[FairfieldLife] Re: CULT EXPERT WRITES ON THE TM PROGRAM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Dec 27, 2008, at 5:03 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: Well said, Peter, and well thought out through. There is an element missing, however. How do the people in the group react when the group, its principles, its teachings, or its teacher are challenged? (And I pose this question with my experience with the Rama group as much in mind as my experience with TM). In other words, I'm adding the notion of over- identifying with the group to the mix. If a person tends to react *emotionally* to criticism of the group, as if the criticism was of him or her personally, then IMO that person has turned the group they are part of into a cult. There's also the notion--and probably the most prevalent in non- hardcore TM-cultists--is that of brand name loyalty and superiority, whereby through a merely conditioned set of TM-instruction factoids (many of them patently false) one protects their brand name product, often as if their little lives depended on it! After all, they're saturated by these factoids by everyone involved in TM: certainly their TM teachers, but also by other previously indoctrinated folks. Some examples of conditioned but false (often unquestioned assumptions) are effortless meditation and all other meditations which uses balanced attentional skills are inferior and/or straining; we're the best, they showed me the research, it must be true; further more advanced states of consciousness will spontaneously just happen, etc. It's a long list, but there are many brand-name superiority assumptions which are prevalent even at the level of the average Joe or Jane meditator. This IMO is the root of TM cultism, and not so much the dye-in-the-wool TMO True Believer that Peter describes, but in the acquisition of widespread brand-name falsehoods. that is why, you, our patron saint of FFL, will strive mightily and tirelessly to even turn the least brainwashed of us TM practitioners away from the mass assumptions of TM, towards the light and goodness and faux enlightenment of the almightly religion of Buddhism! not a chance...
[FairfieldLife] Re: CULT EXPERT WRITES ON THE TM PROGRAM
Well said, Peter, and well thought out through. There is an element missing, however. How do the people in the group react when the group, its principles, its teachings, or its teacher are challenged? (And I pose this question with my experience with the Rama group as much in mind as my experience with TM). In other words, I'm adding the notion of over- identifying with the group to the mix. If a person tends to react *emotionally* to criticism of the group, as if the criticism was of him or her personally, then IMO that person has turned the group they are part of into a cult. It's not only does this person do everything the group or its leader or its dogma says, mind- lessly? that determines its status as a cult IMO. The additional factor is whether the group actively fosters an *identification* with the group and being a member of the group that is unhealthy. I would say, having seen it often in the world of business, that Microsoft qualifies as a cult, because of the emotional (and often angry and out-of-control) reaction of Microsoft employees and fans when it or its products are criticized. I would have to say the same thing about Apple, for the same reasons. Again, as you said so well, not everyone who is part of the group falls for this over-identification. But if enough do so that people begin to perceive an us vs. them mentality among a large percentage of the group members, then IMO the group itself may have strayed over the line into being a cult think- ing enabler, if not being an actual cult. The ability to identify with and feel empathy for people *outside* the group is what determines more than anything else whether a group has turned into a cult and is fostering cult thinking. The more that members can identify with those who are not part of the group, the less chance that they have drifted into cult thinking. And conversely, the more that they react emotionally to criticism or humor aimed at the group, the greater the chance that they have drifted into cult thinking. IMO, of course. I post this because it covers the bases of a *type* of cultist who doesn't really get involved with the day-to-day operations of the group. They stay somewhat separate, *so that* they can claim that they are not really part of the group, and thus preserve (in their own minds) their independence. But where the rubber meets the road is how they react when this group that they are independent from is challenged. If they become emotional and angry or insulting, then IMO they are bigger cultists than those who are high-ranking members of the group who *don't* over-react. It's about *attachment* and *over-identification*, not involvement on a day to day basis per se. One of these hangers on could be more attached than the actual priesthood of the group. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: If the question is whether the TMO is a cult or not is too simple a question. It makes it appear as if its an all or nothing question and that doesn't reflect the broad experiential reality of people in their various levels of involvement/identification with the TMO. For some people the TMO functions as a cult in their life. By this I mean they have very little independent thought outside of the conceptual tools offered by the TMO. They conceptualize their experience through these constructs. When something doesn't fit the constructs they also have a means of dealing with it: unstressing, negativity. The conceptual tool box becomes a dogma for them: it is solely a belief system and not based on their personal experience. They are emotionally repressed and intellectually inflexible because they have traded their authentic experiencing for a system of thoughts/concepts. This is one extreme. The opposite is someone who does their program solely because of the experience they have. They have little or no investment in the conceptual tools offered by the TMO as a personal identity. They use any spiritual traditions' conceptual tools in a utilitarian manner to conceptually elucidate their experiencing. Who said it is irrelevant. Concepts only have value in their ability to intellectually clarify authentic experiencing. There is very little if any blind belief in a system of thoughts/constructs. They are not in a cult, although they might be doing their program every day in the dome.
