--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > Following up on this, because I suspect that one or > more of the cultists will try to pretend that they > aren't cultists :-), the distinction I'm trying to > make in my definition of what constitutes a cultist > is about the "trigger" that sets them off. > > It's NOT criticism of them personally. That's just > how they interpret criticism of the organization > or group they pathologically over-identify with. > > If you perceive criticism of an *idea* -- a belief > or set of beliefs -- that you identify with as if > it were an "attack" on you personally, then what > you are demonstrating IMO is an over-attachment to > that set of beliefs or idea, and a *lack* of self- > knowledge -- where "you" start and where "you" end. > Similarly, if you over-react and plunge into a new > round of "shoot the messenger" because someone > criticizes the consistent and repetitive behavior > of the group -- *especially* when that group behavior > mirrors your own behavior -- then you're a cultist. > > Normal people can discuss ideas, and even ideas they > hold strongly, without having to resort to cultist, > knee-jerk behavior when doing so. Normal people can > recognize that human beings can hold different opinions > about ideas and still be human beings. Cultists can't. > They feel compelled to describe those who believe > differently than they do as having some failing or > as if their difference of belief is somehow malevolent, > an "attack" on them *and* the things they believe in. > > A criticism of TM, its philosophy, and the behavior > of its leaders is NOT an attack on religion -- it's > a criticism of ideas. When someone who believes in > those ideas reacts as if they'd been struck in the > face, then I think most people would recognize that > they have grown too attached to those ideas, and have > lost their sense of boundaries -- where "they" leave > off and their beliefs start up. The parallel in the > larger world is the concerted attempt by some people > to characterize any criticism of the State of Israel > and its politics and policies as anti-semitism. > > There is simply NO QUESTION that a lot of TMers are > cultists in this regard. When MJ rails about the TMO, > they react as if he's railing against them personally, > and they *over-react* as strongly as if they were > black and he'd called them a nigger. That's INSANE > in my view. > > Ideas are just ideas. Beliefs are just beliefs. Your > ideas and your beliefs are not you. Get over it.
Rhetorical questions: What does it matter if someone is a "cultist", as you call it? Are you out to "save" people from being "cultists"? What do you feel is your reason for being so involved in convincing someone they are a "cultist"? And in case Share would like to ask, What was it in your childhood, what traumas or unresolved issues, are making you so interested in this subject? Do you feel you were ever a "cultist" when you were such a dedicated teacher of TM or involved with Monsieur Rama? If so, how do you chalk up your lack of empathy for others who may be in the same boat you were back then? Would you have defended yourself or your ideas about TM or Rama in the face of a "Barry"? Would you ever consider yourself to be someone who believes in ideas and who stands behind these ideas, voicing them or writing them? What does this imply about you? If beliefs and ideas are not what makes up a person then what relationship do they have to who they are and so what elements DOES make a person? How many more times do you think it will be necessary to post these same ideas before you will feel satisfied that you have done this enough times? Do you sleep better at night, does your food taste better, the beer crisper, does your productivity go up during the day just knowing you have written this same post (same subject, different day) once again? Thanks for your time and consideration. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> > > wrote: > > > > > > *Cult: a religion without political influence. Tom Wolfe. > > > > Love this. Tom always had a way with words. > > > > TM (unlike Catholicism, Judaism, and Hinduism in India) > > never had any political influence, so they went instead > > for "celebrity influence," courting famous people and > > trying to use *their* names and images to sell its > > products. > > > > As for cults, my definition tends more towards, "A cult > > is any organization in which its members perceive any > > criticism of the organization as criticism of them per- > > sonally, or even as an 'attack' against them personally, > > and then react angrily to that criticism." This would > > hold true IMO for spiritual organizations, corporations, > > political parties, whatever. It's the *behavior* that > > defines cultism, not the nature of the org. > > > > It's the overidentification with the group and the over- > > reaction to criticism that does it for me, and that > > defines a group as a cult and its members as cultists. > > That and certain classically cult behavioral patterns > > like playing "shoot the messenger" and attacking the > > critic while ignoring the criticisms. > > > > By that standard, there are a few people on FFL who > > are definitely cultists. There are also some TM > > practitioners on this forum who are not, but we rarely > > hear from them. Mainly it's the cultists who feel the > > need to follow up any criticism with samskaric > > attachment/aversion behavior and attack the critics. > > > > Whatever floats their boats, I guess. I just don't > > understand how they believe that they're presenting > > a positive view of the organization they're "protecting" > > or the technique it sells. If simple criticism can push > > their buttons this badly after 30-40 years of practicing > > it, then the technique really doesn't do much of anything > > useful at all, does it? > > >
