Article 81: Confessions of a Cultist Preamble: the intent behind these ‘confessions’ pieces is not to indulge in autobiographical reveals rather to contemplate various aspects of contemporary life that may be of interest to readers, albeit somewhat through the lens of the author’s personal experience. This Article is about the mentality and social dynamic involved in what are called Cults. As with all such pieces, it will not try to provide exhaustive coverage, merely touch on a few aspects.
A cult, as you have implied, could also be characterized as Group Ego, subject to much the same analysis as the individual ego. This is a subject that has long fascinated me, mostly because it really isn't spoken of in that fashion. As a fellow member of the same sangha, I wonder if you have noticed that the buddhadharma covers the subject of Ego exhaustively - the ego of oneself and, to some extent, the non-self-nature all phenomena, but little if anything about group ego, which is the crux of politics. To what extent, would you say, does group ego mirror individual ego?
Yes, that seems quite valid - the notion of group ego - and a good insight.
But let's consider ego. One aspect is that it doesn't actually exist. The best explanation I ever heard about that was Nagchang Rinpoche, a Welsh truck-driving tulku recognized by Dodjum Rinpoche in the early 70's. He describes ego as 'not a thing but a process.' Whilst you walk there is walking but when you stop there is no more walking. Similarly ego is a process that is either being done or not done. When it is not being done it ceases to exist, just like walking is no more when you stop doing it.
So there is a process we can call ego. To me that process is deeper than personal psychology where the term originates. Rather it is the very process whereby an individual being perceives itself as such and thus as separate from the larger universe, the Whole. Obviously all parts are within a larger whole but the ego process is that whereby living beings auto-generate the experience through mind, body and emotion of being independent, separate entities. This is why the Three Marks of Existence are core teachings of the deconstructionist Hinayana canon (which systematically deconstructs the ego process and why, because of this process nature, the deconstruction has to combine both doctrine and praxis).
Now: do groups have the same sort of process? On the one hand, they too are fundamentally non-existent just like individual self hood (ego). On the other hand, there are group processes which manifest in ways essentially like individuals. If we go back to the example of the crowd at a football game oohing and aahing, clapping and booing, cheering and singing etc., all such things are very similar to individual expressions. A spiritual community is different from a football crowd because the latter knows it is there for a few hours to have a good time and act a little silly for a while; it's fun. But a spiritual community is some sort of long-term (often life long) commitment to a belief system, a discipline, a Do / Way; a more serious undertaking with a more serious, usually institutionally established, group dynamic. In the mind of the members the Sangha as a whole certainly seems to have some sort of substance, with mission, doctrine, rules of the road, ups and downs, good periods and bad periods, not to mention style and specific mores, so it seems to possess a mind of its own in many ways, though clearly not a living organism. It can become tyrannical, confused, obsessive, dysfunctional, wise, helpful, a great source of strength and wisdom and so on.
That said, although there clearly is a group dynamic in play - just as there is at a football stadium reacting to what plays out on the field - there isn't actually a group per se except insofar that it is felt as such, as a particular mandala with its own particular atmosphere and characteristics. But that mandalic feeling, along with not being substantial obviously (i.e. not made of physical matter), is always changing; and just as individuals can invest in the ego process to the point that it feels like we are solid, independent and lasting over time, so also members of a Sangha can regard it in exactly the same way. As such, the group takes on egotistical dynamics - or process.
Perhaps we could go further: if most of the members of a group identify with the ego process personally (as is true for 99% of human beings of course), then it is probably axiomatic that the group will mirror that ego centered approach on the part of the membership by manifesting egotistical processes itself. If the members regard themselves as solid, independent and lasting they will naturally regard the group - which is comprised of individuals the same as themselves - as having the same fundamental characteristics because of course these are not mere abstractions but descriptions of how we view ourselves and reality. A such they are ontological constants, as it were, 'the way things are'; that they are deluded is beside the point just as although confusion and ego are deluded, nevertheless they are vividly experienced.