[FairfieldLife] Re: CULT EXPERT WRITES ON THE TM PROGRAM
Tom the Dancing Bug's take on cult thinking and how it develops: http://www.salon.com/comics/boll/2008/12/25/boll/index.html It starts small, with attempts to change the language of mere belief into the language of certainty or truth. This is followed up by attempts to prove the truth. But in the end it's still about belief.
[FairfieldLife] Re: CULT EXPERT WRITES ON THE TM PROGRAM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: Well said, Peter, and well thought out through. There is an element missing, however. How do the people in the group react when the group, its principles, its teachings, or its teacher are challenged? (And I pose this question with my experience with the Rama group as much in mind as my experience with TM). In other words, I'm adding the notion of over- identifying with the group to the mix. If a person tends to react *emotionally* to criticism of the group, as if the criticism was of him or her personally, then IMO that person has turned the group they are part of into a cult. It's not only does this person do everything the group or its leader or its dogma says, mind- lessly? that determines its status as a cult IMO. The additional factor is whether the group actively fosters an *identification* with the group and being a member of the group that is unhealthy. I would say, having seen it often in the world of business, that Microsoft qualifies as a cult, because of the emotional (and often angry and out-of-control) reaction of Microsoft employees and fans when it or its products are criticized. I would have to say the same thing about Apple, for the same reasons. Again, as you said so well, not everyone who is part of the group falls for this over-identification. But if enough do so that people begin to perceive an us vs. them mentality among a large percentage of the group members, then IMO the group itself may have strayed over the line into being a cult think- ing enabler, if not being an actual cult. The ability to identify with and feel empathy for people *outside* the group is what determines more than anything else whether a group has turned into a cult and is fostering cult thinking. The more that members can identify with those who are not part of the group, the less chance that they have drifted into cult thinking. And conversely, the more that they react emotionally to criticism or humor aimed at the group, the greater the chance that they have drifted into cult thinking. IMO, of course. I post this because it covers the bases of a *type* of cultist who doesn't really get involved with the day-to-day operations of the group. They stay somewhat separate, *so that* they can claim that they are not really part of the group, and thus preserve (in their own minds) their independence. But where the rubber meets the road is how they react when this group that they are independent from is challenged. If they become emotional and angry or insulting, then IMO they are bigger cultists than those who are high-ranking members of the group who *don't* over-react. It's about *attachment* and *over-identification*, not involvement on a day to day basis per se. One of these hangers on could be more attached than the actual priesthood of the group. THis is from vague memory. PRhaps from this gorup or another: There once was a man who hated Lord SHiva. His hatred knew no bounds. Eery day he woiuld trek to the shrine, wend his way to the front of the worshippers and spit. Then walk off. This went on for years. One day, during monsoon season, the rains were so terrible that no-one came to the shrine, except that man. As always, he walked to the front and spit. As he turned to walk away, Lord SHiva himself appeared and offered to grant any boon. WHy, asked the man, since you know how I feel about you, do you do such a thing? Because, replied Shiva, of all My followers, thou art the most faithful. It's not just the hangers on that can make a cult of something... He/she who has ears, let him/her hear. L.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: CULT EXPERT WRITES ON THE TM PROGRAM
--- On Sat, 12/27/08, sparaig lengli...@cox.net wrote: snip THis is from vague memory. PRhaps from this gorup or another: There once was a man who hated Lord SHiva. His hatred knew no bounds. Eery day he woiuld trek to the shrine, wend his way to the front of the worshippers and spit. Then walk off. This went on for years. One day, during monsoon season, the rains were so terrible that no-one came to the shrine, except that man. As always, he walked to the front and spit. As he turned to walk away, Lord SHiva himself appeared and offered to grant any boon. WHy, asked the man, since you know how I feel about you, do you do such a thing? Because, replied Shiva, of all My followers, thou art the most faithful. It's not just the hangers on that can make a cult of something... He/she who has ears, let him/her hear. Deep love or deep hatred are attachments that can lead to transcendence depending upon whom or what one is attached to. MMY said once that you can either hate or love your master. But then he added it was probably better to love your master because then you would do what he said. L. To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: CULT EXPERT WRITES ON THE TM PROGRAM
