult” has many meanings, but in recent decades it has often been used with a negative connotation to point out a group that others would like to see removed from society. This use of the term is expressed by the prominent religious scholar J. Gordon Melton: "My working definition of a cult is a group that you don't like, and I say that somewhat facetiously, but at the same time, in fact, that is my working definition of a cult. It is a group that somebody doesn't like. It is a derogatory term, and I have never seen it redeemed from the derogatory connotations that it picked up in the sociological literature in the 1930s." (1). Yes, in society today, mostly a pejorative term. The dictionary defines the word more objectively and comprehensively. Using David Orme-Johnson's definition of "It is a group that somebody doesn't like," the TM org could easily be called a cult by those who don't like it! So could so many other things, no? That definition is his own personal definition and not one supported by the dictionary. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/IndividualEffects/IsTMaCult/index.cfm http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/IndividualEffects/IsTMaCult/index.cfm
[FairfieldLife] Re: is TM a cult?
When I was on the ayurveda table and getting a basti for the first time the idea" is this a cult" came to mind.
[FairfieldLife] Re: is TM a cult?
And another correction: In this case, it would seem that the TM org and/or MMY followers would qualify as part of a "religious movement" with Melton. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : About J. Gordon Melton's work as a cult apologist (according to this article): http://www.apologeticsindex.org/m06.html http://www.apologeticsindex.org/m06.html His views are that organizations such as Scientology, Children of God, Jonestown, etc. are not cults but rather "new religious movements" or in another interview I read with him personally "minority religions." In this case, it would seem that the TM org would qualify as a "religion" with Melton. As an aside, I think this is the basis for how the chanting pundits are allowed into the U.S.—under the category of "religious workers." FFL had a long discussion on this some time ago (when the the pundits organized a protest). ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Correction: The definition David Orme-Johnson has adopted from J. Gordon Melton (his own personal definition). ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : From your link: The word “cult” has many meanings, but in recent decades it has often been used with a negative connotation to point out a group that others would like to see removed from society. This use of the term is expressed by the prominent religious scholar J. Gordon Melton: "My working definition of a cult is a group that you don't like, and I say that somewhat facetiously, but at the same time, in fact, that is my working definition of a cult. It is a group that somebody doesn't like. It is a derogatory term, and I have never seen it redeemed from the derogatory connotations that it picked up in the sociological literature in the 1930s." (1). Yes, in society today, mostly a pejorative term. The dictionary defines the word more objectively and comprehensively. Using David Orme-Johnson's definition of "It is a group that somebody doesn't like," the TM org could easily be called a cult by those who don't like it! So could so many other things, no? That definition is his own personal definition and not one supported by the dictionary. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/IndividualEffects/IsTMaCult/index.cfm http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/IndividualEffects/IsTMaCult/index.cfm
[FairfieldLife] Re: is TM a cult?
About J. Gordon Melton's work as a cult apologist (according to this article): http://www.apologeticsindex.org/m06.html http://www.apologeticsindex.org/m06.html His views are that organizations such as Scientology, Children of God, Jonestown, etc. are not cults but rather "new religious movements" or in another interview I read with him personally "minority religions." In this case, it would seem that the TM org would qualify as a "religion" with Melton. As an aside, I think this is the basis for how the chanting pundits are allowed into the U.S.—under the category of "religious workers." FFL had a long discussion on this some time ago (when the the pundits organized a protest). ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Correction: The definition David Orme-Johnson has adopted from J. Gordon Melton (his own personal definition). ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : From your link: The word “cult” has many meanings, but in recent decades it has often been used with a negative connotation to point out a group that others would like to see removed from society. This use of the term is expressed by the prominent religious scholar J. Gordon Melton: "My working definition of a cult is a group that you don't like, and I say that somewhat facetiously, but at the same time, in fact, that is my working definition of a cult. It is a group that somebody doesn't like. It is a derogatory term, and I have never seen it redeemed from the derogatory connotations that it picked up in the sociological literature in the 1930s." (1). Yes, in society today, mostly a pejorative term. The dictionary defines the word more objectively and comprehensively. Using David Orme-Johnson's definition of "It is a group that somebody doesn't like," the TM org could easily be called a cult by those who don't like it! So could so many other things, no? That definition is his own personal definition and not one supported by the dictionary. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/IndividualEffects/IsTMaCult/index.cfm http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/IndividualEffects/IsTMaCult/index.cfm
[FairfieldLife] Re: is TM a cult?
Correction: The definition David Orme-Johnson has adopted from J. Gordon Melton (his own personal definition). ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : From your link: The word “cult” has many meanings, but in recent decades it has often been used with a negative connotation to point out a group that others would like to see removed from society. This use of the term is expressed by the prominent religious scholar J. Gordon Melton: "My working definition of a cult is a group that you don't like, and I say that somewhat facetiously, but at the same time, in fact, that is my working definition of a cult. It is a group that somebody doesn't like. It is a derogatory term, and I have never seen it redeemed from the derogatory connotations that it picked up in the sociological literature in the 1930s." (1). Yes, in society today, mostly a pejorative term. The dictionary defines the word more objectively and comprehensively. Using David Orme-Johnson's definition of "It is a group that somebody doesn't like," the TM org could easily be called a cult by those who don't like it! So could so many other things, no? That definition is his own personal definition and not one supported by the dictionary. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/IndividualEffects/IsTMaCult/index.cfm http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/IndividualEffects/IsTMaCult/index.cfm
[FairfieldLife] Re: is TM a cult?
From your link: The word “cult” has many meanings, but in recent decades it has often been used with a negative connotation to point out a group that others would like to see removed from society. This use of the term is expressed by the prominent religious scholar J. Gordon Melton: "My working definition of a cult is a group that you don't like, and I say that somewhat facetiously, but at the same time, in fact, that is my working definition of a cult. It is a group that somebody doesn't like. It is a derogatory term, and I have never seen it redeemed from the derogatory connotations that it picked up in the sociological literature in the 1930s." (1). Yes, in society today, mostly a pejorative term. The dictionary defines the word more objectively and comprehensively. Using David Orme-Johnson's definition of "It is a group that somebody doesn't like," the TM org could easily be called a cult by those who don't like it! So could so many other things, no? That definition is his own personal definition and not one supported by the dictionary. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/IndividualEffects/IsTMaCult/index.cfm http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/IndividualEffects/IsTMaCult/index.cfm
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: IS TM a Cult?
On 5/24/2014 10:34 AM, salyavin808 wrote: Clever how he frames the question asking if the TM programme is a cult and not the organisation. > Most experts agree that a definition of "cult" includes coercion. Were you forced in any way to participate in the TM Programme? --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: IS TM a Cult?
Clever how he frames the question asking if the TM programme is a cult and not the organisation. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Is TM a Cult? - David W. Orme-Johnson, Ph.D. http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/IndividualEffects/IsTMaCult/index.cfm Is TM a Cult? - David W. Orme-Johnson, Ph.D. http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/IndividualEffects/IsTMaCult/index.cfm Individual Effects Issue: Is the Transcendental Meditation Program a cult? Summary: View on www.truthabouttm.org http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/IndividualEffects/IsTMaCult/index.cfm Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Is TM a Cult?
not anymore On Fri, 2/21/14, Richard J. Williams wrote: Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Is TM a Cult? To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, February 21, 2014, 3:23 AM On 2/20/2014 9:01 PM, Michael Jackson wrote: > Thank you dad, for offering to orchestrate my thinking for me - "as is > our tradition" of mind control. > So, the TMO is in control of your mind?
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Is TM a Cult?
On 2/20/2014 9:01 PM, Michael Jackson wrote: > Thank you dad, for offering to orchestrate my thinking for me - "as is > our tradition" of mind control. > So, the TMO is in control of your mind?
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Is TM a Cult?
