Re: Mooji a cult?
Posted by:
Sahara71
()
Date: March 17, 2019 07:05AM
Thank you for sharing that article, Corboy and thanks for your insightful comments, Swissalyst.
I read Dr. Antonakis's findings with great interest, as I think they reflect my own experiences with Moo's cult. I believe I was hypnotized over the Internet by watching Moo's material. I know it sounds far-fetched. I found the Moo satsung videos very addictive and mind-altering. At first, they made me feel very, very relaxed and a little euphoric.
I suppose I thought I was having some kind of 'spiritual awakening.' Of course, for this to happen, I had to entertain the idea that a spiritual awakening was indeed possible - which at the time, I did. I was quite the spiritual seeker, in a way. I was very impressionable and interested in esoteric ideas.
The article says:
"When individuals feel more secure, they have less need for salvation, less need for a charismatic bond. But when they feel vulnerable, then there is a possibility of a charismatic attachment. This can be very dangerous in certain circumstances.”
I came across the con-artist Moo when I was at a vulnerable place in my life, when I had undergone a life-changing (unavoidable) event. I was vulnerable to undue influence. I have also noticed that Moo attracts a lot of vulnerable people - some who have mental illnesses or who lack family support.
From the article:
"When there is dissonance, the brain steps into make a correction. But when we are around people we believe to have special powers or abilities—when we have made an implicit decision that we can trust them—we seem to unconsciously down-regulate our analytical thinking."
It seems that the human brain can naturally down-play its own critical thinking faculties. Couple this with with Moo constantly insisting that we reject 'the mind' and you can get into all kinds of trouble. First, you have to make the decision to listen to Moo and to believe that he is speaking some kind of deep spiritual truth. That all seems innocent enough - because if it turns out that if Moo is not revealing some deep truths, then you can disregard what he is teaching and move on, right? Wrong!
Once you become invested, the hypnotic process seems to take its own course. It traps you in to further denying the validity of your own thoughts.
From the article:
"...under the right circumstances, charismatics—especially if that charisma stems from our perception of them as a “leader”—can induce a state akin to hypnotism."
"The researchers drew parallels to similar experiments done on subjects on hypnosis, noting that hypnotism, when it works, was usually preceded by the massive frontal deactivation—in effect, a “handing over” of executive function to the hypnotist."
Once we have handed over our critical thinking capacity to Moo, we struggle to challenge that process of surrender, as we have done it unconsciously to begin with. We are basically in the dark and have no rational understanding of the predicament we find ourselves in. This is what happened to me! I was confused and became concerned about myself. I knew instinctively that a spiritual awakening would not induce confusion - I'm sure plenty of spiritual 'experts' would argue with this, but I can tell you, it did not feel right to me.
I read Dr. Antonakis's findings with great interest, as I think they reflect my own experiences with Moo's cult. I believe I was hypnotized over the Internet by watching Moo's material. I know it sounds far-fetched. I found the Moo satsung videos very addictive and mind-altering. At first, they made me feel very, very relaxed and a little euphoric.
I suppose I thought I was having some kind of 'spiritual awakening.' Of course, for this to happen, I had to entertain the idea that a spiritual awakening was indeed possible - which at the time, I did. I was quite the spiritual seeker, in a way. I was very impressionable and interested in esoteric ideas.
The article says:
"When individuals feel more secure, they have less need for salvation, less need for a charismatic bond. But when they feel vulnerable, then there is a possibility of a charismatic attachment. This can be very dangerous in certain circumstances.”
I came across the con-artist Moo when I was at a vulnerable place in my life, when I had undergone a life-changing (unavoidable) event. I was vulnerable to undue influence. I have also noticed that Moo attracts a lot of vulnerable people - some who have mental illnesses or who lack family support.
From the article:
"When there is dissonance, the brain steps into make a correction. But when we are around people we believe to have special powers or abilities—when we have made an implicit decision that we can trust them—we seem to unconsciously down-regulate our analytical thinking."
It seems that the human brain can naturally down-play its own critical thinking faculties. Couple this with with Moo constantly insisting that we reject 'the mind' and you can get into all kinds of trouble. First, you have to make the decision to listen to Moo and to believe that he is speaking some kind of deep spiritual truth. That all seems innocent enough - because if it turns out that if Moo is not revealing some deep truths, then you can disregard what he is teaching and move on, right? Wrong!
Once you become invested, the hypnotic process seems to take its own course. It traps you in to further denying the validity of your own thoughts.