--- On Sat, 12/27/08, TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: From: TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: CULT EXPERT WRITES ON THE TM PROGRAM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, December 27, 2008, 5:03 AM Well said, Peter, and well thought out through. There is an element missing, however. How do the people in the group react when the group, its principles, its teachings, or its teacher are challenged? (And I pose this question with my experience with the Rama group as much in mind as my experience with TM). In other words, I'm adding the notion of over- identifying with the group to the mix. If a person tends to react *emotionally* to criticism of the group, as if the criticism was of him or her personally, then IMO that person has turned the group they are part of into a cult. Agreed. With identification/attachment comes a defense of whom or what one is invested in. Its automatic. But again, its not all or nothing, there are degrees of defensiveness. Thirty years ago I'd defend MMY and the TMO almost like a rabid dog. Now, I'd listen to the person and probably agree with most of what they said as long as they were speaking from their authentic experience. Rabidly hating the TMO and MMY is just as invested/attached/identified as rabidly loving it. It's not only does this person do everything the group or its leader or its dogma says, mind- lessly? that determines its status as a cult IMO. The additional factor is whether the group actively fosters an *identification* with the group and being a member of the group that is unhealthy. I would say, having seen it often in the world of business, that Microsoft qualifies as a cult, because of the emotional (and often angry and out-of-control) reaction of Microsoft employees and fans when it or its products are criticized. I would have to say the same thing about Apple, for the same reasons. Agreed. Some groups make it very easy to have a cult relationship with them, and some make it more difficult. Some foster this relationship deliberately and some are more innocent. For the most part the TMO is on the more innocent side of this scale, but when they want a donation or want you to do something they can ramp-up the cult mechanics to manipulate you to comply. But again, I don't see this as insidious on their part. Someone with a huge psychological investment in the group is speaking out of that investment to fan-the-flames of the lessor invested ones. Again, as you said so well, not everyone who is part of the group falls for this over-identification. But if enough do so that people begin to perceive an us vs. them mentality among a large percentage of the group members, then IMO the group itself may have strayed over the line into being a cult think- ing enabler, if not being an actual cult. Sure. But, IMHO, cults are matters of degree, not all or nothing. I can't imagine a group that does not foster a cult mentality to some degree. It seems like we humans, with our biologically driven need to form social relationships, are susceptible to a group identity. Social psychology talks about this, especially Solomon Asch's research on conformity and Stanley Milgram's research on obedience. The ability to identify with and feel empathy for people *outside* the group is what determines more than anything else whether a group has turned into a cult and is fostering cult thinking. The more that members can identify with those who are not part of the group, the less chance that they have drifted into cult thinking. And conversely, the more that they react emotionally to criticism or humor aimed at the group, the greater the chance that they have drifted into cult thinking. IMO, of course. Excellent point, but so few with any degree of group identity can authentically do this. For example, the Christain elderly woman who lives next door to me is really bothered that I attended an Episcopal church. She's constantly giving me and my wife CD's with fundamentalist lectures from her pastor basically telling me that I'm wrong and how only members of her denomination will be saved. Hmmm, probably best for her not to see my puja table with pictures of Ramana Maharishi, Anandamoi-Ma, Buddha, Krishna, Shiva, Christ SSRS, MMY and Guru Dev on it! I think a true test of cult-freeness would be how much do you see others as the same as you and not as other. What you have done to the least of these creatures, you have also done unto me. I post this because it covers the bases of a *type* of cultist who doesn't really get involved with the day-to-day operations of the group. They stay somewhat separate, *so that* they can claim that they are not really part of the group, and thus preserve (in their own minds) their independence. But where the rubber meets the road is how they react when this group that they are independent
[FairfieldLife] Re: CULT EXPERT WRITES ON THE TM PROGRAM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutp...@... wrote: --- On Sat, 12/27/08, TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: From: TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: CULT EXPERT WRITES ON THE TM PROGRAM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, December 27, 2008, 5:03 AM Well said, Peter, and well thought out through. There is an element missing, however. How do the people in the group react when the group, its principles, its teachings, or its teacher are challenged? (And I pose this question with my experience with the Rama group as much in mind as my experience with TM). In other words, I'm adding the notion of over- identifying with the group to the mix. If a person tends to react *emotionally* to criticism of the group, as if the criticism was of him or her personally, then IMO that person has turned the group they are part of into a cult. Agreed. With identification/attachment comes a defense of whom or what one is invested in. Its automatic. But again, its not all or nothing, there are degrees of defensiveness. Thirty years ago I'd defend MMY and the TMO almost like a rabid dog. Now, I'd listen to the person and probably agree with most of what they said as long as they were speaking from their authentic experience. Rabidly hating the TMO and MMY is just as invested/attached/identified as rabidly loving it. While I agree 100% with your last sentence, I should point out that claiming that's what critics of a group are really doing when they criticize the group is a classic cult technique in itself. It's a variant of the They're just jealous that they're not still with us manipulation technique in that the target audience for the claim is current members of the group, not those outside the group.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: CULT EXPERT WRITES ON THE TM PROGRAM
