But one will never really escape from that kind of trap, without really connecting to one's own powerful emotional boundaries.
Being blunt is very important, that is why personally I am blunt. Gentle flowery words can't work against a cultic structure.
Repeat--Gentle flowery words can't work against a cultic structure
Gentle flowery words do not work against a certain kind of bully. Ive read accounts by parents who tried and tried to raise their children, especially boys, to behave nonviolently in response to playground bullying, only to find that in some cases, the only way to stop the bullying was when their kid slugged the bully.
In New Age and Dharma Lite circles, there is a phobia against honest, frank speech.
And it may be that people who allow themselves to be emotionally spayed or neutered may at an unconscious level get off on following a leader or guru with anger management problems, because the leader gets to indulge the anger and other behavior forbidden to the followers.
One also sees this where a guru or leader milks his or her sufferings for pathos, and monopolizes compassion, while the followers are forbidden to see their own pain as equally valid.
The followers care for the guru while failing to give a damn about their own well being and fail to give a damn for the well being of each other.
All compassion is monopolized by the leader, while denied to the followers.
The leader becomes an insatiable black hole, absorbing all the emotional energy and vitality of the group. The leader is allowed to be angry. The leader is allowed to be cared for. The leader's sufferings (even when its just something that can be remedied by surgery) is exaggerated as drastic.
The followers are forbidden anger, forbidden care when suffering, told to 'turn it around' when they feel perturbed, forbidden to defend themselves or see thier own perspective as valid.
Only the leader's perspective is valid. Only the leader's experiences and emotions are real.
But from Janaki's account, the leader never has to turn it around.
A guru who is greedy and nasty can become a emtional surrogate of sorts, carrying and acting out impulses and emotions forbidden to the followers.
In Janaki's case, she mentions being in some Indian gurus ashram at age 14, then she follows Muktananda, then gets involved with BK.
That is a very very long time to be in guru-land. That very likely meant she was socialized to disown emotional boundaries early on and then rationalize this disowning of valid anger and emotional boundaries under the guise of spiritual rationalization.
Regarding blue collar frankness, I was once in on a support team for a multi day athletic event.
We were in a van, dotty from lack of sleep. The driver drove into this big-ass pothole and the whole van went THAWUMMP!! and we bounced so hard our noggins went to half an inch of the ceiling, then we bounced back down.
My brains were just oozing out my ears from utter sleep deprivation.
As we lurched, I let out a slow, low, from the belly moan of 'Fuuuuuuuuccckkk.
Another guy turned around, looked at me, and said, 'Now I know you are real.'
Its that low, in the belly energy that grounds us, and gives juice to our boundaries.
And enables us to fight off sleaze.
When we are trained to feel shame and distrust toward our anger, we are emotionally
lobatomized, no matter what gender we are.
This is not a mandate to run around being an abusive bully all the time, but if we are cut off from anger, we are cut off from a vitality more ancient than our word driven neo cortex application programs.
Anger is part of the biological fight-flight response. Its part of our operating system, part of our MS-DOS.
IF someone manages to estrange our word driven minds from our bellies, our adrenergic fight or flight responses, then we become putty in the hands of shysters.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2009 02:13AM by corboy.