From the article:
"...under the right circumstances, charismatics—especially if that charisma stems from our perception of them as a “leader”—can induce a state akin to hypnotism."
"The researchers drew parallels to similar experiments done on subjects on hypnosis, noting that hypnotism, when it works, was usually preceded by the massive frontal deactivation—in effect, a “handing over” of executive function to the hypnotist."
Once we have handed over our critical thinking capacity to Moo, we struggle to challenge that process of surrender, as we have done it unconsciously to begin with. We are basically in the dark and have no rational understanding of the predicament we find ourselves in. This is what happened to me! I was confused and became concerned about myself. I knew instinctively that a spiritual awakening would not induce confusion - I'm sure plenty of spiritual 'experts' would argue with this, but I can tell you, it did not feel right to me.
Re: Mooji a cult?
Posted by:
corboy
()
Date: March 17, 2019 08:10AM
Quote
'...But when we are around people we believe to have special powers or abilities—when we have made an implicit decision that we can trust them—we seem to unconsciously down-regulate our analytical thinking."
Imagine a stranger saying,
Discard your smoke alarm and car alarm.
Give me your PIN number.
Give me your username and passwords.
Outrageous.
A charismatic guru persuades us to do the neurological equivalent of this.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/17/2019 10:36PM by corboy.
Re: Mooji a cult?
Posted by:
swissalyst
()
Date: March 17, 2019 10:32PM
Sahara71 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> thanks for your insightful comments, Swissalyst.
Thank you, but I think the insightful thoughts on compensation for maternal abandonment were actually from 2cents. :)
-------------------------------------------------------
> thanks for your insightful comments, Swissalyst.
Thank you, but I think the insightful thoughts on compensation for maternal abandonment were actually from 2cents. :)
Prophetic Charisma by Len Oakes - Upgrade Your BS Detector
Posted by:
corboy
()
Date: March 17, 2019 10:48PM
Friends, those interested in the themes discussed in the charisma article would learn a lot by getting and reading an old but good book, Prophetic Charisma
by Len Oakes.
More here:
[www.google.com]
Oakes interviewed 20 charismatic leaders, many of whom led what could be identified as cults.
He identified most of the themes we are discussing here.
What is especially valuable is how Oakes elicited information about the leaders' life histories, their family backgrounds, thier personal struggles, occupations they gravitated to before figuring out their message. Oakes tells us in detail exactly what these leaders did to seek out and learn methods of social manipulation.
Advice to journalists and interested citizens:
Read Len Oakes' book Prophetic Charisma. Its on Google books. If you are a journalist or in another profession where you are likely to deal with various leaders of sects, purchasing a copy would be a worthy investment.
If it is not on Kindle, you can do a price comparison on book finder dot com.
Bookfinder.com listings for Prophetic Charisma.
[www.bookfinder.com]
(Refresh page to keep search results current)
[books.google.com]
When discussing an Australian cult leader named Serge Benhayon (who has recently been the subject of a television expose, and who lost a lawsuit he filed to intimidate a critic), someone wrote this about Serge:
One of the correspondents here wrote:
Corboy note:
Oakes uses the term "metacommunication."
By using the term, 'metacommunication', Dr. Oakes means commenting about the questioner's manner of saying something, rather than responding to what the questioner is asking.
Because, if you a journalist, medical investigator or attorney are sidetracked by someone using this strategy, sidetracked from a valid line of questioning into a discussion of meaning, or a discussion of your own mannerisms (and you may not have evinced any mannerisms--the operator may merely pretend this so as to create an opening to wind you up) once this sidetracking is allowed, the operator has **stuck the knife into the Vegemite jar your personal insecurities**--and then can spread you on toast or a biscuit then and eat you for a snack--metaphorically speaking.
All your excellent questions have been disarmed.
Oakes describes how charismatic leaders learned specific ways to throw people off balance if put in tight corners--turning attention away from themselves and onto the person daring to question then.
on page 90 of Prophetic Charisma Dr Oakes describes a situation:
Earlier, Oakes describes the method used.
(Or turning to the audience and raising a laugh-Corboy)
(Oakes, Ibid pp 89-90
This slippery metacommunicational strategy puts the attention onto the questioner and scuttles the entire questioning process.
This is analogous to a martial arts move designed to throw an opponent off balance.
