Blind obedience a hallmark of cultish religion

“Don’t do that!” We hear this a lot when we’re children. Often for good reasons. Like when we want to flush kitty down the toilet, or see what happens when the bathtub water just keeps getting higher and higher.

But once we can think things out reasonably for ourselves, few of us want to be treated like two year olds. So why are so many people attracted to religions that demand blind obedience, no matter how nonsensical the command?

I guess because humans also value security. If we let someone else make decisions for us, we may not be free, yet we have something to cling to: our submission. “I’ll do whatever you want” is a solid unequivocal statement. No distressing ambiguities.

Some people love being part of a military-like chain of command. I understand the appeal. I’ve been a committed religious soldier myself. However, now I look back on my jump and ask “how high” on the way up days with more than a little embarrassment.

One example: I used to be an enthusiastic Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB) “sevadar” (volunteer). After I started learning Shotokan karate, I got to be a security sevadar during the guru’s occasional visits to the United States and Canada.

Now, there’s nothing wrong with security. Except when it’s overzealous. During a visit Master Gurinder Singh made to Honolulu I was standing outside the auditorium when the guru’s entourage strode by.

Gurinder Singh walked past me and toward the building where he was to speak. He stopped and turned around about thirty yards away, looking and waving his hands in a “no, no” gesture toward my general direction.

The reason? A man near me had pulled out his camera and was taking photographs of the guru. From a good distance—not at all a paparazzi sort of intrusion. But RSSB initiates were under firm orders not to photograph Gurinder Singh or record his words.

However, this guy was in a public place. And we had no way of knowing if he was a member of RSSB. Plus, even if he was, what right did we have to stop him from taking a photo of the guru?

Such considerations didn’t enter the mind of the aggressive security sevadars around me (myself, I had no inclination to confront the man). They yelled “Stop!” He looked confused. “You can’t take photographs of the master,” he was told.

It was a unpleasant scene, especially considering this was supposed to be a weekend of spiritual love. I can’t recall all of the details of the encounter. I’m pretty sure the man got talked into taking the film out of his camera and handing it over.

I do know that I’ve seen a similar scene in movies, like when a Mafia boss is photographed in a compromising situation and his goons rough up the camera man.

What’s most disturbing to me now is how little I was disturbed at the time. Like everyone else around me, I assumed that obedience to the guru trumped respect for non-sectarian niceties like the First Amendment. After all, the guru was considered to be God in human form, and it isn’t a good idea to disobey God.

In short, I was enmeshed in a cultish way of thinking back then. Heck, I may still be, but at least now I’m a devotee of the Cult of Me—which has a much more flexible code of conduct. Scanning these “Warning signs of dysfunctional cults,” I see quite a few that apply to RSSB.

For example:

Proud feeling of being the chosen people, of possessing the exclusive truth or means of salvation, or being superior to those outside the group.

Blind obedience to harmful or unwise directives from on high.

Suppression of dissent, doubt, critical thinking, sincere questions, discussion or independent judgment.

Legalistic obsession with myriad rules. Enslavement to authoritarian, military-style organization and procedure.

Before my Church of the Churchless days, a few years ago I wrote on my other blog about giving a talk to a large gathering of RSSB devotees in Petaluma, California. In that post I said, “No, I’m not a member of a cult, no matter what my wife says.”

Well, once again Laurel is right. Maybe I should always unthinkingly do whatever she commands. No, wait, there’s no “maybe” involved here. I forgot that I’m married. (Cultish behavior is entirely acceptable if you’re a husband, so sayeth the sacred Book of Woman).

Comments

[tao]

Brian,
I hadn't ever read that other blog entry of yours ("Not lost in translation" - May 30, 2004). I found it was interesting and you made a good point. It even made me smile when I was imagining you up there on the stage giving such a sensible talk to all those hard-line believers. *wink*

[benandante]

I've been preoccupied with more secular thoughts lately and I'm once more astonished/reassured that we seem to travel on parallel mind-waves.

Tribalism in so many forms seems to be dictating the most mundane/ first chakra/ materialistic/ facist forms of logic. Warfare is being waged all over the planet over what is is essence a personal disagreement. The beliefs of another person do not threaten me, nor do their personal habits, their private diet, or mindset, or beliefs or whatever ... their existence poses ZERO threat to me. But my tribe hates their tribe, and if they cease to exist my tribe will be happy.

Religion seems to function as an adoptive tribe ...churches are really tribal meeting places? I don't know yet.

What does strike me as bizarre and sad is the language in our own nation reflects this tribalism at its' worst. The divides between one way of thinking and another seem to wide to cross but... it's a mind-set! Despite myself I've bought in to the idea that the people I disagree with are out there red state Mommy Swapping idiots... and I am sure they see me as a granola eating tree hugging Pict.

I want to cultivate more peace, to find commoon ground, to create rather than consume -- but in the back of my head I seem to be channelling Roger in question mode: if I don't demand accountability from my government, who will? if I don't stand up against tyrrany now, will I have a chance to stand against it later? is the absence of outrage tacit approval?

I'm still on the question-formulation section of the quiz; I'm hoping the answer portion comes soon.