Thank you dad, for offering to orchestrate my thinking for me - "as is our tradition" of mind control. On Fri, 2/21/14, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Is TM a Cult? To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, February 21, 2014, 1:59 AM mjackson74 writes: Against . Son, I still feel you are suffering from wrong thinking around the TM movement. There are a lot of good people yet in TM doing quite a lot of good things for people. The transcendental meditative experience is so innate that TM is a long ways from over and there is actually great hope in that. It is very much Natural Law as It just comes up again and again. It is essentially natural. There is great hope in that. There is a physics of negative and positive to everything but what does being a pessimist give you? Negative histories are a luxury, I don't have time for them. This is revolution, "Don't find fault. Find a remedy." - Henry Ford “Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, today is a gift of God [the Unified Field], which is why we call it the present.” -Bil Keane “You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope someday you'll join us. And the world will live as one.” -John Lennon, and -Buck in the Dome Dear FFL I recently thought to share this with you; So, I have been in meetings in this last week with both Drs. John Hagelin and Bevan Morris: Instruction of new TM meditators is way up and growing consistently despite any bad past. As we were long ago told, '. .the past is a lesser state of evolution', this seems could be true. We are productively moving forward. TM in nature now as a corporate organizational movement sect incorporating meditation, modern science and vedic science and now in its post-charismatic founder phase is moving manifestly forward again in good order.It is going well again. Will you come with us and move forward with us? So, are you with us or are you against us in this? Are you with us or are you against us moving forward? It is time to move forward or at the least be 'silent' and get out of the way if you can't actively be helpful. There is a great need for teachers of meditation right now in many places. The news is quite good around TM and spiritual regeneration using meditation, modern science and vedic science together in the world.Yours in Revolution, -U.S. Buck in the Dome One can conceive of gradients in spectrum of cults and sects. Paired data-points on Cartesian axis: Like on one scale have it run from a low end of immoral-sociopathic-NPDisordered then to highly transformative moral and spiritual at the top of that scale. That could work for sorting individuals or movement organizations. On the other, 2nd axis have a scale of types of teachers or their organizations that run from just authors or lecturers, to sadhus, swamis, gurus, sat gurus, jagad gurus, saints and avatars at the top end. X-Y axis. Draw it and then place your person organization cult or sect vs the type of teacher or saint. . as a dot placed on the graph. Knapp for instance, being in the news again here on FFL may appear to be down at the low of each scale on the graph. That placement can change according to time and event horizon too. Even can work to plot dynamic life-cycle of someone's spiritual teaching or organization through time. Play with it. -Buck DoctorDA writes: As far as the long time habit, and progression, of expanding one's awareness, through meditation, it has nothing to do with achieving signposts, or escaping this world, or acting like either an asshole or a saint. It is simply a means of discovering the full range of human experience, and integrating it. No robes or sexual exploitation, required. Graphing Data-pairs, Charismatics and Spiritual movementshttp://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370787 As Charisma: "Weber, in an oft quoted passage, defined charisma as a certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which [s/]he is set apart from ordinary [people] and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These are such as are not accessible to the ordinary person, but are regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated as a leader." 1 Okay, no charismatic leader no cult. It is just an organization. So by more scholarly definition evidently your feelings around the TM movement is that TM never quite rose up to be a cult, but was/is a sect. No charismatic leader, no cult. It evidently was a movement tha
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Is TM a Cult?
On 2/18/2014 8:23 PM, Michael Jackson wrote: > Yep that's a fine description of what the TMO does these days > Do you have any evidence that the TMO is holding any pundit boys or students against their will?
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Is TM a Cult?
Yep that's a fine description of what the TMO does these days On Wed, 2/19/14, Richard J. Williams wrote: Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Is TM a Cult? To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2014, 2:09 AM On 2/18/2014 7:55 PM, Michael Jackson wrote: > Against - a cult by any other name is still a cult > Maybe it's time to review the definition of a cult: A cult is a small group of people forming a new religious movement who use mind control, coercion, or brainwashing techniques in order to cultivate certain behaviors in members. So how exactly, were you brainwashed or coerced into working in a school bakery? Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Is TM a Cult?
On 2/18/2014 7:55 PM, Michael Jackson wrote: > Against - a cult by any other name is still a cult > Maybe it's time to review the definition of a cult: A cult is a small group of people forming a new religious movement who use mind control, coercion, or brainwashing techniques in order to cultivate certain behaviors in members. So how exactly, were you brainwashed or coerced into working in a school bakery? Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Is TM a Cult?
Against - a cult by any other name is still a cult On Wed, 2/19/14, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Is TM a Cult? To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2014, 1:18 AM Dear FFL I recently thought to share this with you; So, I have been in meetings in this last week with both Drs. John Hagelin and Bevan Morris: Instruction of new TM meditators is way up and growing consistently despite any bad past. As we were long ago told, '. .the past is a lesser state of evolution', this seems could be true. We are productively moving forward. TM in nature now as a corporate organizational movement sect incorporating meditation, modern science and vedic science and now in its post-charismatic founder phase is moving manifestly forward again in good order. It is going well again. Will you come with us and move forward with us? So, are you with us or are you against us in this? Are you with us or are you against us moving forward? It is time to move forward or at the least be 'silent' and get out of the way if you can't actively be helpful. There is a great need for teachers of meditation right now in many places. The news is quite good around TM and spiritual regeneration using meditation, modern science and vedic science together in the world. Yours in Revolution, -U.S. Buck in the Dome One can conceive of gradients in spectrum of cults and sects. Paired data-points on Cartesian axis: Like on one scale have it run from a low end of immoral-sociopathic-NPDisordered then to highly transformative moral and spiritual at the top of that scale. That could work for sorting individuals or movement organizations. On the other, 2nd axis have a scale of types of teachers or their organizations that run from just authors or lecturers, to sadhus, swamis, gurus, sat gurus, jagad gurus, saints and avatars at the top end. X-Y axis. Draw it and then place your person organization cult or sect vs the type of teacher or saint. . as a dot placed on the graph. Knapp for instance, being in the news again here on FFL may appear to be down at the low of each scale on the graph. That placement can change according to time and event horizon too. Even can work to plot dynamic life-cycle of someone's spiritual teaching or organization through time. Play with it. -Buck DoctorDA writes: As far as the long time habit, and progression, of expanding one's awareness, through meditation, it has nothing to do with achieving signposts, or escaping this world, or acting like either an asshole or a saint. It is simply a means of discovering the full range of human experience, and integrating it. No robes or sexual exploitation, required. Graphing Data-pairs, Charismatics and Spiritual movementshttp://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370787 As Charisma: "Weber, in an oft quoted passage, defined charisma as a certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which [s/]he is set apart from ordinary [people] and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These are such as are not accessible to the ordinary person, but are regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated as a leader." 1 Okay, no charismatic leader no cult. It is just an organization. So by more scholarly definition evidently your feelings around the TM movement is that TM never quite rose up to be a cult, but was/is a sect. No charismatic leader, no cult. It evidently was a movement that you were part of,-Buck See FFL Post 370565 for a discussion of the context of charisma, cults and sects:https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 salyavin808 writes:As far as I'm concerned it never had a charismatic leader. Marshy's woolly, illogical and ignorant lecturing style always left me cold. Corporation is a good word for it though. As it sells both a product and a belief system that makes that product seem a lot more valuable than it actually is. Marshy's genius is the lectures he gave that conned everyone into thinking all the unified field, sci, land of the ved bollocks was an ultimate truth for all mankind and that he was its natural voice. awoelflebater writes:I'd have to agree with you about MMY not being the most riveting of speakers. He was a snooze for me but he certainly, at least, seemed like a pleasant enough guy but hardly profound, hardly magnetic and definitely not charismatic. TM, more accurately now is a [religious spiritual] sect in its post-charismatic leader phase. As an organizat
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Is TM a Cult?
