Thoughts on Cultish Groups

[forestofclarity]

When I first started spiritual practice, it was suggested that I study fraud, tricks, and magic to learn how people are deceived. For example, people like to pass leverage and body mechanics off as special powers of some sort. I also like to study cults from time to time. In that spirit, from some recent resources: 

 

Quote

If one’s practice only affects ming while leaving hsing untouched, one will experience all manner of sensations and reactions in the body, but one will not find one’s “protagonist,” and as a result the real goal of cultivation will remain elusive. People whose practice does not address hsing pour time into their bodies, and in return they create reactions in their qi meridians as well as certain physical changes. But because they do a poor job cultivating their minds’ natures, their thought patterns follow their base desires instead of becoming more refined. Because they have not developed their hsing, a great many qigong “masters” end up boasting of having supernormal abilities (which they may well have), advertising themselves, and seeking to profit from their abilities. Once they establish themselves in their roles as “masters,” many of these practitioners end up exploiting others for influence, money, and sex. This is how they ultimately end up as cult leaders. 

 

Ge Guolong, Taoist Inner Alchemy, trans. Mattias Daly

 

I would say these groups are more "cultish" than cults, more of a cult of personality than a Jim Jones commune. But the basic principles seem to be the same. 

 

It should not be missed that many groups use byzantine metaphysics, endless explanations, and or various types of conspiracies to draw people in, creating "us" v. "them" mentalities and shaping one's perceptions. Some of this comes from limiting sources of information to a single authoritative source (which is one reason we have records from past masters): 

 

 

 

 

[Taoist Texts]

4 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

When I first started spiritual practice, it was suggested that I study fraud, tricks, and magic to learn how people are deceived.

excellent topic. It is my specialty. Thanks for bringing it up.

4 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

I would say these groups are more "cultish" than cults, more of a cult of personality than a Jim Jones commune. But the basic principles seem to be the same. 

thats very true.

Quote

Ge Guolong, Taoist Inner Alchemy, trans. Mattias Daly

while commending these two learned experts for reminding us about the cults (i am not sure why cults are an issue for them or even what are cults according to them), they are being naive on 3 counts relevant to this forum. Their naivete is shown by how they just say things without any explanation why these things are bad or even what these things are:

1/

Quote

their thought patterns follow their base desires instead of becoming more refined.

why should not it be so? what's refined? what's base?

2/

Quote

boasting of having supernormal abilities (which they may well have), advertising themselves, and seeking to profit from their abilities. 

if they have those why should not they?

3/

Quote

Once they establish themselves in their roles as “masters,” many of these practitioners end up exploiting others for influence, money, and sex. 

  what do the Quotation marks  inveigh here? what is exploiting? how is this different from any other human career apart from that of a solitary cast-away?

 

a neidan bonus/

Quote

If one’s practice only affects ming while leaving hsing untouched

this is a big red flag debunking their expertise because there is no ming without hsing.

Edited July 17 by Taoist Texts

[forestofclarity]

Let me address what I see is the core issue: 

 

1 hour ago, Taoist Texts said:

this is a big red flag debunking their expertise because there is no ming without hsing.

 

I would say there's no anything without hsing.

 

But here's the thing (and I know you won't like this): words are slippery buggers. They can mean different, or even many things, depending on context. Words are, by their very nature, limitations, approximations, false to one degree or another (just like any other limited thing). Not understanding this is a red flag in itself, at least from certain Mahayana Buddhist POV. 

 

There are common meanings, lower meanings, higher meanings, etc. in every spiritual tradition. Core Buddhist terms have at least FOUR meanings, if not more if you count provisional and ultimate meanings (and don't be fooled, they aren't really ultimate). So the same term has various (usually deeper) meanings depending on the context in which it is used and the being to which the teaching is being aimed. The higher (are usually simpler) meanings are more aligned with the fundamental nature. 

 

Definitions and shades of meaning are, of course, also addressed in the book. 

 

As always, people can believe what they want. 

