While having fun the other day writing my ANTI-NEWAGER CREDO post, I adopted the literary fiction of referring to myself as "We." Because I do not consider myself part of any spiritual group (or even anti-group), I did this purely *for* fun, and in violation of Mark Twain's famous rule: "Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial 'We.'"
But that experience, combined with Buck's continued use of the words "community" and "meditators," clearly with a perceived notion of "We" underlying them, got me thinkin' about the "We Words," and their effect on us as seekers. As I've said before, I bailed from the TM movement before it really became heavily invested in "We." "Group program" was just starting when I left, and one of the reasons I did leave was that I was underwhelmed by the exclusionary nature of it. In less than a year an impenetrable, badge- protected wall had been erected between the peons (ordinary TMers) and the elite (Sidhas). In subsequent years, that wall was built higher and higher, separating the Sidhas not only from lesser TMers, but from all of humanity as well. The moment that the TMO rebranded its Purpose in terms of the Maharishi Effect, it declared in no uncertain terms that "We" were the Most Important People On The Planet, the only ones who could save it from impending doom and Kaliyuga Konsciousness. Not my kinda scene... glad I missed it. Except for fun -- as a kind of writing exercise -- I really have a tough time relating to the word "We." As a pretty solitary bird of a spiritual seeker, I am a member of no group, no sangha, no spiritual tradition. As an ex-pat living in a country foreign to my birth, I no longer identify with the "We" of nationality. When I am with a group of friends, and we are doing something together, "We" becomes relevant, but most of the time, not so much. One of the reasons I like the Buddhist approach, even though I am not a formal Buddhist and will never be, is that their notion of "We" seems *inclusive* as opposed to *exclusive*. The ultimate Buddhist Buzzword is *compassion*, which aims at extending one's notion of "We" to every sentient being in Creation. So today, sitting We-less at home alone because it's raining cats and frogs and the awnings at my favorite cafes tend to drip water all over one's computer, I thought I'd ponder some of the other notions of "We," and what they hath wrought. Take the TM movement. <insert Rodney Dangerfield voice here> Please. How has its arguably more exclusionary notion of "We" and other "We Words" like "community" worked out for it? You who live in Fairfield, do you think that the non-meditating members of the Fairfield community have been inspired over the years to include you when they speak the word "We" or think in terms of "community?" How about other spiritual groups and traditions? To do a Dr. Phil, "How is 40 years of badrapping other spiritual movements and declaring their members lesser than you are workin' out for you?" To use Buck's hyperexclusionary "meditators" as an example of a "We Word," do you think that the On The Program Yogic High Flyers in the domes include those who have been deemed Off The Program when they say or think the word "We?" Or are they "Them?" As in "Us versus Them?" Seems to me that there is a lot of "versus" that shows up in the language and the thinking of long-term TMers. And that strikes me as a little odd given their adherence to a philosophy that holds Unity as its "highest truth." I'm thinkin' that the thing that leads someone to believe that they are in a "versus" relationship with those they do not mentally include when they think the word "We" is because of a lame and exclusionary definition of "We."