--- On Sat, 12/27/08, TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: From: TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: CULT EXPERT WRITES ON THE TM PROGRAM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, December 27, 2008, 9:01 AM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutp...@... wrote: --- On Sat, 12/27/08, TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: From: TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: CULT EXPERT WRITES ON THE TM PROGRAM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, December 27, 2008, 5:03 AM Well said, Peter, and well thought out through. There is an element missing, however. How do the people in the group react when the group, its principles, its teachings, or its teacher are challenged? (And I pose this question with my experience with the Rama group as much in mind as my experience with TM). In other words, I'm adding the notion of over- identifying with the group to the mix. If a person tends to react *emotionally* to criticism of the group, as if the criticism was of him or her personally, then IMO that person has turned the group they are part of into a cult. Agreed. With identification/attachment comes a defense of whom or what one is invested in. Its automatic. But again, its not all or nothing, there are degrees of defensiveness. Thirty years ago I'd defend MMY and the TMO almost like a rabid dog. Now, I'd listen to the person and probably agree with most of what they said as long as they were speaking from their authentic experience. Rabidly hating the TMO and MMY is just as invested/attached/identified as rabidly loving it. While I agree 100% with your last sentence, I should point out that claiming that's what critics of a group are really doing when they criticize the group is a classic cult technique in itself. It's a variant of the They're just jealous that they're not still with us manipulation technique in that the target audience for the claim is current members of the group, not those outside the group. They actually could have a point, but its being made in an inauthentic argument. If someone didn't have an attachment to a group identity, why would they endlessly criticize that group? They find a degree of value in the group identity, but they also find problems. They want the group identity, but without the problems. Like fag-bashers If you didn't have some sort of negative identity with being gay, why would you attack perfect strangers who you think are gay? So there is some legitimacy to the cultists claim. To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: CULT EXPERT WRITES ON THE TM PROGRAM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutp...@... wrote: --- On Sat, 12/27/08, TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Rabidly hating the TMO and MMY is just as invested/ attached/identified as rabidly loving it. While I agree 100% with your last sentence, I should point out that claiming that's what critics of a group are really doing when they criticize the group is a classic cult technique in itself. It's a variant of the They're just jealous that they're not still with us manipulation technique in that the target audience for the claim is current members of the group, not those outside the group. They actually could have a point, but its being made in an inauthentic argument. And often without basis. Who here could legitimately be characterized as rabidly hating the TMO and Maharishi? I don't know of anyone here who could. But I know of quite a few who have been accused of it. If someone didn't have an attachment to a group identity, why would they endlessly criticize that group? Speaking of inauthentic arguments, Pete, this is one. I'm not gay, but I find myself being an active voice in criticizing the haters who sponsored Proposition 8 and now want to nullify same-sex marriages in CA. I will criticize these assholes no end, but I was never a part of the group they're trying to take rights away from. Similarly, there are some who criticize poor behavior in spiritual groups because it's there and shouldn't be, not because they were ever part of the group. They find a degree of value in the group identity, but they also find problems. They want the group identity, but without the problems. In all honesty, the only person I can think of on this forum who falls into this category is Nabby. We all suspect that he wouldn't be allowed within a mile of a real TM facility, but he'd still like to be perceived as an on-the-program TMer.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: CULT EXPERT WRITES ON THE TM PROGRAM
On Dec 27, 2008, at 6:22 AM, sparaig wrote: THis is from vague memory. PRhaps from this gorup or another: There once was a man who hated Lord SHiva. His hatred knew no bounds. Eery day he woiuld trek to the shrine, wend his way to the front of the worshippers and spit. Then walk off. This went on for years. One day, during monsoon season, the rains were so terrible that no-one came to the shrine, except that man. As always, he walked to the front and spit. As he turned to walk away, Lord SHiva himself appeared and offered to grant any boon. WHy, asked the man, since you know how I feel about you, do you do such a thing? Because, replied Shiva, of all My followers, thou art the most faithful. It's not just the hangers on that can make a cult of something... He/she who has ears, let him/her hear. Great story! Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: CULT EXPERT WRITES ON THE TM PROGRAM
Peter wrote: Deep love or deep hatred are attachments that can lead to transcendence depending upon whom or what one is attached to. This doesn't even make any sense. How can an 'attachment' lead to transcendence? Anytime that you have an attachment, you're that much further from *isolating* the Purusha, the goal of Yoga. If TMers were attached to their bija mantra, then they could never go beyond sense perception. The idea behing Yoga is to get burn off all attachments, including love and hate, to get rid of the samskaras. You are not going to get anymore enlightenment than you are going to get, so just stop all the striving - don't become attached and identify with the prakriti - you need to isolate the Transcendental Person.
