--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" <wayback71@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: <snip> > > Um. I don't know that one can complain about people > > who went on courses having psychotic breaks, and at > > the same time complain that people who were receiving > > psychiatric treatment weren't allowed on courses. > > The problem was that there was no distinction made between > people who had psychiatric problems and were seeing > psychiatrists and getting medications as compared to people > getting some therapy sessions from a social worker or > psychologist. All therapy and help of any sort was lumped > together and made you ineligible for a course. I had a > friend who back in the 70's went for about 6 sessions of > post-divorce therapy before marrying her 2nd husband. A > year later they applied for a siddhis course. The question > on the siddhis's application was "have you ever been > involved in any type of therapy?" She answered honestly and > was rejected, despite explaining that it was divorce related > (not depression) and feeling the need to talk to someone for > a few sessions after a divorce is normal - and seeking such > help is healthy.
Indeed. I suspect there must have been some kind of time factor involved, though, because I had had full-blown psychiatric therapy a few years before I started TM, and reported it on the form when I applied for the TM-Sidhis. I was accepted without any problem. It does seem unfair in the case of this woman, even though the time between therapy and application was only a year. But there were most likely people without any expertise in different types of therapy making the decisions, and given the potential seriousness of accepting someone on a high- powered course who shouldn't take that risk, it may have been safer to go with a rigid rule that didn't require any judgment. IOW, better safe than sorry. It's also possible they felt someone who had gone through the stress of a divorce that recently wouldn't be a good candidate, therapy or no therapy. But that she had needed therapy would have reinforced the perception that the divorce had been stressful. That stress from a divorce (and from a new marriage, for that matter!) is normal doesn't obviate the problems the residual stress might cause on a course as intense as the TM-Sidhis, even if the person thinks they're fine. Did she apply again later, do you know? > Certainly people seeing psychiatrists and getting medication > should not have rounded on courses. And young people > desperate to follow MMY's program for personal evolution felt > trapped by these rigid rules and MMY"s often stated scorn for > therapy of any sort. So I am quite sure that many people in > those days who needed help did not seek it, even if they > weren't applying to a course. As I went on to say, that would be very poor judgment on their part. I'm not giving MMY a pass for scorning therapy, but I'm with Sal on this: anybody who got in trouble by going along with it has to take some of the responsibility. > > Seems to me there would likely have been *more* > > psychotic breaks if folks who were already having > > problems spent a lot of time rounding. Keeping them > > off courses was surely not a punishment, as you imply, > > but rather a precautionary measure, for them and the > > people who did go on the courses. > > > > If people who would otherwise have sought psychiatric > > treatment didn't seek it because it would keep them > > off a course, that's just really poor judgment. > > > > MMY is damned if he did and damned if he didn't here. > > > > > I'm gunna have to take a big wad-o-Maharishi-hater > > > tobacco and stuff it in my pipe tonight. > > > > Yeah, just what you needed, Curtis.