 

Edited July 17 by forestofemptiness

[Taoist Texts]

so back to the OP. Whats a cult? Apparently nobody knows.

Quote

A cult is a group which is typically led by a charismatic and self-appointed leader who tightly controls its members, requiring unwavering devotion to a set of beliefs and practices which are considered deviant outside the norms of society.

nope, thats not it, like at all. Chiefly because there is no such thing as the norms of society, nowadays.

Quote

This sense of the term is weakly defined – having divergent definitions both in popular culture and academia – and has also been an ongoing source of contention among scholars across several fields of study.

yep, nobody knows.

Quote

 religion scholar Megan Goodwin has defined the term cult, when it is used by the layperson, as often being shorthand for a "religion I don't like"

Thats it. Except the truth is of course, as usual, a total, 180 degree opposite of what a scholar claims:

A cult is a religion which does not like you.

Pertinent to this forum when peeps jump out of the woods to aggressively claim that their pies are more than your pies or their neidan is secreter than your neidan, their zapping is better than your no zapping  -  is a cult. In other words, if they enforce a taboo on you doubting them or you not believing what they believe - is a cult. Any organisation with  outbound taboos is a cult; any other - is basically a book club. 

[Apech]

5 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

so back to the OP. Whats a cult? Apparently nobody knows.

nope, thats not it, like at all. Chiefly because there is no such thing as the norms of society, nowadays.

yep, nobody knows.

Thats it. Except the truth is of course, as usual, a total, 180 degree opposite of what a scholar claims:

A cult is a religion which does not like you.

Pertinent to this forum when peeps jump out of the woods to aggressively claim that their pies are more than your pies or their neidan is secreter than your neidan, their zapping is better than your no zapping  -  is a cult. In other words, if they enforce a taboo on you doubting them or you not believing what they believe - is a cult. Any organisation with  outbound taboos is a cult; any other - is basically a book club. 

 

I have been associated with two groups over the years (now no longer) and my experience is that although the leaders did have charisma (and it is debatable how much of that charisma is simply due to being the leader/teacher/master etc. and how much is a personal attribute); in both the cases I experienced the leader was doing quite a lot to avoid forming a cult but generally failing.  The drive towards cultish behaviour was coming chiefly from the students ... and if I may dare say it, the female ones and of them especially those 'close' to the teacher.  Around them would be quite a large group of 50% sycophants and 50% genuine hard working devotees.  Then there would be a larger group who were 'interested' and liked to hear the teachings and just wouldn't challenge what was coming from the inner groups for fear of ridicule or just sounding stupid etc.

 

The drive towards cultish behaviour and attitudes came from the students and not so much the 'master'.  But I would guess that many a not so genuine master would give in to this tendency quite easily.

 

I recognise that there are also quite a number of people who deliberately set out to generate a cult around them - but I suspect these are the minority.

 

The other fact or I have noticed in Tibetan Buddhism is an in-built encouragement to sheepishness.  Not sheepishness but sheep like behaviour and a desire to wool up the message - that is make it deliberately confusing in subtle ways.  This is particularly noticeable around subjects like no-self and emptiness.  But mostly in the classic logical error of appeal to authority - and 'ask the master' or quoting him in response to any question particularly to draw any challenging conversation to an end.  All these things are mostly unconscious and not intentionally malevolent - in fact they are intended to be helpful.  But if you are genuinely 'seeking' they are not helpful (I think).

 

 

[forestofclarity]

Great points. 

 

I think what generally distinguishes a cult from a religion in my view is the aim. Both tend to use the same or similar methods, but the aim is much different.

 

For example, "live a Christ centered life." It is interesting to me on how uncanny the descriptions of yuan shen returning to the throne and setting the kingdom right in the Secret of the Golden Flower are to the Christian symbology of Christ returning to the throne and restoring everything on earth. So let's say, Christ is our own fundamental mind. That makes sense to lead a Christ centered life, to render everything unto Christ, to allow Christ to guide us moment to moment. Then we may overflow with love and healing energy and all the various things promised. 