[FairfieldLife] Re: CULT EXPERT WRITES ON THE TM PROGRAM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: Well said, Peter, and well thought out through. There is an element missing, however. How do the people in the group react when the group, its principles, its teachings, or its teacher are challenged? (And I pose this question with my experience with the Rama group as much in mind as my experience with TM). In other words, I'm adding the notion of over- identifying with the group to the mix. If a person tends to react *emotionally* to criticism of the group, as if the criticism was of him or her personally, then IMO that person has turned the group they are part of into a cult. Another interesting question has to do with whether the critic's charge that those who react negatively to criticism of the group are doing so emotionally is actually valid, or is only a way to dismiss the negative reaction and/or put down the person reacting negatively. Such a charge is based on the assumption that the criticism drawing the negative reaction is accurate and fair, and therefore that a negative reaction to it must be emotional rather than rational. A corollary assumption is that an emotional negative reaction is a function of unhealthy over-identification with the group. But both these assumptions may well be false in any given case. snip I post this because it covers the bases of a *type* of cultist who doesn't really get involved with the day-to-day operations of the group. They stay somewhat separate, *so that* they can claim that they are not really part of the group, and thus preserve (in their own minds) their independence. But where the rubber meets the road is how they react when this group that they are independent from is challenged. If they become emotional and angry or insulting, then IMO they are bigger cultists than those who are high-ranking members of the group who *don't* over-react. This thesis works only if it's based on the assumption that the criticism in question is fair and accurate. There's not a thing abnormal about reacting angrily to unfair or inaccurate criticism of any group; such a reaction says nothing whatsoever about whether the person reacting is genuinely independent of the group. One might say, however, that such a person has an overidentification with fairness and accuracy, if one is personally indifferent to fairness and accuracy. Whether such indifference is itself normal and healthy is another question entirely.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: CULT EXPERT WRITES ON THE TM PROGRAM
On Dec 27, 2008, at 5:03 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: Well said, Peter, and well thought out through. There is an element missing, however. How do the people in the group react when the group, its principles, its teachings, or its teacher are challenged? (And I pose this question with my experience with the Rama group as much in mind as my experience with TM). In other words, I'm adding the notion of over- identifying with the group to the mix. If a person tends to react *emotionally* to criticism of the group, as if the criticism was of him or her personally, then IMO that person has turned the group they are part of into a cult. There's also the notion--and probably the most prevalent in non- hardcore TM-cultists--is that of brand name loyalty and superiority, whereby through a merely conditioned set of TM-instruction factoids (many of them patently false) one protects their brand name product, often as if their little lives depended on it! After all, they're saturated by these factoids by everyone involved in TM: certainly their TM teachers, but also by other previously indoctrinated folks. Some examples of conditioned but false (often unquestioned assumptions) are effortless meditation and all other meditations which uses balanced attentional skills are inferior and/or straining; we're the best, they showed me the research, it must be true; further more advanced states of consciousness will spontaneously just happen, etc. It's a long list, but there are many brand-name superiority assumptions which are prevalent even at the level of the average Joe or Jane meditator. This IMO is the root of TM cultism, and not so much the dye-in-the-wool TMO True Believer that Peter describes, but in the acquisition of widespread brand-name falsehoods.
