--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" <dhamiltony...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > I have no reason to believe that taking anti-depres- > > sants is "bad for one's spiritual progress." I have > > a few friends whose spiritual well-being and sense > > of balance skyrocketed after having them prescribed > > for them. Shocking -- from full-blown manic-depressive > > to a balanced, happy individual in the space of a week. > > These people have reported to me that their meditations > > became subjectively better and deeper as well. > > This more particularly is the kind of report I was wondering > about, the spiritual practice component related to taking > anti-D's.
Please understand that this is very much a second- hand report. As I said before, I have never suffered any period of depression that lasted very long, so I would never have been tempted to take such drugs. FYI, the person who showed such a rapid and radical shift from (IMO, as his long-time friend) unstable and chronically depressed to downright normal and happy is himself a former psychologist who had to give up his practice because he'd himself become untreatably manic-depressive. He'd tried a number of anti-Ds over the years, all with minimal effect. Then he was given a new drug to try, and the shift was instantaneous and radical enough to have been remarked on by his friends. It was also his reporting that his meditations and other aspects of his spiritual practice had deepened rather than become hazy or dulled. I can only imagine that one's reaction to any partic- ular anti-depressant medication is as individual as one's reaction to a meditation technique. One size doth not fit all IMO. But I pass the story along as counterpoint to the attitude you speak of below, which I have seen not only in the TMO but in some other Newage (you know how to pronounce it) trips. > In this particular spirirtual village because of the real > administrative repurcussions on participation there is a > hesitancy towards admitting that one is feeling off, even > if only slightly and not even the full blown. Particualrly > in the morass of administration, it is not a safe place to > talk about what your experiences are because of the > consequence of access. This is precisely why I wrote my little "answer song" rant to Edg's, on the subject of "circling the wagons." I do not believe that this is a spiritually Good Thing. It can lead to environments such as you describe, in which deviating from the stereotype of what is expected of a member of that environment is perceived as either weakness or heresy. My rant was really not to dump on Edg. I thought parts of his rant were right on, especially the part railing against concepts when they take on a life of their own, and are perceived as more important than the reality the concepts are metaphors for. Mistaking the map for the territory is IMO Dumb Spiritual Practice. > That is that side, the other side is the cultural notion that > allopathy is about putting sand in the workings of a motor. > > Either of these ways, people here can tend to not seek help or > use help. There is a communal disposition here these ways that > relates to mental health generally and then asking about > community prevention programs. Hence this (meditator) boy > by example. I am done talking about Dan. I didn't know him, and have no feeling one way or another whether his action was "right" or "wrong" in some cosmic sense. I'm a pragmatic relativist -- I was merely reacting to the effect I knew from experience his decision would have on some of the people in the community he lived in. In a community such as you describe, in which it is *punishably* unacceptable to deviate from the image of the healthy, happy, fulfilled TMer by even *discussing* it, what, thought I would be the reaction to having that kind of deviance act itself out, big-time? My feeling was that it would lead to some other kinds of acting out. I was not disappointed.