Against On Wed, 2/19/14, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Is TM a Cult? To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2014, 1:18 AM Dear FFL I recently thought to share this with you; So, I have been in meetings in this last week with both Drs. John Hagelin and Bevan Morris: Instruction of new TM meditators is way up and growing consistently despite any bad past. As we were long ago told, '. .the past is a lesser state of evolution', this seems could be true. We are productively moving forward. TM in nature now as a corporate organizational movement sect incorporating meditation, modern science and vedic science and now in its post-charismatic founder phase is moving manifestly forward again in good order. It is going well again. Will you come with us and move forward with us? So, are you with us or are you against us in this? Are you with us or are you against us moving forward? It is time to move forward or at the least be 'silent' and get out of the way if you can't actively be helpful. There is a great need for teachers of meditation right now in many places. The news is quite good around TM and spiritual regeneration using meditation, modern science and vedic science together in the world. Yours in Revolution, -U.S. Buck in the Dome One can conceive of gradients in spectrum of cults and sects. Paired data-points on Cartesian axis: Like on one scale have it run from a low end of immoral-sociopathic-NPDisordered then to highly transformative moral and spiritual at the top of that scale. That could work for sorting individuals or movement organizations. On the other, 2nd axis have a scale of types of teachers or their organizations that run from just authors or lecturers, to sadhus, swamis, gurus, sat gurus, jagad gurus, saints and avatars at the top end. X-Y axis. Draw it and then place your person organization cult or sect vs the type of teacher or saint. . as a dot placed on the graph. Knapp for instance, being in the news again here on FFL may appear to be down at the low of each scale on the graph. That placement can change according to time and event horizon too. Even can work to plot dynamic life-cycle of someone's spiritual teaching or organization through time. Play with it. -Buck DoctorDA writes: As far as the long time habit, and progression, of expanding one's awareness, through meditation, it has nothing to do with achieving signposts, or escaping this world, or acting like either an asshole or a saint. It is simply a means of discovering the full range of human experience, and integrating it. No robes or sexual exploitation, required. Graphing Data-pairs, Charismatics and Spiritual movementshttp://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370787 As Charisma: "Weber, in an oft quoted passage, defined charisma as a certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which [s/]he is set apart from ordinary [people] and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These are such as are not accessible to the ordinary person, but are regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated as a leader." 1 Okay, no charismatic leader no cult. It is just an organization. So by more scholarly definition evidently your feelings around the TM movement is that TM never quite rose up to be a cult, but was/is a sect. No charismatic leader, no cult. It evidently was a movement that you were part of,-Buck See FFL Post 370565 for a discussion of the context of charisma, cults and sects:https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 salyavin808 writes:As far as I'm concerned it never had a charismatic leader. Marshy's woolly, illogical and ignorant lecturing style always left me cold. Corporation is a good word for it though. As it sells both a product and a belief system that makes that product seem a lot more valuable than it actually is. Marshy's genius is the lectures he gave that conned everyone into thinking all the unified field, sci, land of the ved bollocks was an ultimate truth for all mankind and that he was its natural voice. awoelflebater writes:I'd have to agree with you about MMY not being the most riveting of speakers. He was a snooze for me but he certainly, at least, seemed like a pleasant enough guy but hardly profound, hardly magnetic and definitely not charismatic. TM, more accurately now is a [religious spiritual] sect in its post-charismatic leader phase. As an organizational structure it is a corporation. F
[FairfieldLife] RE: Is TM a Cult?
One can conceive of gradients in spectrum of cults and sects. Paired data-points on Cartesian axis: Like on one scale have it run from a low end of immoral-sociopathic-NPDisordered then to highly transformative moral and spiritual at the top of that scale. That could work for sorting individuals or movement organizations. On the other, 2nd axis have a scale of types of teachers or their organizations that run from just authors or lecturers, to sadhus, swamis, gurus, sat gurus, jagad gurus, saints and avatars at the top end. X-Y axis. Draw it and then place your person organization cult or sect vs the type of teacher or saint. . as a dot placed on the graph. Knapp for instance, being in the news again here on FFL may appear to be down at the low of each scale on the graph. That placement can change according to time and event horizon too. Even can work to plot dynamic life-cycle of someone's spiritual teaching or organization through time. Play with it. -Buck DoctorDA writes: As far as the long time habit, and progression, of expanding one's awareness, through meditation, it has nothing to do with achieving signposts, or escaping this world, or acting like either an asshole or a saint. It is simply a means of discovering the full range of human experience, and integrating it. No robes or sexual exploitation, required. Graphing Data-pairs, Charismatics and Spiritual movements http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370787 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370787 As Charisma: "Weber, in an oft quoted passage, defined charisma as a certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which [s/]he is set apart from ordinary [people] and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These are such as are not accessible to the ordinary person, but are regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated as a leader." 1 Okay, no charismatic leader no cult. It is just an organization. So by more scholarly definition evidently your feelings around the TM movement is that TM never quite rose up to be a cult, but was/is a sect. No charismatic leader, no cult. It evidently was a movement that you were part of, -Buck See FFL Post 370565 for a discussion of the context of charisma, cults and sects: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 salyavin808 writes: As far as I'm concerned it never had a charismatic leader. Marshy's woolly, illogical and ignorant lecturing style always left me cold. Corporation is a good word for it though. As it sells both a product and a belief system that makes that product seem a lot more valuable than it actually is. Marshy's genius is the lectures he gave that conned everyone into thinking all the unified field, sci, land of the ved bollocks was an ultimate truth for all mankind and that he was its natural voice. awoelflebater writes: I'd have to agree with you about MMY not being the most riveting of speakers. He was a snooze for me but he certainly, at least, seemed like a pleasant enough guy but hardly profound, hardly magnetic and definitely not charismatic. TM, more accurately now is a [religious spiritual] sect in its post-charismatic leader phase. As an organizational structure it is a corporation. Fairly, TM is no longer a cult with a charismatic leader. -Buck salyavin808 writes: Potayto, potahto. No, most of what you are offering as definition technically is about sects. Cults form around charismatic persons. Sects form out of specialness, exception or differentiation as in different denominations of protestantism or catholicism or denominations or types of meditation. Those are sects. Sects are around fragmentation and cults are around persons as charismatics. For instance, If someone really 'charismatic', like earlier defined by Weber, like a Robin were to show up in Fairfield, Iowa and take off a bunch of meditators as his followers by force and power of personality then we're talking cult, as a sect. That is different than the different sects of people out teaching meditations and some others out there teaching other things they've learned. -Buck in the Dome Salyavin808 writes: You don't need any leader to be a cult. All you need is a belief system that sets you apart from the norm. Om, policy and movement within TM now is based much more on science, merit and efficacy than old ways promoted around Totakacharya-like devotion, fealty and ideology. But that old movement way of fealty test and ideology test is fast dying away of a necessity and become cultural memory of a past. Heck TM does not even have a charismatic leader or leadership anymore. WE
[FairfieldLife] RE: Is TM a Cult?
As Charisma: "Weber, in an oft quoted passage, defined charisma as a certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which [s/]he is set apart from ordinary [people] and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These are such as are not accessible to the ordinary person, but are regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated as a leader." 1 Okay, no charismatic leader no cult. It is just an organization. So by more scholarly definition evidently your feelings around the TM movement is that TM never quite rose up to be a cult, but was/is a sect. No charismatic leader, no cult. It evidently was a movement that you were part of, -Buck See FFL Post 370565 for a discussion of the context of charisma, cults and sects: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 salyavin808 writes: As far as I'm concerned it never had a charismatic leader. Marshy's woolly, illogical and ignorant lecturing style always left me cold. Corporation is a good word for it though. As it sells both a product and a belief system that makes that product seem a lot more valuable than it actually is. Marshy's genius is the lectures he gave that conned everyone into thinking all the unified field, sci, land of the ved bollocks was an ultimate truth for all mankind and that he was its natural voice. awoelflebater writes: I'd have to agree with you about MMY not being the most riveting of speakers. He was a snooze for me but he certainly, at least, seemed like a pleasant enough guy but hardly profound, hardly magnetic and definitely not charismatic. TM, more accurately now is a [religious spiritual] sect in its post-charismatic leader phase. As an organizational structure it is a corporation. Fairly, TM is no longer a cult with a charismatic leader. -Buck salyavin808 writes: Potayto, potahto. No, most of what you are offering as definition technically is about sects. Cults form around charismatic persons. Sects form out of specialness, exception or differentiation as in different denominations of protestantism or catholicism or denominations or types of meditation. Those are sects. Sects are around fragmentation and cults are around persons as charismatics. For instance, If someone really 'charismatic', like earlier defined by Weber, like a Robin were to show up in Fairfield, Iowa and take off a bunch of meditators as his followers by force and power of personality then we're talking cult, as a sect. That is different than the different sects of people out teaching meditations and some others out there teaching other things they've learned. -Buck in the Dome Salyavin808 writes: You don't need any leader to be a cult. All you need is a belief system that sets you apart from the norm. Om, policy and movement within TM now is based much more on science, merit and efficacy than old ways promoted around Totakacharya-like devotion, fealty and ideology. But that old movement way of fealty test and ideology test is fast dying away of a necessity and become cultural memory of a past. Heck TM does not even have a charismatic leader or leadership anymore. WE got administrators. It is kind of hard to have a cult without a charismatic leader that you could point to. That is defining of cults. Please see FFL post# 370565 . No, people become meditators and then freely participating in this organization because they like meditation and appreciate all the good that the transcendent meditative state provides everyone individually and collectively. Our meditating organization is here to facilitate that good. That facilitating in our case now is the work of good in progress by our new incorporation as meditators. Our corporation as it always has been is certainly about affecting a positive revolutionary radical change in all of society for everybody. Most of us in TM are pretty clear about that. Are you with us or against us in this? -U.S. Buck in the Dome MJ, See Weber's comments on 'cult' in Melton's Intro to The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements: http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 MJ, Your thesis around TM being a 'cult' has a problem in that we in TM no longer have a charismatic leader of TM. We are either administrators or meditators in TM and anyone in TM is enfranchised by a little of both under Maharishi's Absolute Theories of Management and Government. You clearly are full of your own personal BS and have your ax grinding about something. I feels a sorrow for thee in thy lack of peace around this. -Buck “Which would you rather experience: living
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Is TM a Cult?