This method of massaging somene's insecurities,throwing them off balance as a way to evade unpleasantly acute questioning is not proof of intelligence. It is merely a *skill* but a quite powerful skill that that can be learned by anyone.
The grim temptation is to use this in an exploitative manner. And that is where honor and kindness become paramount.
If one knows how to do this, one has the grave responsibility of not using it to gain unjust advantage over others. (This too is similar to that of a martial artist. Its no license to be a bully. The greater one's skill at throwing opponents, the greater the responsibility to use that skill only according to clear rules and in a contest--such as a tournament or in a courtroom setting--NO WHERE ELSE)
If someone is well trained and can match how confrontational the operator is the only remedy is to look the person straight on and say, This conversation is not about my mannerisms. This conversation is about your belief system. (Or the that the building wiring doesnt have a perimit)
(Corboy note on selection of names)
If I wanted to tailor this example to the needs of a UK audience, I'd refer to Marmite.
If addressing American readers, I'd refer to peanut butter.
Vegemite is the snack and fortifier of Australia.
This, friends, is how metaphor is used to accelerate a sense of rapport with an audience.
Unlike advertising experts, or charismatic leaders, we here on Rick Ross's forum want to show how the mechanisms of these techniques work--so you, the readers can walk away informed and empowered.)
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/17/2019 11:12PM by corboy.
by Len Oakes.
More here:
[www.google.com]
Oakes interviewed 20 charismatic leaders, many of whom led what could be identified as cults.
He identified most of the themes we are discussing here.
What is especially valuable is how Oakes elicited information about the leaders' life histories, their family backgrounds, thier personal struggles, occupations they gravitated to before figuring out their message. Oakes tells us in detail exactly what these leaders did to seek out and learn methods of social manipulation.
Advice to journalists and interested citizens:
Read Len Oakes' book Prophetic Charisma. Its on Google books. If you are a journalist or in another profession where you are likely to deal with various leaders of sects, purchasing a copy would be a worthy investment.
If it is not on Kindle, you can do a price comparison on book finder dot com.
Bookfinder.com listings for Prophetic Charisma.
[www.bookfinder.com]
(Refresh page to keep search results current)
[books.google.com]
When discussing an Australian cult leader named Serge Benhayon (who has recently been the subject of a television expose, and who lost a lawsuit he filed to intimidate a critic), someone wrote this about Serge:
One of the correspondents here wrote:
Quote
Quote:
You have to hand it Serge, he is masterful at turning the topic away from himself, even avoiding the question about Leonardo da Vinci by turning it into something potentially about the interviewer and getting a laugh. Same technique as used with students.
Corboy note:
Oakes uses the term "metacommunication."
By using the term, 'metacommunication', Dr. Oakes means commenting about the questioner's manner of saying something, rather than responding to what the questioner is asking.
Because, if you a journalist, medical investigator or attorney are sidetracked by someone using this strategy, sidetracked from a valid line of questioning into a discussion of meaning, or a discussion of your own mannerisms (and you may not have evinced any mannerisms--the operator may merely pretend this so as to create an opening to wind you up) once this sidetracking is allowed, the operator has **stuck the knife into the Vegemite jar your personal insecurities**--and then can spread you on toast or a biscuit then and eat you for a snack--metaphorically speaking.
All your excellent questions have been disarmed.
Oakes describes how charismatic leaders learned specific ways to throw people off balance if put in tight corners--turning attention away from themselves and onto the person daring to question then.
on page 90 of Prophetic Charisma Dr Oakes describes a situation:
Quote
A stunning example occurred during this study when Free-Love Farley (Oakes' pseudonym for one such leader) demolished a building inspector who had visited unexpectedly and demanded to examine some recent construction.
It was clear that Farley did not know the various fine points of the regulations that governed such inspections, and also that he had something to hide, but by drawing the inspector out and by focusing on (the inspectors) paralinguistic performances, he soon had the man on the defensive.
Eventually Farley persuaded the official to return to his office to re-check some detail, assuring him that when this had been done, the inspection could proceed. Presumably by then the issue in question would have been taken care of. (Oakes, Prophetic Charisma 1997 , page 90
Earlier, Oakes describes the method used.
Quote
`A common manipulative strategy used by the leaders in this study was an argumentative style that was calculated to subtly shift the ground of any discussion from whatever matter was being talked about toward some area of an opponent's (or prospective Landmark recruit's--my parenthesis) personal insecurity.
In this technique, the leader observed the process of an opponent's conversation and identified some point of hesitency or uncertainty.