[FairfieldLife] Re: CULT EXPERT WRITES ON THE TM PROGRAM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: snip It's a long list, but there are many brand-name superiority assumptions which are prevalent even at the level of the average Joe or Jane meditator. This IMO is the root of TM cultism, and not so much the dye-in-the-wool TMO True Believer that Peter describes, but in the acquisition of widespread brand-name falsehoods. By falsehoods, Vaj means, of course, stuff that he doesn't agree with.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: CULT EXPERT WRITES ON THE TM PROGRAM
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 10:13 PM, Peter drpetersutp...@yahoo.com wrote: If the question is whether the TMO is a cult or not is too simple a question. It makes it appear as if its an all or nothing question and that doesn't reflect the broad experiential reality of people in their various levels of involvement/identification with the TMO. For some people the TMO functions as a cult in their life. By this I mean they have very little independent thought outside of the conceptual tools offered by the TMO. They conceptualize their experience through these constructs. When something doesn't fit the constructs they also have a means of dealing with it: unstressing, negativity. The conceptual tool box becomes a dogma for them: it is solely a belief system and not based on their personal experience. They are emotionally repressed and intellectually inflexible because they have traded their authentic experiencing for a system of thoughts/concepts. This is one extreme. The opposite is someone who does their program solely because of the experience they have. Sorry, Pete. It's a cult. Just like the Catholic Church is a religion. If I choose not to go to church, to confession, to Holy Communion, the Catholic Church continues to be a religion. I have no choice but to expose myself to and pass as a member of the Cult of TM. No way I'd be allowed in the Dome if I didn't pay lip service to all the orthodoxy of the TMO, our king, our princes, our global country, if I didn't show the proper reverence to the whole puja to Guru Dev thing that goes on between rounds in the morning. It may make you feel better to think that you are not a member of a cult by declaring that you don't feel like you're a member and that you don't do culty things. But if you authentically practice TM and the TM sidhis, you have a global country, a king and princes. If we don't have your current email and postal address, send it to us and we'll put you on the list so you can reconnect with Cult Central.
[FairfieldLife] Re: CULT EXPERT WRITES ON THE TM PROGRAM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: snip If someone didn't have an attachment to a group identity, why would they endlessly criticize that group? Speaking of inauthentic arguments, Pete, this is one. I'm not gay, but I find myself being an active voice in criticizing the haters who sponsored Proposition 8 and now want to nullify same-sex marriages in CA. I will criticize these assholes no end, but I was never a part of the group they're trying to take rights away from. Excellent point. Unfortunately, Barry is incapable of understanding that it works in the other direction as well. If Barry were to apply the same standards to himself that he applies to those who react angrily and with insults to TM critics, he'd have to acknowledge that he overidentifies with gays. Similarly, there are some who criticize poor behavior in spiritual groups because it's there and shouldn't be, not because they were ever part of the group. And some who manufacture criticisms of nonexistent behavior, just as Rick Warren, for example, has criticized the notion of legalizing same-sex marriage because, he claimed, it would result in restricting his freedom of speech from the pulpit. Which is, of course, utter nonsense. Bottom line: How somebody reacts to criticism of a group--theirs or any other--has much more to do with the accuracy and fairness of the criticism than it does with the degree to which the person reacting identifies with the group being criticized. Barry leaves the validity of the criticisms out of his equation entirely. They find a degree of value in the group identity, but they also find problems. They want the group identity, but without the problems. In all honesty, the only person I can think of on this forum who falls into this category is Nabby. We all suspect that he wouldn't be allowed within a mile of a real TM facility, Actually, I believe Barry is the only person here who has ever suggested this. Barry has no basis for claiming we all suspect it. I certainly don't.
[FairfieldLife] Re: CULT EXPERT WRITES ON THE TM PROGRAM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutp...@... wrote: --- On Sat, 12/27/08, sparaig lengli...@... wrote: snip THis is from vague memory. PRhaps from this gorup or another: There once was a man who hated Lord SHiva. His hatred knew no bounds. Eery day he woiuld trek to the shrine, wend his way to the front of the worshippers and spit. Then walk off. This went on for years. One day, during monsoon season, the rains were so terrible that no-one came to the shrine, except that man. As always, he walked to the front and spit. As he turned to walk away, Lord SHiva himself appeared and offered to grant any boon. WHy, asked the man, since you know how I feel about you, do you do such a thing? Because, replied Shiva, of all My followers, thou art the most faithful. It's not just the hangers on that can make a cult of something... He/she who has ears, let him/her hear. Deep love or deep hatred are attachments that can lead to transcendence depending upon whom or what one is attached to. MMY said once that you can either hate or love your master. But then he added it was probably better to love your master because then you would do what he said. So the former TM crowd are practicing inverted Bhakti with MMY as their guru... Interesting take. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: CULT EXPERT WRITES ON THE TM PROGRAM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: snip It's a long list, but there are many brand-name superiority assumptions which are prevalent even at the level of the average Joe or Jane meditator. This IMO is the root of TM cultism, and not so much the dye-in-the-wool TMO True Believer that Peter describes, but in the acquisition of widespread brand-name falsehoods. By falsehoods, Vaj means, of course, stuff that he doesn't agree with. Goes both ways of course, but it IS funny to watch someone present those two-edged swords hilt-first. Lawson