On 2/16/2014 7:42 AM, TurquoiseBee wrote: Let's take one of the earliest teachings: "TM is all you need." > Is there a better way? One of the earliest teachings of MMY was "TM is what works." In TM, you get only one single bija mantra for meditation - that's all you need to realize your full mental potential - you are only going to get as much enlightenment as you are going to get. All you can do after learning how to meditate is to add some fertilizer. You plant the seed then watch it grow. Just go in and meditate and then come out and radiate. It's that simple. Everyone needs a house and some music to listen to, and maybe some vitamins and we all look up at the stars and at the moon. Who is to say that your snake-oil is better? Go figure.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Is TM a Cult?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Okay, no charismatic leader no cult. It is just an organization. So by more scholarly definition evidently your feelings around the TM movement is that TM never quite rose up to be a cult, but was/is a sect. No charismatic leader, no cult. It evidently was a movement that you were part of, -Buck You'd have to read my post yesterday about how I feel about cults or no cults. I don't care if something is a cult, that doesn't automatically make it bad or good, positive or negative. I don't really think of the TM Movement a cult. But, like I said, I've been in a cult, gotten some good stuff out of it and moved on. Cults aren't fatal, they're just another life experience. Similarly, I don't care if TM is a religion, that word doesn't scare me either. It is what it is. If some want to think of it as a religion then go for it, if they want to think of it as a country club they can do that too, whatever floats their proverbial boat. salyavin808 writes: As far as I'm concerned it never had a charismatic leader. Marshy's woolly, illogical and ignorant lecturing style always left me cold. Corporation is a good word for it though. As it sells both a product and a belief system that makes that product seem a lot more valuable than it actually is. Marshy's genius is the lectures he gave that conned everyone into thinking all the unified field, sci, land of the ved bollocks was an ultimate truth for all mankind and that he was its natural voice. awoelflebater writes: I'd have to agree with you about MMY not being the most riveting of speakers. He was a snooze for me but he certainly, at least, seemed like a pleasant enough guy but hardly profound, hardly magnetic and definitely not charismatic. TM, more accurately now is a [religious spiritual] sect in its post-charismatic leader phase. As an organizational structure it is a corporation. Fairly, TM is no longer a cult with a charismatic leader. -Buck salyavin808 writes: Potayto, potahto. No, most of what you are offering as definition technically is about sects. Cults form around charismatic persons. Sects form out of specialness, exception or differentiation as in different denominations of protestantism or catholicism or denominations or types of meditation. Those are sects. Sects are around fragmentation and cults are around persons as charismatics. For instance, If someone really 'charismatic', like earlier defined by Weber, like a Robin were to show up in Fairfield, Iowa and take off a bunch of meditators as his followers by force and power of personality then we're talking cult, as a sect. That is different than the different sects of people out teaching meditations and some others out there teaching other things they've learned. -Buck in the Dome Salyavin808 writes: You don't need any leader to be a cult. All you need is a belief system that sets you apart from the norm. Om, policy and movement within TM now is based much more on science, merit and efficacy than old ways promoted around Totakacharya-like devotion, fealty and ideology. But that old movement way of fealty test and ideology test is fast dying away of a necessity and become cultural memory of a past. Heck TM does not even have a charismatic leader or leadership anymore. WE got administrators. It is kind of hard to have a cult without a charismatic leader that you could point to. That is defining of cults. Please see FFL post# 370565 . No, people become meditators and then freely participating in this organization because they like meditation and appreciate all the good that the transcendent meditative state provides everyone individually and collectively. Our meditating organization is here to facilitate that good. That facilitating in our case now is the work of good in progress by our new incorporation as meditators. Our corporation as it always has been is certainly about affecting a positive revolutionary radical change in all of society for everybody. Most of us in TM are pretty clear about that. Are you with us or against us in this? -U.S. Buck in the Dome MJ, See Weber's comments on 'cult' in Melton's Intro to The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements: http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 MJ, Your thesis around TM being a 'cult' has a problem in that we in TM no longer have a charismatic leader of TM. We are either administrators or meditators in TM and anyone in TM is enfranchised by a little of both under Maharishi's Absolute Theories of Management and Government. You clearly are full of your own personal BS and have your ax grinding about something. I feels a sorrow for thee in thy lack of peace around this. -Buck “Which would you rather experience: living the paradox or understanding it
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Is TM a Cult?
Actually, "contradiction" and "bait-and-switch" are both misnomers in this case. With a "classic" bait-and-switch, they won't sell you what they were promoting, but only something more expensive. And "TM is all you need" isn't contradicted by the fact that there are lots of other offerings. The issue is, "all you need" for what? In the case of most attending TM intro lectures, what they're looking for is a simple method for managing stress. For those few who are after enlightenment, the "all you need" assertion is merely incomplete--e.g., "TM is all you need to become enlightened (but it'll probably take a long time if you don't avail yourself of the various enhancements we offer)." I won't weigh in on the Subject question because...uh...Duh. Nothing to discuss. Done deal. What still amuses me are some of the direct contradictions that the cultists managed to embrace, and in some cases still embrace. I'm talking about self-contradictory teachings, which almost every TMer and TM teacher managed to not notice *were* contradictory, often for years or decades. Let's take one of the earliest teachings: "TM is all you need." That was, after all, the way it was presented by Maharishi early in the game. He taught TM teachers to parrot this line, and they did -- faithfully -- in intro lectures. Often they gave these lectures while on their way to an ATR course they had to pay for, or to get a new technique that was the latest and thus the bestest thing. In other words, they *taught* that "TM is all you need," but were part of an organization that not only sold TM, it sold any number of "add-on" products, ranging from "advanced techniques" to the Sidhis to yagyas to ayur-vedic potions, to astrology (Jyotish) and even to houses. Some of the products this organization sold cost a million dollars. Classic "bait and switch," and yet people failed to even notice the contradiction. Go figure.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Is TM a Cult?