(Corboy--anyone who is a nice person, and not a psychopath is going to have areas of hesitation and uncertaintly)
This was not always a flaw of logic or an error of fact; the conversation may have been on some topic about which the leader (knew little and would ahve been unable to detect such a mistake.
" Rather, it was more likely to be some personal unsureness on the part of the opponent that the leaders/recruiter's exquisite social perception targeted. In some way, often by metacommenting, the meaning of whatever insecurity involved was exposed."
Typically what was said was an observation that the opponent seemed "a bit steamed up about this" or was "finding it hard to say what all this is about."
In this way, the opponent was invited, sympathetically and seducatively to expand upon the very point of weakness. Or the leader(recruiter) claimed not to understand what was meant at a particular point, perhaps even saying the opponent was not making sense. This usually led to a further exposure (confessional of personal weakness or perplexity-my note) until the opponent stumbled over his words and began to look uncomfortable. At this point, a well timed, dismissive glance from the leader was all that was needed to intimidate...'
(Or turning to the audience and raising a laugh-Corboy)
(Oakes, Ibid pp 89-90
This slippery metacommunicational strategy puts the attention onto the questioner and scuttles the entire questioning process.
This is analogous to a martial arts move designed to throw an opponent off balance.
This method of massaging somene's insecurities,throwing them off balance as a way to evade unpleasantly acute questioning is not proof of intelligence. It is merely a *skill* but a quite powerful skill that that can be learned by anyone.
The grim temptation is to use this in an exploitative manner. And that is where honor and kindness become paramount.
If one knows how to do this, one has the grave responsibility of not using it to gain unjust advantage over others. (This too is similar to that of a martial artist. Its no license to be a bully. The greater one's skill at throwing opponents, the greater the responsibility to use that skill only according to clear rules and in a contest--such as a tournament or in a courtroom setting--NO WHERE ELSE)
If someone is well trained and can match how confrontational the operator is the only remedy is to look the person straight on and say, This conversation is not about my mannerisms. This conversation is about your belief system. (Or the that the building wiring doesnt have a perimit)
(Corboy note on selection of names)
If I wanted to tailor this example to the needs of a UK audience, I'd refer to Marmite.
If addressing American readers, I'd refer to peanut butter.
Vegemite is the snack and fortifier of Australia.
This, friends, is how metaphor is used to accelerate a sense of rapport with an audience.
Unlike advertising experts, or charismatic leaders, we here on Rick Ross's forum want to show how the mechanisms of these techniques work--so you, the readers can walk away informed and empowered.)
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/17/2019 11:12PM by corboy.
Re: Mooji a cult?
Posted by:
corboy
()
Date: March 17, 2019 10:58PM
Here are some informative pages from Prophetic Charisma thanks to Google Books.
Oakes tells us that his 20 leaders tended to have been in five occupations prior to finding their calling - all these require mastery of communication and persuasion, that skill set one can sum up as "working the room".
* Teaching
* Clergy work
* Sales
* Counseling
* Entertainment/performing arts
Here is page 88 of Prophetic Charisma:
[books.google.com]
Next, please read all of pages 89 and 90 to continue this theme.
[books.google.com]
If you are intrigued by any of this, run do not walk and read the rest of the book.
Oakes tells us that his 20 leaders tended to have been in five occupations prior to finding their calling - all these require mastery of communication and persuasion, that skill set one can sum up as "working the room".
* Teaching
* Clergy work
* Sales
* Counseling
* Entertainment/performing arts
Here is page 88 of Prophetic Charisma:
[books.google.com]
Next, please read all of pages 89 and 90 to continue this theme.
[books.google.com]
If you are intrigued by any of this, run do not walk and read the rest of the book.
Re: Mooji a cult?
Posted by:
yourenotanobject
()
Date: March 18, 2019 01:59AM
It really is only the false self that feels confused
which is to be expected on the way to its demise
If you're childlikely dumb (which is the opposite of childish) you let the confusion exhaust itself
And proceed
which is to be expected on the way to its demise
If you're childlikely dumb (which is the opposite of childish) you let the confusion exhaust itself
And proceed
Re: Mooji a cult?
Posted by:
Horowitz
()
Date: March 18, 2019 02:14AM
I have also watched the Mooji’s last video from his hotel room in Rishikesh 2019: [www.youtube.com]. It’s sometimes difficult to decipher his pointing out and not to fall for that, for instance there: “how do deal with agitated and restless mind”.