 

Now let's say we put in there the acquired mind, the thoughts, habits, and personality traits of a particular person or set of people. Now we live a "Jim Jones" centered life. We listen to Jim Jones, we give everything to Jim Jones, we follow and do everything under the guidance and direction of Jim Jones, we render everything unto Jim Jones. That's a cult (and idolatry--- substituting the created for the uncreated). 

 

Of course, it doesn't even have to be another person. 

 

[Taoist Texts]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

Not sheepishness but sheep like behaviour and a desire to wool up the message - that is make it deliberately confusing in subtle ways.

 

1 hour ago, Apech said:

The drive towards cultish behaviour was coming chiefly from the students ... and if I may dare say it, the female ones

what he said.

Quote

Ge Guolong, Taoist Inner Alchemy, trans. Mattias Daly

 

regarding this, fortunately, this passage on cults was a random tangent, its shallow moralizing  quickly abandoned never to mention cults again.

on the other hand the ming-hsing split is ubiquitous throughout the book which is an amateurish mistake in the beginning leading to a fatal miss in the end.

uuh, we can go either way and still get to the same place? thats nice lol

[forestofclarity]

14 minutes ago, Taoist Texts said:

uuh, we can go either way and still get to the same place? thats nice lol

 

Oh, TT, you don't get that ming is merely an expression of hsing, and that one can "trace back the radiance" so to speak? 

 

[Taoist Texts]

4 minutes ago, forestofemptiness said:

Oh, TT, you don't get that ming is merely an expression of hsing, and that one can "trace back the radiance" so to speak? 

 

i would love to know what you mean but i cannot without a concrete example, lest we be guilty of Apeche's wool above. Also i am not sure how it is germane to the very concrete, practical  hsing ming divide of the book. And finally i suspect your hsing ming is rather different from theirs.

[Apech]

Hsing = xing?

[Cobie]

.

Edited July 27 by Cobie

[Taoist Texts]

14 minutes ago, Cobie said:

Does that not mean: sky ‘ming’ refers to ‘xing’?

exactly does. "The Heaven sends down an order/command ming which creates an individual human psyche xing." These are the original real xing-ming, not what @forestofemptiness or the book neidaneers have in mind. Good job Cobie.

44 minutes ago, Apech said:

Hsing = xing?

yes;)

Edited July 18 by Taoist Texts

[Cobie]

.

Edited July 27 by Cobie

[forestofclarity]

3 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

i would love to know what you mean

 

I'm not sure that is true. 

 

27 minutes ago, Taoist Texts said:

not what @forestofemptiness or the book neidaneers have in mind

 

Enjoy tilting at those windmills. 

 

I do think you have a lot to share, not sure about the delivery. 

 

[Apech]

2 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

exactly does. "The Heaven sends down an order/command ming which creates an individual human psyche xing." These are the original real xing-ming, not what @forestofemptiness or the book neidaneers have in mind. Good job Cobie.

yes;)

 

I wonder then how these ideas became so wooled up.  And why?  To pull the wool over our eyes?  

 

I started a thread before 'in praise of ideas' and this I think is what I was trying to get at.  That subtle and powerful ideas properly applied are powerful and life changing (for want of a better phrase).  The essence of the modern idea of a cult is specifically the misuse of such ideas to befuddle people into getting them to do what they want.

 

Cult originally just meant the rituals of a particular god - the rites of that god particular to it and the place where it was worshiped.

 

 

[Cobie]

.

Edited July 27 by Cobie

[Apech]

2 minutes ago, Cobie said:

It’s the ‘pompous gits’ effect. People that haven’t got a clue but like to pontificate. 

 

I think perhaps there's something more sinister than that.

 

 

[Cobie]

.

Edited July 27 by Cobie

[Maddie]

When I was younger I used to be in a Christian cult. 

[Apech]

43 minutes ago, Cobie said:

 Yes there is - see the bit you left out: 

 

 

I didn’t leave that out you added it after my reply.