Well, possibly for some folks still within TM it could still be somewhat cult-like serving around the Prime Minister for instance. Life at that level seems still a little like being in the circle of taking your tea with a Joe Stalin. However, they are only a very small element in what is the much larger sect of the community of TM. The cultists are not really representative of the larger sect of TM anymore. They are a very small element as their own group inside the sect of what is the corporation of the TM community. -Buck "Weber, in an oft quoted passage, defined charisma as a certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which [s/]he is set apart from ordinary [people] and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These are such as are not accessible to the ordinary person, but are regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated as a leader." 1 See FFL post # 37565 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 Okay, no charismatic leader no cult. It is just an organization. So by more scholarly definition evidently your feelings around the TM movement is that TM never quite rose up to be a cult, but was/is a sect. No charismatic leader, no cult. It evidently was a movement that you were part of, -Buck salyavin808 writes: As far as I'm concerned it never had a charismatic leader. Marshy's woolly, illogical and ignorant lecturing style always left me cold. Corporation is a good word for it though. As it sells both a product and a belief system that makes that product seem a lot more valuable than it actually is. Marshy's genius is the lectures he gave that conned everyone into thinking all the unified field, sci, land of the ved bollocks was an ultimate truth for all mankind and that he was its natural voice. awoelflebater writes: I'd have to agree with you about MMY not being the most riveting of speakers. He was a snooze for me but he certainly, at least, seemed like a pleasant enough guy but hardly profound, hardly magnetic and definitely not charismatic. TM, more accurately now is a [religious spiritual] sect in its post-charismatic leader phase. As an organizational structure it is a corporation. Fairly, TM is no longer a cult with a charismatic leader. -Buck salyavin808 writes: Potayto, potahto. No, most of what you are offering as definition technically is about sects. Cults form around charismatic persons. Sects form out of specialness, exception or differentiation as in different denominations of protestantism or catholicism or denominations or types of meditation. Those are sects. Sects are around fragmentation and cults are around persons as charismatics. For instance, If someone really 'charismatic', like earlier defined by Weber, like a Robin were to show up in Fairfield, Iowa and take off a bunch of meditators as his followers by force and power of personality then we're talking cult, as a sect. That is different than the different sects of people out teaching meditations and some others out there teaching other things they've learned. -Buck in the Dome Salyavin808 writes: You don't need any leader to be a cult. All you need is a belief system that sets you apart from the norm. Om, policy and movement within TM now is based much more on science, merit and efficacy than old ways promoted around Totakacharya-like devotion, fealty and ideology. But that old movement way of fealty test and ideology test is fast dying away of a necessity and become cultural memory of a past. Heck TM does not even have a charismatic leader or leadership anymore. WE got administrators. It is kind of hard to have a cult without a charismatic leader that you could point to. That is defining of cults. Please see FFL post# 370565 . No, people become meditators and then freely participating in this organization because they like meditation and appreciate all the good that the transcendent meditative state provides everyone individually and collectively. Our meditating organization is here to facilitate that good. That facilitating in our case now is the work of good in progress by our new incorporation as meditators. Our corporation as it always has been is certainly about affecting a positive revolutionary radical change in all of society for everybody. Most of us in TM are pretty clear about that. Are you with us or against us in this? -U.S. Buck in the Dome MJ, See Weber's comments on 'cult' in Melton's Intro to The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements: http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 MJ, Your thesis around TM
[FairfieldLife] RE: Is TM a Cult?
Okay, no charismatic leader no cult. It is just an organization. So by more scholarly definition evidently your feelings around the TM movement is that TM never quite rose up to be a cult, but was/is a sect. No charismatic leader, no cult. It evidently was a movement that you were part of, -Buck salyavin808 writes: As far as I'm concerned it never had a charismatic leader. Marshy's woolly, illogical and ignorant lecturing style always left me cold. Corporation is a good word for it though. As it sells both a product and a belief system that makes that product seem a lot more valuable than it actually is. Marshy's genius is the lectures he gave that conned everyone into thinking all the unified field, sci, land of the ved bollocks was an ultimate truth for all mankind and that he was its natural voice. awoelflebater writes: I'd have to agree with you about MMY not being the most riveting of speakers. He was a snooze for me but he certainly, at least, seemed like a pleasant enough guy but hardly profound, hardly magnetic and definitely not charismatic. TM, more accurately now is a [religious spiritual] sect in its post-charismatic leader phase. As an organizational structure it is a corporation. Fairly, TM is no longer a cult with a charismatic leader. -Buck salyavin808 writes: Potayto, potahto. No, most of what you are offering as definition technically is about sects. Cults form around charismatic persons. Sects form out of specialness, exception or differentiation as in different denominations of protestantism or catholicism or denominations or types of meditation. Those are sects. Sects are around fragmentation and cults are around persons as charismatics. For instance, If someone really 'charismatic', like earlier defined by Weber, like a Robin were to show up in Fairfield, Iowa and take off a bunch of meditators as his followers by force and power of personality then we're talking cult, as a sect. That is different than the different sects of people out teaching meditations and some others out there teaching other things they've learned. -Buck in the Dome Salyavin808 writes: You don't need any leader to be a cult. All you need is a belief system that sets you apart from the norm. Om, policy and movement within TM now is based much more on science, merit and efficacy than old ways promoted around Totakacharya-like devotion, fealty and ideology. But that old movement way of fealty test and ideology test is fast dying away of a necessity and become cultural memory of a past. Heck TM does not even have a charismatic leader or leadership anymore. WE got administrators. It is kind of hard to have a cult without a charismatic leader that you could point to. That is defining of cults. Please see FFL post# 370565 . No, people become meditators and then freely participating in this organization because they like meditation and appreciate all the good that the transcendent meditative state provides everyone individually and collectively. Our meditating organization is here to facilitate that good. That facilitating in our case now is the work of good in progress by our new incorporation as meditators. Our corporation as it always has been is certainly about affecting a positive revolutionary radical change in all of society for everybody. Most of us in TM are pretty clear about that. Are you with us or against us in this? -U.S. Buck in the Dome MJ, See Weber's comments on 'cult' in Melton's Intro to The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements: http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 MJ, Your thesis around TM being a 'cult' has a problem in that we in TM no longer have a charismatic leader of TM. We are either administrators or meditators in TM and anyone in TM is enfranchised by a little of both under Maharishi's Absolute Theories of Management and Government. You clearly are full of your own personal BS and have your ax grinding about something. I feels a sorrow for thee in thy lack of peace around this. -Buck “Which would you rather experience: living the paradox or understanding it to your satisfaction?” Not either position is mutually exclusive, or that there is a third possibility of both. MJ writes: You need to read up on what cults actually are before you make such statements. Nope, not a cult. TM now as a corporation obviously is not a cult any more than any modern productive working corporation of employees is a 'cult'. TM and meditators as a community now are just like airline corporation employee pilots of an airline company. And they might go fly for their work wearing funny looking hats and coats too where they would go to work and pilot an airliner. And those lesser employees too as part of the corporate team who organize a flight as a gate
[FairfieldLife] RE: Is TM a Cult?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: As far as I'm concerned it never had a charismatic leader. Marshy's woolly, illogical and ignorant lecturing style always left me cold. Corporation is a good word for it though. As it sells both a product and a belief system that makes that product seem a lot more valuable than it actually is. Marshy's genius is the lectures he gave that conned everyone into thinking all the unified field, sci, land of the ved bollocks was an ultimate truth for all mankind and that he was its natural voice. I'd have to agree with you about MMY not being the most riveting of speakers. He was a snooze for me but he certainly, at least, seemed like a pleasant enough guy but hardly profound, hardly magnetic and definitely not charismatic. But I know many, many people who felt just the opposite. I guess that is one reason why I never felt the "call" to become a teacher. Although I believed meditation would facilitate my journey to better health and toward more advanced states of consciousness, listening to Maharishi lectures via hours of tape watching was hardly the highlight of my day during my attendance at MIU. Still, I don't revile the guy but then I didn't dedicate years and years to serving the Movement and giving up other opportunities in my life in exchange for pursuing some dream of enlightenment. And all the vastu, Raja and investment stuff happened long after I moved on to other things. Most people in the TMO thought/think that he could do no wrong and always spoke the ultimate truth. All they had to do was interpret and rationalise what he meant. What a great trick, I'm glad Tony Blair never thought of it. I heard so much rubbish when in the TMO I'd like to have my brain replaced so I could use those neurons for something useful. Funny, you make me laugh. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: TM, more accurately now is a [religious spiritual] sect in its post-charismatic leader phase. As an organizational structure it is a corporation. Fairly, TM is no longer a cult with a charismatic leader. salyavin808 writes: Potayto, potahto. No, most of what you are offering as definition technically is about sects. Cults form around charismatic persons. Sects form out of specialness, exception or differentiation as in different denominations of protestantism or catholicism or denominations or types of meditation. Those are sects. Sects are around fragmentation and cults are around persons as charismatics. For instance, If someone really 'charismatic', like earlier defined by Weber, like a Robin were to show up in Fairfield, Iowa and take off a bunch of meditators as his followers by force and power of personality then we're talking cult, as a sect. That is different than the different sects of people out teaching meditations and some others out there teaching other things they've learned. -Buck in the Dome Salyavin808 writes: You don't need any leader to be a cult. All you need is a belief system that sets you apart from the norm. Om, policy and movement within TM now is based much more on science, merit and efficacy than old ways promoted around Totakacharya-like devotion, fealty and ideology. But that old movement way of fealty test and ideology test is fast dying away of a necessity and become cultural memory of a past. Heck TM does not even have a charismatic leader or leadership anymore. WE got administrators. It is kind of hard to have a cult without a charismatic leader that you could point to. That is defining of cults. Please see FFL post# 370565 . No, people become meditators and then freely participating in this organization because they like meditation and appreciate all the good that the transcendent meditative state provides everyone individually and collectively. Our meditating organization is here to facilitate that good. That facilitating in our case now is the work of good in progress by our new incorporation as meditators. Our corporation as it always has been is certainly about affecting a positive revolutionary radical change in all of society for everybody. Most of us in TM are pretty clear about that. Are you with us or against us in this? -U.S. Buck in the Dome MJ, See Weber's comments on 'cult' in Melton's Intro to The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements: http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 MJ, Your thesis around TM being a 'cult' has a problem in that we in TM no longer have a charismatic leader of TM. We are either administrators or meditators in TM and anyone in TM is enfranchised by a little of both under Maharishi's Absolute Theories of Management and Government. You clearly are full of your own personal BS and have your ax grinding about something. I feels a sorrow for thee in thy lack of peace arou
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Is TM a Cult?