This leads to what I personally feel about cults: they are a mutual creation of each and every member involved, not just the creation of the Leader as most discourse about them tends to intimate. The tendency to blame the leader for all the problems that the followers experience is a bit of a cop out - IMO. When a captain goes into battle with his platoons, each with its own lieutenant and sergeant, they all face enemy bullets equally and the bullets make no distinction between leaders and followers.
Similarly, I think one of the dangerous aspects about group dynamics is that it feels like the group is somehow over the individual allowing the individual to relinquish ownership of their own actions, feelings, thoughts and contribution. To me this is where the problems with cults arise: the willing surrender of individual agency results in a mutually unhealthy situation. This may be where the leadership dynamic becomes problematic: in surrendering agency to the higher power of the Group, lowly members expect the Leader to look after everything for them so that the Group Dynamic remains infallibly supportive. (Eternalism/Utopianism)
That issue was being addressed, I think, by the suggestion we heard back in the day about a Sangha being comprised of people who stood on their own not depending upon others for support. A good guideline for sure, but once a group dynamic gets going, even a very positive one which we experienced, then the underlying ego-tendencies on the part of the individual members also get going and at some point the inevitable over-solidification creates klesha and turmoil, just as it does with individuals.
Nov 5, 2023·edited Nov 5, 2023Liked by Random Ruminations
Interesting perspective as I went through similar in my youth within Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism. Today much a recluse and reader of the world around and within but no longer chant Nam myoho renge kyo.
Indeed I'm very skeptical of group think but am intrigued with brilliance and avoid arrogance so common it seems. I have difficulty in communicating my thoughts through writing and typically keep them as short responses particularly with those whom I read and appreciate such elliquent skills such as yours.
I follow Edward Slavsquat in order to get alternative takes on Russia (compared to mainstream Western vilification which I hardly ever read any more or via fans for whom Putin is infallible and thus never criticized). Edward may not be perfect (like any pundit or journalist) but: he lives in a village and is now fixing up a little old village house in Russia where he lives. You might enjoy his substack. Sometimes for quiet I enjoy watching a Japanese carpenter on Youtube called 'H'. He shows people Japanese joinery. Without words or music. And of course is the most eloquent expression of all.
A cult, as you have implied, could also be characterized as Group Ego, subject to much the same analysis as the individual ego. This is a subject that has long fascinated me, mostly because it really isn't spoken of in that fashion. As a fellow member of the same sangha, I wonder if you have noticed that the buddhadharma covers the subject of Ego exhaustively - the ego of oneself and, to some extent, the non-self-nature all phenomena, but little if anything about group ego, which is the crux of politics. To what extent, would you say, does group ego mirror individual ego?
Yes, that seems quite valid - the notion of group ego - and a good insight.
But let's consider ego. One aspect is that it doesn't actually exist. The best explanation I ever heard about that was Nagchang Rinpoche, a Welsh truck-driving tulku recognized by Dodjum Rinpoche in the early 70's. He describes ego as 'not a thing but a process.' Whilst you walk there is walking but when you stop there is no more walking. Similarly ego is a process that is either being done or not done. When it is not being done it ceases to exist, just like walking is no more when you stop doing it.
So there is a process we can call ego. To me that process is deeper than personal psychology where the term originates. Rather it is the very process whereby an individual being perceives itself as such and thus as separate from the larger universe, the Whole. Obviously all parts are within a larger whole but the ego process is that whereby living beings auto-generate the experience through mind, body and emotion of being independent, separate entities. This is why the Three Marks of Existence are core teachings of the deconstructionist Hinayana canon (which systematically deconstructs the ego process and why, because of this process nature, the deconstruction has to combine both doctrine and praxis).