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: CULT EXPERT WRITES ON THE TM PROGRAM
--- On Sat, 12/27/08, Richard J. Williams willy...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Richard J. Williams willy...@yahoo.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: CULT EXPERT WRITES ON THE TM PROGRAM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, December 27, 2008, 11:02 AM Peter wrote: Deep love or deep hatred are attachments that can lead to transcendence depending upon whom or what one is attached to. This doesn't even make any sense. How can an 'attachment' lead to transcendence? Anytime that you have an attachment, you're that much further from *isolating* the Purusha, the goal of Yoga. If TMers were attached to their bija mantra, then they could never go beyond sense perception. The idea behing Yoga is to get burn off all attachments, including love and hate, to get rid of the samskaras. You are not going to get anymore enlightenment than you are going to get, so just stop all the striving - don't become attached and identify with the prakriti - you need to isolate the Transcendental Person. I agree with you on first blush, as it were: attachments are indicative of bondage. But attachments can be transcended through complete and total identification. Maharishi called this riding the tiger of time. SSRS also talks about this as being totally 100% in what you do. Amma also talked about the path of duality leading to unity. Its completely tantric, but we don't have to move into that domain. Look at the mind's identification with the mantra. It transcends time and space boundaries. Be completely attached to a Sat guru. This is what MMY did with Guru Dev. We, in the TMO, are so used to a transcendent spirituality; a Shaivite approach, that we tend not to understand the Vaishite approach (using this term very broadly) of movement through boundaries. Another perspective, more aligned with your thoughts, would be attachment to a vehicle that transcends. This would be attachment to a sattvic vehicle. Sattva is that which supports. Authenticity is inherently sattvic. Enlightenment through being completely authentic and present with what simply is regardless of our relationship to it. To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: CULT EXPERT WRITES ON THE TM PROGRAM
The result of her investigation was a book,Cults: The Battle for God (1990, TM is not a religion - except in the sense that it tries to offer a lifestyle and spiritual dimension to people . Oh, so it is a religion for some, in the sense that TM and the movement does offer a lifestyle and spiritual dimension. As she would define it. Seems is a religion for some people, even as DavidOJ published before. 1990? Was before '93 when Beven directed, ...the movement is for those who have faith and belief in Maharishi and those who don't should leave. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: From: David Orme-Johnson [mailto:davi...@...] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 2:40 PM To: David Orme-Johnson Subject: CULT EXPERT WRITES ON THE TM PROGRAM Dear Colleagues,
[FairfieldLife] Re: CULT EXPERT WRITES ON THE TM PROGRAM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: From: David Orme-Johnson [mailto:davi...@...] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 2:40 PM To: David Orme-Johnson Subject: CULT EXPERT WRITES ON THE TM PROGRAM Dear Colleagues, I just posted this letter re TM and cults on http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/IndividualEffects/IsTMaCult/CultExpe rtonTM /index.cfm . All the best, David Cult Expert Writes on the TM Program Shirley Harrison Letter Shirley Harrison is a writer and reporter. In the late 1980's, she investigated various religious/spiritual that lay outside of mainstream religions, as well as their critics in the anti-cult movement. The result of her investigation was a book,Cults: The Battle for God (1990, Christopher Helm, London, written with Sally Evemy). She writes in her Preface My aim, as I set out, is understanding- not judgement. (p. 4). I went to look for the good-in order to assess the truth about the bad in those movements branded 'cult' (p. 1). Her letter, reproduced below, is her assessment of the Transcendental Meditation program, its organization, and people. The letter is addressed to Peter Warburton, one of the leaders of the TM organization in Britain. Statement from the WORD TEAM 5th January, 1990 Dear Mr. Warburton, As you know, I was commissioned by the publishers Christopher Helm to write a book which appeared last year, Cults - the Battle for God. This was the first non-academic agnostic appraisal of some of the fringe spiritual movements - setting them in a historical perspective. In the course of our research, my colleague Sally Evemy and I visited a great variety of the groups which have come to be called Cults and talked with dozens of people, at all levels of involvement, who have found comfort from them, as well as their critics in the anti-cult movement. From our experience we found no evidence of harm resulting from the practice of TM or Ayurveda in Britain. On the contrary, almost all those we talked to were pleased and continuing to practise what they had learned. It was the only one of our chosen subjects in which we had