> How should a community be supporting people 20-30
> years old to keep them from committing suicide? IOW,
> how has Fairfield been failing them?
>
Regardless of age grouping,
Two things, as I ask around.
One is cultural, they (the TM movement) don't teach much by way of ethics
generally.
Mostly just 'meditate and act'.
The curricula stays way away from morality other
than cursory things like 'meditate and act', some scientific charts about
social
behavior, and then occasionally 'never do that which you know to be wrong' as
standard. Not much by way
of particular ethical value related to spiritual practice. Nothing really like
even heralding 'the Golden Rule' as basic. All along Maharishi was
incredibly consistent staying entirely away from specifics.
Not much was ever pointed to as being repugnant spiritually.
At best it was through rumor about consequence.
Rumor like, "Charlie Lutes said
that 'Maharishi said' ".
Actually, does anybody remember what Charlie Lutes said about suicide?
His stories.
It was pretty strong. And not tolerable or considerable once he spoke
about it. It was a cultural ethos back in those days.
Other than lack of evident cultural values that would better guide the
spiritual community, the second thing in the community is generally that there
is not really 'safe place' to talk within the organization.
Graciousness has never been a strong administrative suit where it comes to
guideline inclusiveness over these psych things of aberration. The schools and
the essential program
are not set up to handle aberrations. Either on the academic side or the
consciousness
programs, it simply is not set up or within the scope of what they provide to
handle aberrations
within the student flow. If anything, it is more set up to catch aberration
and filter it out.
Go in to even the introductory level meditation course with psych troubles &
you'll
likely be sorted out from the mainstream programs, definitely from the domes
and also from the schools.
In to that vein, the TM movement programs were never set up to really
accommodate. Hence it is not really a place to safely talk about personal
issues if you would like to participate. In design, the school and programs
were never set up to mainstream work with all comers. It is not all things to
all people and practically there is nothing that says has to be need. In
consequence of exclusion, people with troubles inside get disposed to clam up
around the movement. That is very much part of the culture. It is a pretty
non-share kind of place inside there.
> >
> > > This is at least the third in 1.5 years here.
> > >> We are failing our young people.
> > >>
> > > I would hope they are pulling professionals
> > > in to the schools (MSAE & MUM) by first class after this
> > > weekend. Dr. Pete?
> >
> > The public schools have long since had some
> > pretty good counseling programs, and the MSAE
> > finally! admitted the unthinkable and started
> > having professionals come in a few years back.
> > But none of these in the last few years were kids.
> > The youngest, 1.5 years ago, was a young woman
> > either 20 or 21, then a man who was 30, and now
> > Dan, who was 24-25. I might have given the wrong
> > impression when I said, "young people." I really
> > meant young adults, not teens.
>
> How should a community be supporting people 20-30
> years old to keep them from committing suicide? IOW,
> how has Fairfield been failing them?
>