I won't weigh in on the Subject question because...uh...Duh. Nothing to discuss. Done deal. What still amuses me are some of the direct contradictions that the cultists managed to embrace, and in some cases still embrace. I'm talking about self-contradictory teachings, which almost every TMer and TM teacher managed to not notice *were* contradictory, often for years or decades. Let's take one of the earliest teachings: "TM is all you need." That was, after all, the way it was presented by Maharishi early in the game. He taught TM teachers to parrot this line, and they did -- faithfully -- in intro lectures. Often they gave these lectures while on their way to an ATR course they had to pay for, or to get a new technique that was the latest and thus the bestest thing. In other words, they *taught* that "TM is all you need," but were part of an organization that not only sold TM, it sold any number of "add-on" products, ranging from "advanced techniques" to the Sidhis to yagyas to ayur-vedic potions, to astrology (Jyotish) and even to houses. Some of the products this organization sold cost a million dollars. Classic "bait and switch," and yet people failed to even notice the contradiction. Go figure. From: "steve.sun...@yahoo.com" To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 2:13 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Is TM a Cult? Looking back, I think many of the things you say are true. And it sounds like we still both have friends in the TMO who still have the frame of mind you refer to. But what were some of the "positives" you took from it, if you don't mind me asking? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: As far as I'm concerned it never had a charismatic leader. Marshy's woolly, illogical and ignorant lecturing style always left me cold. Corporation is a good word for it though. As it sells both a product and a belief system that makes that product seem a lot more valuable than it actually is. Marshy's genius is the lectures he gave that conned everyone into thinking all the unified field, sci, land of the ved bollocks was an ultimate truth for all mankind and that he was its natural voice. Most people in the TMO thought/think that he could do no wrong and always spoke the ultimate truth. All they had to do was interpret and rationalise what he meant. What a great trick, I'm glad Tony Blair never thought of it. I heard so much rubbish when in the TMO I'd like to have my brain replaced so I could use those neurons for something useful. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: > > >TM, more accurately now is a [religious spiritual] sect in its post-charismatic leader phase. As an organizational structure it is a corporation. Fairly, TM is no longer a cult with a charismatic leader. >salyavin808 writes: > >Potayto, potahto. > > > >No, most of what you are offering as definition technically is about sects. >Cults form around charismatic persons. Sects form out of specialness, >exception or differentiation as in different denominations of protestantism or >catholicism or denominations or types of meditation. Those are sects. Sects >are around fragmentation and cults are around persons as charismatics. For >instance, If someone really 'charismatic', like earlier defined by Weber, like >a Robin were to show up in Fairfield, Iowa and take off a bunch of meditators >as his followers by force and power of personality then we're talking cult, as >a sect. That is different than the different sects of people out teaching >meditations and some others out there teaching other things they've learned. >-Buck in the Dome > > >Salyavin808 writes: You don't need any leader to be a cult. All you need is a >belief system that sets you apart from the norm. > > >Om, policy and movement within TM now is based much more on science, merit and efficacy than old ways promoted around Totakacharya-like devotion, fealty and ideology. But that old movement way of fealty test and ideology test is fast dying away of a necessity and become cultural memory of a past. > > >Heck TM does not even have a charismatic leader or leadership anymore. WE got administrators. It is kind of hard to have a cult without a charismatic leader that you could point to. That is defining of cults. Please see FFL post# 370565 . No, people become meditators and then freely participating in this organization because they like meditation and appreciate all the good that the transcendent meditative state provides everyone individually and collectively. Our meditating organization is here to facilitate that good. That facilitating in our case now is the work of good in progress by our new incorp
[FairfieldLife] RE: Is TM a Cult?
Looking back, I think many of the things you say are true. And it sounds like we still both have friends in the TMO who still have the frame of mind you refer to. But what were some of the "positives" you took from it, if you don't mind me asking? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: As far as I'm concerned it never had a charismatic leader. Marshy's woolly, illogical and ignorant lecturing style always left me cold. Corporation is a good word for it though. As it sells both a product and a belief system that makes that product seem a lot more valuable than it actually is. Marshy's genius is the lectures he gave that conned everyone into thinking all the unified field, sci, land of the ved bollocks was an ultimate truth for all mankind and that he was its natural voice. Most people in the TMO thought/think that he could do no wrong and always spoke the ultimate truth. All they had to do was interpret and rationalise what he meant. What a great trick, I'm glad Tony Blair never thought of it. I heard so much rubbish when in the TMO I'd like to have my brain replaced so I could use those neurons for something useful. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: TM, more accurately now is a [religious spiritual] sect in its post-charismatic leader phase. As an organizational structure it is a corporation. Fairly, TM is no longer a cult with a charismatic leader. salyavin808 writes: Potayto, potahto. No, most of what you are offering as definition technically is about sects. Cults form around charismatic persons. Sects form out of specialness, exception or differentiation as in different denominations of protestantism or catholicism or denominations or types of meditation. Those are sects. Sects are around fragmentation and cults are around persons as charismatics. For instance, If someone really 'charismatic', like earlier defined by Weber, like a Robin were to show up in Fairfield, Iowa and take off a bunch of meditators as his followers by force and power of personality then we're talking cult, as a sect. That is different than the different sects of people out teaching meditations and some others out there teaching other things they've learned. -Buck in the Dome Salyavin808 writes: You don't need any leader to be a cult. All you need is a belief system that sets you apart from the norm. Om, policy and movement within TM now is based much more on science, merit and efficacy than old ways promoted around Totakacharya-like devotion, fealty and ideology. But that old movement way of fealty test and ideology test is fast dying away of a necessity and become cultural memory of a past. Heck TM does not even have a charismatic leader or leadership anymore. WE got administrators. It is kind of hard to have a cult without a charismatic leader that you could point to. That is defining of cults. Please see FFL post# 370565 . No, people become meditators and then freely participating in this organization because they like meditation and appreciate all the good that the transcendent meditative state provides everyone individually and collectively. Our meditating organization is here to facilitate that good. That facilitating in our case now is the work of good in progress by our new incorporation as meditators. Our corporation as it always has been is certainly about affecting a positive revolutionary radical change in all of society for everybody. Most of us in TM are pretty clear about that. Are you with us or against us in this? -U.S. Buck in the Dome MJ, See Weber's comments on 'cult' in Melton's Intro to The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements: http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 MJ, Your thesis around TM being a 'cult' has a problem in that we in TM no longer have a charismatic leader of TM. We are either administrators or meditators in TM and anyone in TM is enfranchised by a little of both under Maharishi's Absolute Theories of Management and Government. You clearly are full of your own personal BS and have your ax grinding about something. I feels a sorrow for thee in thy lack of peace around this. -Buck “Which would you rather experience: living the paradox or understanding it to your satisfaction?” Not either position is mutually exclusive, or that there is a third possibility of both. MJ writes: You need to read up on what cults actually are before you make such statements. Nope, not a cult. TM now as a corporation obviously is not a cult any more than any modern productive working corporation of employees is a 'cult'. TM and meditators as a community now are just like airline corporation employee pilots of an airline company. And they might go fly for their work wearing funny looking hats and coats too where they would go to work and pilot an a
[FairfieldLife] RE: Is TM a Cult?