great difficulty finding case histories to reflect the flip side of the story. In fact. of all the new movements TM at its simplest level was possibly the only system that held any personal interest for us. It is not a religion - except in the sense that it tries to offer a lifestyle and spiritual dimension to people of all faiths. It is not cheap but no one is compelled to spend; any deep involvement or long term commitment is voluntary and appears to be beneficial for those who believe in it. There may well be some for whom AV health does not work - not everyone responds to acupuncture either. There were some aspects of the ideology and organisation with which we could quarrel. So there are in many mainstream movements and alternative health programmes. We found the British organisers sincere, open and dedicated in their philosophy. Although there are some acknowledged Hindu roots, as there are in many western belief systems, TM is not a Hindu missionary movement nor does it seek to convert. We met Jewish and Roman Catholic practitioners. I am quite happy for you to quote these observations. With all good wishes, Yours sincerely, Shirley Harrison 1990? I wonder what she'd make of it now Mr Warburton would be wearing his Raja crown. And what would any non-TBer make of the channel? A majority of people I know in the movement think it's all a load of crap and that the TMO has lost it's way, Lord knows what an outsider would think. Still, it's only negative in the sense that it alienates the non-believer which is what Marshy wanted, to cut out the deadwood.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: CULT EXPERT WRITES ON THE TM PROGRAM
If the question is whether the TMO is a cult or not is too simple a question. It makes it appear as if its an all or nothing question and that doesn't reflect the broad experiential reality of people in their various levels of involvement/identification with the TMO. For some people the TMO functions as a cult in their life. By this I mean they have very little independent thought outside of the conceptual tools offered by the TMO. They conceptualize their experience through these constructs. When something doesn't fit the constructs they also have a means of dealing with it: unstressing, negativity. The conceptual tool box becomes a dogma for them: it is solely a belief system and not based on their personal experience. They are emotionally repressed and intellectually inflexible because they have traded their authentic experiencing for a system of thoughts/concepts. This is one extreme. The opposite is someone who does their program solely because of the experience they have. They have little or no investment in the conceptual tools offered by the TMO as a personal identity. They use any spiritual traditions' conceptual tools in a utilitarian manner to conceptually elucidate their experiencing. Who said it is irrelevant. Concepts only have value in their ability to intellectually clarify authentic experiencing. There is very little if any blind belief in a system of thoughts/constructs. They are not in a cult, although they might be doing their program every day in the dome. --- On Fri, 12/26/08, dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote: From: dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony...@yahoo.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: CULT EXPERT WRITES ON THE TM PROGRAM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, December 26, 2008, 12:07 PM The result of her investigation was a book,Cults: The Battle for God (1990, TM is not a religion - except in the sense that it tries to offer a lifestyle and spiritual dimension to people . Oh, so it is a religion for some, in the sense that TM and the movement does offer a lifestyle and spiritual dimension. As she would define it. Seems is a religion for some people, even as DavidOJ published before. 1990? Was before '93 when Beven directed, ...the movement is for those who have faith and belief in Maharishi and those who don't should leave. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: From: David Orme-Johnson [mailto:davi...@...] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 2:40 PM To: David Orme-Johnson Subject: CULT EXPERT WRITES ON THE TM PROGRAM Dear Colleagues, To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: CULT EXPERT WRITES ON THE TM PROGRAM
Gee, this is very well said, Peter. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutp...@... wrote: If the question is whether the TMO is a cult or not is too simple a question. It makes it appear as if its an all or nothing question and that doesn't reflect the broad experiential reality of people in their various levels of involvement/identification with the TMO. For some people the TMO functions as a cult in their life. By this I mean they have very little independent thought outside of the conceptual tools offered by the TMO. They conceptualize their experience through these constructs. When something doesn't fit the constructs they also have a means of dealing with it: unstressing, negativity. The conceptual tool box becomes a dogma for them: it is solely a belief system and not based on their personal experience. They are emotionally repressed and intellectually inflexible because they have traded their authentic experiencing for a system of thoughts/concepts. This is one extreme. The opposite is someone who does their program solely because of the experience they have. They have little or no investment in the conceptual tools offered by the TMO as a personal identity. They use any spiritual traditions' conceptual tools in a utilitarian manner to conceptually elucidate their experiencing. Who said it is irrelevant. Concepts only have value in their ability to intellectually clarify authentic experiencing. There is very little if any blind belief in a system of thoughts/constructs. They are not in a cult, although they might be doing their program every day in the dome.