First, It’s impotent to see that Mooji’s short talks is only full of spiritual positive quotes like “not big deal”, “stay simply in the awareness”, “stay in the Eden of your own silence”, “and atc”. He purposely skipped over or overlooked the main problem in spirituality or the process of awakening to the absolute Truth. He did not address it at all. It’s generally obvious that, the mind cannot recognize its own source and the mind is not able to immerse in its own substratum so easily. He simplifies this huge problem and said practically that almost everyone can ride an untrained elephant (mind), whenever and everywhere one wants.
Second, Mooji pretended that he has already handled its own mind, he is already enlightened, and his cultic guruship is simply the result of it with the whole worshiping circus around him.
Third, consequently, Mooji creates the atmosphere of failure, for those, who really are genuine seekers of the Truth in the sense: “I am probably not ready yet, or I do something spiritually incorrect or I must look for another not so advanced? teacher”. This tactics supports a dependency, addiction on him, and general spiritual confusion, what he actually always wanted.
Indeed, Mooji definitely mimic the H. Poonja, but there is a huge difference between them in the spiritual advancement and the experience. Mooji is only a proletarian of the “spiritually yellow press” with the high edition copies.
For instance: Papaji - Its So Simple: [www.youtube.com] Papaji - Return to Silence:
[www.youtube.com]
First, It’s impotent to see that Mooji’s short talks is only full of spiritual positive quotes like “not big deal”, “stay simply in the awareness”, “stay in the Eden of your own silence”, “and atc”. He purposely skipped over or overlooked the main problem in spirituality or the process of awakening to the absolute Truth. He did not address it at all. It’s generally obvious that, the mind cannot recognize its own source and the mind is not able to immerse in its own substratum so easily. He simplifies this huge problem and said practically that almost everyone can ride an untrained elephant (mind), whenever and everywhere one wants.
Second, Mooji pretended that he has already handled its own mind, he is already enlightened, and his cultic guruship is simply the result of it with the whole worshiping circus around him.
Third, consequently, Mooji creates the atmosphere of failure, for those, who really are genuine seekers of the Truth in the sense: “I am probably not ready yet, or I do something spiritually incorrect or I must look for another not so advanced? teacher”. This tactics supports a dependency, addiction on him, and general spiritual confusion, what he actually always wanted.
Indeed, Mooji definitely mimic the H. Poonja, but there is a huge difference between them in the spiritual advancement and the experience. Mooji is only a proletarian of the “spiritually yellow press” with the high edition copies.
For instance: Papaji - Its So Simple: [www.youtube.com] Papaji - Return to Silence:
[www.youtube.com]
Re: Mooji a cult?
Posted by:
corboy
()
Date: March 18, 2019 08:38AM
If anyone seems to be a distraction, ignore 'em.
Re: Mooji a cult?
Posted by:
swissalyst
()
Date: March 18, 2019 10:13AM
corboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oakes tells us that his 20 leaders tended to have
> been in five occupations prior to finding their
> calling - all these require mastery of
> communication and persuasion, that skill set one
> can sum up as "working the room".
>
>
> * Teaching
>
> * Clergy work
>
> * Sales
>
> * Counseling
>
> * Entertainment/performing arts
Tony Moo was a teacher. Andrew Cohen was a musician.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oakes tells us that his 20 leaders tended to have
> been in five occupations prior to finding their
> calling - all these require mastery of
> communication and persuasion, that skill set one
> can sum up as "working the room".
>
>
> * Teaching
>
> * Clergy work
>
> * Sales
>
> * Counseling
>
> * Entertainment/performing arts
Tony Moo was a teacher. Andrew Cohen was a musician.
Re: Mooji a cult?
Posted by:
Sahara71
()
Date: March 19, 2019 04:27AM
Good news today - the videos of Mooji's interviews have been removed from the Buddha at the Gas Pump Community on Facebook. There has been quite a lot of negative feedback on Moo in conversations at BATGAP with several very diligent people sharing information from this very forum- Cult Education Institute.
It looks like the administrators have made the decision to take Mooji's material down, as I believe they have done with other spiritual teachers whose reputations are questionable.
Meanwhile, Be Scofield's article has had 80,000 view to date!
It looks like the administrators have made the decision to take Mooji's material down, as I believe they have done with other spiritual teachers whose reputations are questionable.
Meanwhile, Be Scofield's article has had 80,000 view to date!
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.