--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... <no_reply@...> wrote: > > Sometimes you must speak another person's language to communicate with them. > Maharishi said this, meet them at their level of consciousness, so rather > than going on and on about compassion and my fellow man, sometimes a good go > fuck yourself serves equally well. It is not said in judgment, but rather in > context. An attempt at behavioral modification, as would be used on a very > stubborn and angry adult child. It shows them immediately that there is a > boundary there. Not something one would expect to have to do around adults, > setting social boundaries, but some are childish in their state of emotional > development. Sorry if it looks ugly from the outside, in, but not sorry > enough to stop it, if necessary.
Oops, Dr. are you a TM teacher? I can't believe you say all this. To meet somebody at the level of their consciousness is IMHO quite different from responding to their tone or emotional level. In fact Maharishi always advised lecturers to the opposite, never respond to the harsh tone of a questioner or the aggression, but rather go to the core, and try to stay calm, and meet the person at the heart level. Trying to be positive, and not being taken in by negativity, and thus contributing to it, was a basic movement mantra. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > Judy and Xeno, I'm learning, especially here on FFL, that it's best NEVER > > to blast someone unkindly. Whether it's *important to* reminds me of > > something posted a few weeks ago: that evil takes over when good people > > become prideful. Furthermore, I think it's possible to express one's > > opinion, set boundaries, etc. without being unkind. Because really, exactly > > what does unkindness accomplish? Does it produce kindness in the abusive > > person? If so, then all I can say is that I have seen no empirical evidence > > of that here on FFL! > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: authfriend <authfriend@> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 9:46 PM > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi > > > > > > > > Â > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > > snip > > > > That may well be true. I don't think one ought to blast > > people unkindly unless one feels it's important. It isn't > > something to be done casually or for fun. > > > > > Getting blasted by Barry, and getting blasted by you are, > > > for me, entirely different experiences. For me, that recent > > > post to Share was the only one, of the ones of Barry's I > > > have read recently that comes close to your intensity. > > > > You've missed quite a few posts of his, it seems. > > > > Did you see this one, for instance? > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349106 > > > > (Actually this is my response, but Barry's post is > > quoted in its entirety. Interestingly, not long > > afterward, he decided he was going to go back to > > not responding to his "enemies." Oh, BTW, below > > Barry's post are my responses to two of yours, > > which I'm not sure you saw either.) > > > > Here's another (also with my response at the top): > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349548 > > > > > It makes me wonder if somewhere in your life history your > > > method of responding to people developed in response to > > > some less than pleasant events, or it could a family > > > characteristic. > > > > Neither, sorry to disappoint you. Maybe I was just lucky, > > but until I started posting to electronic forums 25 or > > so years ago, I'd never encountered this kind of > > intellectual and factual dishonesty and gratuitous > > obnoxiousness. (You can call that a "less than pleasant > > event" if you like, but somehow I don't think it's what > > you had in mind.) > > > > > Some people seem inclined to confrontation and argument > > > more than others. So in reply to your last comment, aside > > > from the question I asked about percentages, I do think > > > you are confrontational and accusatory. I am stating this > > > as if it were a fact. But the other side of the coin is, > > > do you think yourself that you are this way or not? > > > > When I think it's appropriate, yes indeed. (The difference > > between you and me in that regard is that I'm honest > > about it.) > > > > > Do the people on the forum who are generally favourable to > > > you think you are confrontational and accusatory? There > > > would seem to be a range of opinion on this issue. > > > > I guess you've thought more about it than I have. It's not > > something I'm concerned about. You probably should ask > > the folks you have in mind. > > > > > I would assume that those who thought you were would tend > > > to be more favourable in Barry's direction, and those who > > > felt you were not would not be favourable to Barry, and > > > even if they thought you were confrontational and accusatory, > > > would feel it was justified as you championed ideas and an > > > outlook on life they were more comfortable with. > > > > I have no idea what your point is here. I think people react > > to Barry as individuals, not because of how I react to him. > > > > Maybe you're the exception, though. > > >