 

 

[Mark Foote]

13 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

 

For example, "live a Christ centered life." It is interesting to me on how uncanny the descriptions of yuan shen returning to the throne and setting the kingdom right in the Secret of the Golden Flower are to the Christian symbology of Christ returning to the throne and restoring everything on earth. So let's say, Christ is our own fundamental mind. That makes sense to lead a Christ centered life, to render everything unto Christ, to allow Christ to guide us moment to moment. Then we may overflow with love and healing energy and all the various things promised. 

 

 

 

[Mark Foote]

14 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

 

For example, "live a Christ centered life." It is interesting to me on how uncanny the descriptions of yuan shen returning to the throne and setting the kingdom right in the Secret of the Golden Flower are to the Christian symbology of Christ returning to the throne and restoring everything on earth. So let's say, Christ is our own fundamental mind. That makes sense to lead a Christ centered life, to render everything unto Christ, to allow Christ to guide us moment to moment. Then we may overflow with love and healing energy and all the various things promised. 

 

Ok, but seriously!

The way I've heard that teaching applied is, only when a person recognizes that they are a helpless sinner who is unable to do right, and takes Jesus within, can they let Jesus do right through them.

 

Here's a description I'm currently finishing up of the transition from the third initial concentration to the fourth, and the leap of faith and action solely by virtue of the free location of consciousness is a close parallel to the practice with Jesus above:
 

Gautama described the third concentration as like “water-lilies” of three different colors in a pond, lilies that never break the surface of the water:
 

… free from the fervor of zest, (one) enters and abides in the third musing; (one) steeps and drenches and fills and suffuses this body with a zestless ease so that there is not one particle of the body that is not pervaded by this zestless ease. … just as in a pond of blue, white, and red water-lilies, the plants are born in water, grow in water, come not out of the water, but, sunk in the depths, find nourishment, and from tip to root are steeped, drenched, filled and suffused with cold water so that not a part of them is not pervaded by cold water; even so, (one) steeps (one’s) body in zestless ease.

 

(AN III 25-28, Pali Text Society Vol. III p 18-19)

 

 

The water-lilies I believe represent the influence of the legs, arms, and head on activity in the abdominals, and consequently on stretch in the ligaments of the spine. The feeling of a combined influence of the extremities in the abdomen could be said to be like lilies of three colors floating under the surface of some body of water.  The exact influence of each extremity remains unclear, yet with a sense of gravity and a stretch in particular ligaments, I can arrive at an ease.

 

Gautama declared that the sages abide in the third concentration. I remind myself that the activity of the body in inhalation and exhalation tends toward coordination by the free placement of consciousness, and look for ease.

 

Things can shift from activity of the body coordinated by the free placement of consciousness, to activity that takes place solely by virtue of the free location of consciousness.  Here’s Gautama’s description of the fourth concentration:

 

Again, a (person), putting away ease… enters and abides in the fourth musing; seated, (one) suffuses (one’s) body with purity by the pureness of (one’s) mind so that there is not one particle of the body that is not pervaded with purity by the pureness of (one’s) mind. … just as a (person) might sit with (their) head swathed in a clean cloth; even so (one) sits suffusing (their) body with purity… 

 

(Pali Text Society AN III 25-28 Vol. III p 18-19, see also MN III 92-93, PTS p 132-134)

 

 

The transition to activity solely by virtue of the free location of consciousness can involve a leap of faith, as Dogen pointed out:

 

Suppose that you have climbed to the top of a hundred-foot pole, and are told to let go and advance one step further without holding bodily life dear. In such a situation, if you say that you can practice the Buddha-Way only when you are alive, you are not really following your teacher. Consider this carefully.

(“Shobogenzo-zuimonki: Sayings of Eihei Dogen Zenji, recorded by Koun Ejo”, 1-13, tr Shohaku Okumura, Soto-Shu Shumucho p 45-46)

 

 

Complete relinquishment of volitive activity in the body involves letting go of the activity of breath while yet conscious of the need to inhale and exhale.  That can feel like letting go of life itself. 

