--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I got involved with someone who demands involvement at an > entirely different level of commitment. There's nothing > wrong with that, but I should have been more aware of it > before I posted.
Leaving the whole Judy thang behind, let's examine this metaphor from a whole other level. Back in our youth, we met a gal whom we thought was attractive. She was neat, and our lives brightened when we were around her. And she was "low maintenance." All she asked for was twenty minutes twice a day. Then it became weekends. Then month- long courses. Then TTC, which was followed by signing an obligatory pre-nup, and then marriage. Then came the Siddhis program and requests for more and more commitment, and more and more money. Then, if you hadn't broken up by then, a new S-V house. Then a million dollars. And then... Isn't it fascinating how some of the true- blue TMers sometimes look at those of us who broke up with the ballbusting bitch of the TM movement as if we were still married to her and *cheating* on her? The language they sometimes use is that we "couldn't commit" to Maharishi and the TM movement. We "betrayed" them by "seeing other people." We ran out on MMY by not sticking by him until the bitter end, till death do us part. Hey, I *liked* the gal. She was *great*, in 20-minute bursts. But then she got all *demanding*, man. She wanted your attention, and she wanted all of it, all of the time. What's a guy to do? You can't waste your life with a shrew who thinks like that. Better to move on and wish her luck.