Jeanine

[James]

Jeanie,

"zero threat"

You had better pull your head out. If the US did not have a militar you would be a slave of what ever country took this one. I suggest you read "the god delusion" and "the end of faith". You will see the world for what it is and how it operates - pure darwinism. I'm not talking about the natural kingdom, i'm talking about the political world of Man.

Brian,

those criteria you posted also apply to religions, especially islam, which makes the nazi look benign.

[Robert Paul Howard]

Dear Brian,

In concert with your observation (and of some of your commenters) I again commend Howard Bloom's _The Lucifer Principle_ which - I'm sorry to say - seems to portray the "human condition" in terms that seem forcefully accurate to me. Unfortunately.

Robert Paul Howard

[benandante]

James,

I live in one of the only locations in United States history where civillians were killed by enemies of the state. I don't need anyone to threaten my supposed innocence, I can still remember the smell of death quite distinctly.

But your response puzzles me -- what do my ruminations about Bosnia, Darfur and Rwanda have to do with our military? And are my doubts about whether the civil liberties I take for granted may not be enjoyed by my kids in the future somehow connected to militant Islamists? How exactly is the way that I feel or think a threat of any kind? Aren't my actions or inactions the threat? Or are we doomed to act on every thought and feeling we have?

These are the questions I am asking. So far I've determined that the Jewish deli in town is no threat to me, just as the mosque up the road is no threat to me, just as the rectory up the hill is no threat to me, just as the library across the street is no threat to me. I guess I'm bulletproof.

As for the books you cite, I've read both and prefer Dante Allegheri and Machiavelli to that contemporary pap. Pick a great mind to argue your case, James, and not a mediocre one.

Jean

[benandante]

In reading my first post I realize that perhaps my red state/blue state characterizations were taken as serious and not as the derivative, simplistic crud that gets passed off as intelligent political commentary on the 24 hour news stations.

I'm NOT a Pict, I am a complex being, inhabiting a world that Brian correctly recognized as sentient and co-operative on the most basic levels.

I am not talking about "Peace" in a yellow happy faced insignia counter-culture sense. Peace is not "just" an icon and it is not just about guns and bombs. I am trying to develop a mindset that is not actively looking for the predator behind the bush all of the time. I'm trying to reach a place where the word blame is absent from my vocabulary.

There goes my "roger-mind" again: Do I want to inhabit a blameless world? if no one is blameless, does anything get done?

peace in all its forms, (upside down broken cross and all)
Jean

[Pam]

Jean,
Love your thoughtful, non-agressive commentary

[tao]

James,

What exactly are you saying? Are you perhaps justifying and defending pre-emptive aggression and PNAC?

It's not real clear, but it sounds a bit like you are another phony patriot and Islam hater, without having any understanding of who the real "nazis" are.

So maybe you could elaborate upon your position, and explain just what you meant in your comment to Jean. I will reserve my conclusions until then.

[Mystic Bumwipe]

> ---------------

To Brian.

Lets see now,....
If I want to follow my desires AND my gurus orders
and rough someone up who doesn't respect my gurus orders
then I can and anyone who quibbles with my understanding
of right and wrong on this is deluded and almost certainly
a victim of the universal mind (unlike me).

If I want to follow my desires and get up
and disturb everyone around me in the middle
of a satsang at Ghoman by going to take a leak
after being expressly asked BEFORE the satsang
NOT to disturb everyone by leaving before the end of the talk,
then I can, and anyone who quibbles with my understanding
of right and wrong on this is deluded and probably a victim
of a cult mentality (unlike me).

If I - or anyone else wants - to follow our desires and
take anyone's photo in a public place then we can,
and anyone who quibbles with my understanding
of right and wrong on this is deluded and probably a victim
of a cult mentality (unlike me ...er, although I was once.
But I'm alright now).

Hmmm?

I think I am starting to see a pattern emerging here ;-)

Can anyone else see it?

Chris (MBW)

[Brian]

Chris/MBW, let me try to guess what the pattern is. I should be able to, since the "here" you seem to be referring to is what I've written on this blog.

The pattern I've been trying to follow is a preference for naturalness and common sense.

If you feel like roughing someone up just because they're not following a guru's orders, this isn't a good thing to do (especially if that someone hasn't agreed to follow the orders).

If you feel like you need to quietly get up and walk to the bathroom during a talk, rather than pee in your pants, this is a good thing to do.

If you feel like you want to take a distant photo of someone standing in a public place, this is a good thing to do.

If that someone you've taken a photo of objects to being photographed, it's a good thing to listen to the objection. It's also a good thing to then do whatever you want: keep the photograph or destroy/delete it. It's your choice, because there's nothing unnatural or against common sense about taking unobtrusive photos in public places.

So if you're suggesting that I have a bias toward naturalness and common sense, I proudly plead "guilty as charged."

[tao]

Brian,

Good for you too. Naturally, common sense wins every time.

[Todd Chambers]

Chris, this is the most callous, insensitive, and un-compassionate position I've ever seen you take.

I almost refrained from doing a 10-day Vipassana course because I was afraid I would not be allowed to get up to go pee.

Try walking a mile in some people's shoes who suffer from these problems.

Todd