As far as I'm concerned it never had a charismatic leader. Marshy's woolly, illogical and ignorant lecturing style always left me cold. Corporation is a good word for it though. As it sells both a product and a belief system that makes that product seem a lot more valuable than it actually is. Marshy's genius is the lectures he gave that conned everyone into thinking all the unified field, sci, land of the ved bollocks was an ultimate truth for all mankind and that he was its natural voice. Most people in the TMO thought/think that he could do no wrong and always spoke the ultimate truth. All they had to do was interpret and rationalise what he meant. What a great trick, I'm glad Tony Blair never thought of it. I heard so much rubbish when in the TMO I'd like to have my brain replaced so I could use those neurons for something useful. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: TM, more accurately now is a [religious spiritual] sect in its post-charismatic leader phase. As an organizational structure it is a corporation. Fairly, TM is no longer a cult with a charismatic leader. salyavin808 writes: Potayto, potahto. No, most of what you are offering as definition technically is about sects. Cults form around charismatic persons. Sects form out of specialness, exception or differentiation as in different denominations of protestantism or catholicism or denominations or types of meditation. Those are sects. Sects are around fragmentation and cults are around persons as charismatics. For instance, If someone really 'charismatic', like earlier defined by Weber, like a Robin were to show up in Fairfield, Iowa and take off a bunch of meditators as his followers by force and power of personality then we're talking cult, as a sect. That is different than the different sects of people out teaching meditations and some others out there teaching other things they've learned. -Buck in the Dome Salyavin808 writes: You don't need any leader to be a cult. All you need is a belief system that sets you apart from the norm. Om, policy and movement within TM now is based much more on science, merit and efficacy than old ways promoted around Totakacharya-like devotion, fealty and ideology. But that old movement way of fealty test and ideology test is fast dying away of a necessity and become cultural memory of a past. Heck TM does not even have a charismatic leader or leadership anymore. WE got administrators. It is kind of hard to have a cult without a charismatic leader that you could point to. That is defining of cults. Please see FFL post# 370565 . No, people become meditators and then freely participating in this organization because they like meditation and appreciate all the good that the transcendent meditative state provides everyone individually and collectively. Our meditating organization is here to facilitate that good. That facilitating in our case now is the work of good in progress by our new incorporation as meditators. Our corporation as it always has been is certainly about affecting a positive revolutionary radical change in all of society for everybody. Most of us in TM are pretty clear about that. Are you with us or against us in this? -U.S. Buck in the Dome MJ, See Weber's comments on 'cult' in Melton's Intro to The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements: http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 MJ, Your thesis around TM being a 'cult' has a problem in that we in TM no longer have a charismatic leader of TM. We are either administrators or meditators in TM and anyone in TM is enfranchised by a little of both under Maharishi's Absolute Theories of Management and Government. You clearly are full of your own personal BS and have your ax grinding about something. I feels a sorrow for thee in thy lack of peace around this. -Buck “Which would you rather experience: living the paradox or understanding it to your satisfaction?” Not either position is mutually exclusive, or that there is a third possibility of both. MJ writes: You need to read up on what cults actually are before you make such statements. Nope, not a cult. TM now as a corporation obviously is not a cult any more than any modern productive working corporation of employees is a 'cult'. TM and meditators as a community now are just like airline corporation employee pilots of an airline company. And they might go fly for their work wearing funny looking hats and coats too where they would go to work and pilot an airliner. And those lesser employees too as part of the corporate team who organize a flight as a gate agent or direct people as flight attendants or load luggage or maintain the corporation equipment. TM is as very modern as is any corporation in 'cult' -ure, as Maharishi himself particularly set that
[FairfieldLife] RE: Is TM a Cult?
Do I really care? No. Why? Because if it feels right, feels good then I do it. Anyone can define something or name it whatever they like. It makes no difference to me. I was involved in a cult once. Cool. So what? It was a part of my life. I learned from it, I grew and I moved along. Why do people get so hung up with labels? It is like if someone puts a name to something all of a sudden it becomes set in stone, becomes so defined, becomes insidious or dangerous. Where's all of your senses of adventure? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: TM, more accurately now is a [religious spiritual] sect in its post-charismatic leader phase. As an organizational structure it is a corporation. Fairly, TM is no longer a cult with a charismatic leader. salyavin808 writes: Potayto, potahto. No, most of what you are offering as definition technically is about sects. Cults form around charismatic persons. Sects form out of specialness, exception or differentiation as in different denominations of protestantism or catholicism or denominations or types of meditation. Those are sects. Sects are around fragmentation and cults are around persons as charismatics. For instance, If someone really 'charismatic', like earlier defined by Weber, like a Robin were to show up in Fairfield, Iowa and take off a bunch of meditators as his followers by force and power of personality then we're talking cult, as a sect. That is different than the different sects of people out teaching meditations and some others out there teaching other things they've learned. -Buck in the Dome Salyavin808 writes: You don't need any leader to be a cult. All you need is a belief system that sets you apart from the norm. Om, policy and movement within TM now is based much more on science, merit and efficacy than old ways promoted around Totakacharya-like devotion, fealty and ideology. But that old movement way of fealty test and ideology test is fast dying away of a necessity and become cultural memory of a past. Heck TM does not even have a charismatic leader or leadership anymore. WE got administrators. It is kind of hard to have a cult without a charismatic leader that you could point to. That is defining of cults. Please see FFL post# 370565 . No, people become meditators and then freely participating in this organization because they like meditation and appreciate all the good that the transcendent meditative state provides everyone individually and collectively. Our meditating organization is here to facilitate that good. That facilitating in our case now is the work of good in progress by our new incorporation as meditators. Our corporation as it always has been is certainly about affecting a positive revolutionary radical change in all of society for everybody. Most of us in TM are pretty clear about that. Are you with us or against us in this? -U.S. Buck in the Dome MJ, See Weber's comments on 'cult' in Melton's Intro to The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements: http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 MJ, Your thesis around TM being a 'cult' has a problem in that we in TM no longer have a charismatic leader of TM. We are either administrators or meditators in TM and anyone in TM is enfranchised by a little of both under Maharishi's Absolute Theories of Management and Government. You clearly are full of your own personal BS and have your ax grinding about something. I feels a sorrow for thee in thy lack of peace around this. -Buck “Which would you rather experience: living the paradox or understanding it to your satisfaction?” Not either position is mutually exclusive, or that there is a third possibility of both. MJ writes: You need to read up on what cults actually are before you make such statements. Nope, not a cult. TM now as a corporation obviously is not a cult any more than any modern productive working corporation of employees is a 'cult'. TM and meditators as a community now are just like airline corporation employee pilots of an airline company. And they might go fly for their work wearing funny looking hats and coats too where they would go to work and pilot an airliner. And those lesser employees too as part of the corporate team who organize a flight as a gate agent or direct people as flight attendants or load luggage or maintain the corporation equipment. TM is as very modern as is any corporation in 'cult' -ure, as Maharishi himself particularly set that in motion now. TM now is not hardly as bad as you portray it. It is rapidly becoming more modern and scientific as it is of vedic origin in corporation all the time. And we don't hardly see the gold hats and robes around much outside of a small circle deep inside at the top. If there is a cult it is possibly at that level to see but yo
[FairfieldLife] RE: Is TM a Cult?