Now: do groups have the same sort of process? On the one hand, they too are fundamentally non-existent just like individual self hood (ego). On the other hand, there are group processes which manifest in ways essentially like individuals. If we go back to the example of the crowd at a football game oohing and aahing, clapping and booing, cheering and singing etc., all such things are very similar to individual expressions. A spiritual community is different from a football crowd because the latter knows it is there for a few hours to have a good time and act a little silly for a while; it's fun. But a spiritual community is some sort of long-term (often life long) commitment to a belief system, a discipline, a Do / Way; a more serious undertaking with a more serious, usually institutionally established, group dynamic. In the mind of the members the Sangha as a whole certainly seems to have some sort of substance, with mission, doctrine, rules of the road, ups and downs, good periods and bad periods, not to mention style and specific mores, so it seems to possess a mind of its own in many ways, though clearly not a living organism. It can become tyrannical, confused, obsessive, dysfunctional, wise, helpful, a great source of strength and wisdom and so on.
That said, although there clearly is a group dynamic in play - just as there is at a football stadium reacting to what plays out on the field - there isn't actually a group per se except insofar that it is felt as such, as a particular mandala with its own particular atmosphere and characteristics. But that mandalic feeling, along with not being substantial obviously (i.e. not made of physical matter), is always changing; and just as individuals can invest in the ego process to the point that it feels like we are solid, independent and lasting over time, so also members of a Sangha can regard it in exactly the same way. As such, the group takes on egotistical dynamics - or process.
Perhaps we could go further: if most of the members of a group identify with the ego process personally (as is true for 99% of human beings of course), then it is probably axiomatic that the group will mirror that ego centered approach on the part of the membership by manifesting egotistical processes itself. If the members regard themselves as solid, independent and lasting they will naturally regard the group - which is comprised of individuals the same as themselves - as having the same fundamental characteristics because of course these are not mere abstractions but descriptions of how we view ourselves and reality. A such they are ontological constants, as it were, 'the way things are'; that they are deluded is beside the point just as although confusion and ego are deluded, nevertheless they are vividly experienced.
This leads to what I personally feel about cults: they are a mutual creation of each and every member involved, not just the creation of the Leader as most discourse about them tends to intimate. The tendency to blame the leader for all the problems that the followers experience is a bit of a cop out - IMO. When a captain goes into battle with his platoons, each with its own lieutenant and sergeant, they all face enemy bullets equally and the bullets make no distinction between leaders and followers.
Similarly, I think one of the dangerous aspects about group dynamics is that it feels like the group is somehow over the individual allowing the individual to relinquish ownership of their own actions, feelings, thoughts and contribution. To me this is where the problems with cults arise: the willing surrender of individual agency results in a mutually unhealthy situation. This may be where the leadership dynamic becomes problematic: in surrendering agency to the higher power of the Group, lowly members expect the Leader to look after everything for them so that the Group Dynamic remains infallibly supportive. (Eternalism/Utopianism)
That issue was being addressed, I think, by the suggestion we heard back in the day about a Sangha being comprised of people who stood on their own not depending upon others for support. A good guideline for sure, but once a group dynamic gets going, even a very positive one which we experienced, then the underlying ego-tendencies on the part of the individual members also get going and at some point the inevitable over-solidification creates klesha and turmoil, just as it does with individuals.
An interesting question...
Interesting perspective as I went through similar in my youth within Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism. Today much a recluse and reader of the world around and within but no longer chant Nam myoho renge kyo.
Indeed I'm very skeptical of group think but am intrigued with brilliance and avoid arrogance so common it seems. I have difficulty in communicating my thoughts through writing and typically keep them as short responses particularly with those whom I read and appreciate such elliquent skills such as yours.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comment and kind remarks.
I follow Edward Slavsquat in order to get alternative takes on Russia (compared to mainstream Western vilification which I hardly ever read any more or via fans for whom Putin is infallible and thus never criticized). Edward may not be perfect (like any pundit or journalist) but: he lives in a village and is now fixing up a little old village house in Russia where he lives. You might enjoy his substack. Sometimes for quiet I enjoy watching a Japanese carpenter on Youtube called 'H'. He shows people Japanese joinery. Without words or music. And of course is the most eloquent expression of all.
Thank you for both recommendations and do enjoy woodworking and my modest hued log home built by my hands.