 

The location of consciousness in the third concentration is the place from which to “advance one step further”. That location may shift and move, yet that is the place where automatic activity in the movement of breath can be engendered solely by virtue of the location of consciousness. 

 

There's more to faith in Jesus, I know, yet I believe the parallel is still there in the first of the further states:

 

There’s a third line about actualization in “Genjo Koan”:

 

Although actualized immediately, the inconceivable may not be apparent.

 

(“Genjo Koan [Actualizing the Fundamental Point]", tr. Tanahashi)

 

 

Kobun Chino Otogawa gave a practical example of the actualization in that third line, even though he wasn’t talking about “Genjo Koan” at the time:

 

 You know, sometimes zazen gets up and walks around.

 (Lecture at S. F. Zen Center, 1980’s)

 

 

Activity of the body solely by virtue of the free location of consciousness can sometimes get up and walk around, without any thought to do so. 

 

Action like that resembles action that takes place through hypnotic suggestion, but unlike action by hypnotic suggestion, action by virtue of the free location of consciousness can turn out to be timely after the fact.  When action turns out to accord with future events in an uncanny way, the source of that action may well be described as “the inconceivable”.

 

I have found that zazen is more likely to “get up and walk around” when the free location of consciousness is accompanied by an extension of friendliness and compassion, an extension beyond the boundaries of the senses. Gautama the Buddha described such an extension:

 

[One] dwells, having suffused the first quarter [of the world] with friendliness, likewise the second, likewise the third, likewise the fourth; just so above, below, across; [one] dwells having suffused the whole world everywhere, in every way, with a mind of friendliness that is far-reaching, wide-spread, immeasurable, without enmity, without malevolence. [One] dwells having suffused the first quarter with a mind of compassion… with a mind of sympathetic joy… with a mind of equanimity that is far-reaching, wide-spread, immeasurable, without enmity, without malevolence.

 

(MN I 38, Pali Text Society Vol I p 48)

 

 

Gautama said that “the excellence of the heart’s release” through the extension of the mind of compassion was the first of the further concentrations, a concentration called “the infinity of ether” (SN V 118-120, Pali Text Society Vol V p 100-102).

 

The Oxford English Dictionary offers some quotes about “ether”:

 

They [sc. the Brahmins] thought the stars moved, and the planets they called fishes, because they moved in the ether, as fishes do in water.

S. Vince, Complete System. Astronomy vol. II. 253 (1799)

 

Plato considered that the stars, chiefly formed of fire, move through the ether, a particularly pure form of air.

Popular Astronomy vol. 24 364 (1916)

 

(https://www.oed.com/dictionary/ether_n, as of 6/19/2024)

 

When the free location of consciousness is accompanied by an extension of the mind of compassion, there can be a feeling that the necessity of breath is connected to things that lie outside the boundaries of the senses.  That, to me, is an experience of “the infinity of ether”.

 

 

Ether saves!  ok, doesn't have that same feel... 
 

Edited July 19 by Mark Foote

[Taoist Texts]

9 hours ago, Apech said:

I wonder then how these ideas became so wooled up.  And why?  To pull the wool over our eyes?  

The answer is simple but requires accepting man for what he is - a bio-robot. His processor, the brain, is built in such a way, that vague, high-faluting, 'woolly'  speech gives him a jolt of physical pleasure, both speaking and listening to it. Its a hard-wired survival mechanism.

 

 

Hence the supply and demand for such. The cultish behavior, is secondary to it. Note that when asked to specify the wooly speech , the speechifier demurs, because it harshes his mellow. (always observed when i ask for specific examples or definitions).

8 hours ago, Cobie said:

like to pontificate

yes thats it, the physical pleasure incentive. Modern biology calls it neurochemical

https://innermammalinstitute.org/your-neurochemical-self/

Edited July 19 by Taoist Texts

[Cobie]

.

Edited July 27 by Cobie

[Apech]

31 minutes ago, Cobie said:

no ‘soul’ ?

ah! Soul.