TM, more accurately now is a [religious spiritual] sect in its post-charismatic leader phase. As an organizational structure it is a corporation. Fairly, TM is no longer a cult with a charismatic leader. salyavin808 writes: Potayto, potahto. No, most of what you are offering as definition technically is about sects. Cults form around charismatic persons. Sects form out of specialness, exception or differentiation as in different denominations of protestantism or catholicism or denominations or types of meditation. Those are sects. Sects are around fragmentation and cults are around persons as charismatics. For instance, If someone really 'charismatic', like earlier defined by Weber, like a Robin were to show up in Fairfield, Iowa and take off a bunch of meditators as his followers by force and power of personality then we're talking cult, as a sect. That is different than the different sects of people out teaching meditations and some others out there teaching other things they've learned. -Buck in the Dome Salyavin808 writes: You don't need any leader to be a cult. All you need is a belief system that sets you apart from the norm. Om, policy and movement within TM now is based much more on science, merit and efficacy than old ways promoted around Totakacharya-like devotion, fealty and ideology. But that old movement way of fealty test and ideology test is fast dying away of a necessity and become cultural memory of a past. Heck TM does not even have a charismatic leader or leadership anymore. WE got administrators. It is kind of hard to have a cult without a charismatic leader that you could point to. That is defining of cults. Please see FFL post# 370565 . No, people become meditators and then freely participating in this organization because they like meditation and appreciate all the good that the transcendent meditative state provides everyone individually and collectively. Our meditating organization is here to facilitate that good. That facilitating in our case now is the work of good in progress by our new incorporation as meditators. Our corporation as it always has been is certainly about affecting a positive revolutionary radical change in all of society for everybody. Most of us in TM are pretty clear about that. Are you with us or against us in this? -U.S. Buck in the Dome MJ, See Weber's comments on 'cult' in Melton's Intro to The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements: http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 MJ, Your thesis around TM being a 'cult' has a problem in that we in TM no longer have a charismatic leader of TM. We are either administrators or meditators in TM and anyone in TM is enfranchised by a little of both under Maharishi's Absolute Theories of Management and Government. You clearly are full of your own personal BS and have your ax grinding about something. I feels a sorrow for thee in thy lack of peace around this. -Buck “Which would you rather experience: living the paradox or understanding it to your satisfaction?” Not either position is mutually exclusive, or that there is a third possibility of both. MJ writes: You need to read up on what cults actually are before you make such statements. Nope, not a cult. TM now as a corporation obviously is not a cult any more than any modern productive working corporation of employees is a 'cult'. TM and meditators as a community now are just like airline corporation employee pilots of an airline company. And they might go fly for their work wearing funny looking hats and coats too where they would go to work and pilot an airliner. And those lesser employees too as part of the corporate team who organize a flight as a gate agent or direct people as flight attendants or load luggage or maintain the corporation equipment. TM is as very modern as is any corporation in 'cult' -ure, as Maharishi himself particularly set that in motion now. TM now is not hardly as bad as you portray it. It is rapidly becoming more modern and scientific as it is of vedic origin in corporation all the time. And we don't hardly see the gold hats and robes around much outside of a small circle deep inside at the top. If there is a cult it is possibly at that level to see but you can see a lot of them avoiding the caps and robes when they can. -Buck MJwrites:You are right Buck, the TMO IS different now - it is much more of a cult than it was when I started in 1974. If you can look at these idiots wearing robes and gold crowns who practice and follow every Hindu religious observance and holiday and not see it as a cult, then you have been snorting too much sheep dip. Shame on you MHJ. Om, First-Class Bull-Manure you Spread Wide and Spread Thick here, MHJ. This TM now is not a “cult” no more as much as you might like to
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is TM a cult?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > Is TM a cult? TM is a technique, so it can't be a cult. > > Is TM theory a religion? Perhaps, if you buy into it completely with no > skepticism. > > Is the TM organization a cult? See the response to the second question. > > Are practitioners of TM members of a religion or cult? See the response to > second and third questions. > > Is the hierarchy of the TM organization riddled with cultists? See the > response to the second, third and fourth questions. > > Etc. Well said.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is TM a cult?
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Buck wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shukra69" wrote: > > > > http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/IndividualEffects/IsTMaCult/index.cfm > > > > > Summary: > > "The Transcendental Meditation program cannot be called a cult because it > develops independent, intelligent, creative thinking, and its founder, > Maharishi, has in many ways encouraged personal independence, integration > with society, and good citizenship." > > Well, of course, the organization enforces uniformity as conformity. Try > applying for a current dome badge if you are a former TM teacher or > Governor. There is not a lot of tolerance for deviation from uniformity. > > > I'm sure glad that a URL TtruthAboutTm.org" is so objective in this summary.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is TM a cult?
Well TM is a cult. Definition of a cult. 5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : the object of such devotion c :a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion It's a stupid defense to argue TM or any other Guru based movement including TM is not a cult. You walk right into the trap set by cultist wolf turned skeptic sheep. Cults are pervasive in any society - devotion to ideas, things, authority or other popular figures. The focus should be on the advantages of being in a teligious cult which doesn't indulge in brainwashing and/or other forms of mind control. And the true purpose of religious cult is to give up attachments to any cult, the true purpose is to become an individual. Only a religious cult among all the other cults can do that. On Nov 16, 2011, at 4:25 PM, Tom Pall wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Buck wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shukra69" wrote: > > > > http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/IndividualEffects/IsTMaCult/index.cfm > > > > > Summary: > > "The Transcendental Meditation program cannot be called a cult because it > develops independent, intelligent, creative thinking, and its founder, > Maharishi, has in many ways encouraged personal independence, integration > with society, and good citizenship." > > Well, of course, the organization enforces uniformity as conformity. Try > applying for a current dome badge if you are a former TM teacher or Governor. > There is not a lot of tolerance for deviation from uniformity. > > > > I'm sure glad that a URL TtruthAboutTm.org" is so objective in this summary. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is TM a cult?
of course!...and neither is the "Quorum of Twelve" (LOL): http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/First_Presidency_and_Twelve_Apostles_1898.jpg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shukra69" wrote: > > > > http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/IndividualEffects/IsTMaCult/index.cfm > > > > > Summary: > > "The Transcendental Meditation program cannot be called a cult because it > develops independent, intelligent, creative thinking, and its founder, > Maharishi, has in many ways encouraged personal independence, integration > with society, and good citizenship." > > Well, of course, the organization enforces uniformity as conformity. Try > applying for a current dome badge if you are a former TM teacher or Governor. > There is not a lot of tolerance for deviation from uniformity. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is TM a cult?
Is TM a cult? TM is a technique, so it can't be a cult. Is TM theory a religion? Perhaps, if you buy into it completely with no skepticism. Is the TM organization a cult? See the response to the second question. Are practitioners of TM members of a religion or cult? See the response to second and third questions. Is the hierarchy of the TM organization riddled with cultists? See the response to the second, third and fourth questions. Etc. L. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shukra69" wrote: > > > > http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/IndividualEffects/IsTMaCult/index.cfm > > > > > Summary: > > "The Transcendental Meditation program cannot be called a cult because it > develops independent, intelligent, creative thinking, and its founder, > Maharishi, has in many ways encouraged personal independence, integration > with society, and good citizenship." > > Well, of course, the organization enforces uniformity as conformity. Try > applying for a current dome badge if you are a former TM teacher or Governor. > There is not a lot of tolerance for deviation from uniformity. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is TM a cult?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shukra69" wrote: > > http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/IndividualEffects/IsTMaCult/index.cfm > Summary: "The Transcendental Meditation program cannot be called a cult because it develops independent, intelligent, creative thinking, and its founder, Maharishi, has in many ways encouraged personal independence, integration with society, and good citizenship." Well, of course, the organization enforces uniformity as conformity. Try applying for a current dome badge if you are a former TM teacher or Governor. There is not a lot of tolerance for deviation from uniformity.
