I left TM behind in 1982. I've been to Fairfield once in the late 1990s
and it was not for a TM thing. Fairfield is sort of a Sonoma in the corn
fields.
Like Sonoma I found a lot of the folks in Fairfield amused at "new age"
things and attend them for the entertainment they provide. For them it
is far better than the entertainment the "ordinaries" provide. I still
occasionally take in an expo around here. But gas prices and bridge
tolls have taken their toll on the excursions I used to make in the late
1990s.
We seem to have some grumpy old men here who actually believe that some
of the folks take what they call "woo woo" things very seriously.
Actually a number of people are just curious and want to see if there's
anything to them.
Sure there are charlatans out there and sometimes there is fun revealing
them. Back in the late 1960s during the "psychedelic era" there were
all kinds of crooks trying to pull mind control on folks. Some of us
got wise to that very quickly. When I started TM in 1973 there it
didn't resemble a cult much at all but a fun social group. The
cultishness came later with the self-appointed gestapo many of whom I
felt were jealous of people who actually had some good experiences
meditating.
On 11/04/2014 09:16 AM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
Share,
Did you ever take Ali Najafee's SET seminars in Fairfield? I know
someone who was there when they were going on and it seemed to strike
a nerve doing exactly what you are talking about. There were massively
popular back in the lat 80's. Since then there have been oodles of
people through FF with this message John Gray, Barbara De Agangelis...
Although I am a fan of some emotional work, many of these courses had
an assumptive cult vibe about their perspectives also. Assumptions on
parade! That combined with taking advantage of meditator's
imaginatively lively trance states.
But this perspective is in direct conflict with Maharishi's teaching
about these kinds of programs and their value to TM people. It says
tat TM is not a complete self development program and that was not
what Maharishi was teaching or selling. He was selling a solution to
ALL problems and reflected the biases of his tradition which was
"don't fix it, transcend it."
Personally I support whatever you find value in for you. Conceptually
I see this as pretty clear evidence that the TM self development
programs don't so what they claimed to do. This counter-evidence is
being ignored and jeri rigged into a new system of self development
that you guys are creating on your own in FF. (Not that there is
anything wrong with that from outside the movement.)
Participating in these programs was explicitly discouraged by
Maharishi, I never heard him say anything close to the conclusion you
have drawn for yourself. I have no beef with the accommodations you
have made to make up for the programs' falures, good on ya sista! But
my interest here is in Maharishi's teaching and in that context your
perspective for what people need is hampered by an absolutist teaching
that promises what it cannot deliver. We didn't hear the message
wrong, the message was wrong. And it discourages people who could use
some other kind of help from getting it. It enables people with real
mental problems and when they blow up, the movement turns is back on
them as damaged goods, victimizing the victim with the stigma of not
living up to the unrealistic perfectionist standard in the movement.
Thanks for promoting conversation from different perspectives here
Share. I think we are on the
same page on that front.
---In fairfieldli...@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote :
Curtis, it's only recently that some spiritual groups, including the
TMO, have recognized the importance of emotional good health and
social intelligence to go along with the what empty hilariously calls
"litement." Or maybe I should say that it's only recently that such
groups realized that expert help might be needed in these areas. IOW,
we don't tell someone with a toothache to get their meditation
checked! So why not use experts for these other important areas of
human development?
And I see that even the SAND conference featured a panel that focused
on, according to Rick's BAT intro, emotions and spirituality. It seems
to be the hot topic these days and I am mightily relieved.
I love it when disagreements on FFL revolve around ideas and evidence
and rationality rather than personal attacks,no matter how cleverly
worded. I'm aiming to be, as best as I can, the change I wanna see...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* "curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife]"
<FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
*To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Tuesday, November 4, 2014 10:23 AM
*Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] 7 Techniques to Handle Toxic People
You know what is the dominate dynamic on FFL?
There is a group who criticizes the organization we were all a part
of, the founder and the beliefs of the followers. (I am a proud member
of this group.)
And a group who personally attacks their personal life with made-up
assumptions about their state of mind and life in place of making a
reasoned argument for the positive power of their beliefs.
The single counter argument for this group, no matter what detail of
the movement and its beliefs are criticized seems to be : "Yeah but
you are a poopy pants so neirner, neiner, neiner!"
This is a stunning indictment of the vocal supporters of Maharishi
here that the sophistic tool of personal attack, complete with
fabrications about the critics personal life and business, is the
go-to weapon in practically every response.
And let me cut off the "but. but, but he started it" routine. You guys
are supposed to be representing the most precious knowledge of mankind
and HIGHER states of consciousness. I am just an ordinary working
artist. (Yeah, Nabs jump on that to prove my point, go ahead!) I am
not the one making claims that I am in a permanent state of infused
being or that I am somehow participating in the most important work
for the future of mankind, saving the world for an actual example claim.
So when your reaction to me saying that Maharishi seemed to be a super
ambitious guy selling a panacea (which he literally and explicitly
WAS) is to attack what I do for a living, or make up that I am somehow
not successful in my life or career which you could know NOTHING about...
you reveal that, like your self proclaimed "master" the emperor has no
clothes.
Just notice what you are about to type right now. Let's see if there
is a response that makes a cogent point to reflect upon concerning the
power and beauty of this knowledge you hold so dear...
or if it is the same old routine. I am gunna predict no response
because I just took away the only response you got. I would love to be
proven wrong. Conversation might actually break out here.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote :
The strange thing is that one hardly sees so much anger and
frustration in the real world as on FFL. Even people who deal with
heavy problems like living on the streets, addicts of all kinds very
often have the Insight to see from where their problems stem;
themselves. Not so on FFL.
Me thinks my old theory still holds; many of the participants here are
quitters that jumped the ship that could have brought them safely
across the Ocean (as Muktananda described TM). Unconsciously they know
this but instead of analyzing themselves honestly they start to kick
in all other directions than where a kick would be justified; their
own butt. Add to this the fact that many have reached an age where
bitterness and anger perhaps is irreversable.
Particularily they blame the only Saint they ever knew for their
failure not realizing he was only there to guide and inspire, the real
work had to be done by the student himself. Not having the inclination
towards self-discipline any path requires anger builds up and
eventually catch fire - as seen on a daily basis by several poor
souls here on FFL.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fleetwood_macncheese@...> wrote :
I don't understand this non-issue that Share has created. The article
I posted, specifically listed seven techniques to deal with toxic
people, and Share gets hung up on the title! She also has an awful lot
to say about what "we" would do, if... I used it as an opportunity to
use technique #1, "set limits", not that Share is toxic, but she
sometimes writes, before thinking it through.
I recognize that B fits the stereotype of a toxic individual, with his
button pushing and desire to "get in touch with his inner asshole"
(his words, not mine...). However, I also recognize that his life is
basically over - He doesn't have the strength for a jog around the
block, and his mind is growing feeble. All my life I have defended the
underdog, and even now, with B spouting his usual, I cannot get angry
with him. My heart pities him. He doesn't have much of a life, and if
he needs to spend it on here denigrating others, so be it. He is easy
enough to ignore.
I worked with a few people at the nursing home, filled both with rage
and dementia, and there is not much to do, except wait for them to
settle down of their own accord, usually after mealtimes.
As Nabby mentioned about these types, their self anger catches fire,
and all we can do is watch it burn out of control.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <awoelflebater@...> wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote :
Ann, I'd say it depends on your intention, esp your general intention
in living. Do you want to benefit yourself and others? Or do you want
to do harm? As for the rest, I think it's pretty simple. If someone is
harming us and won't stop, then we remove ourselves from their life.
If someone is harming others and won't stop, then we put them in jail
until they can be rehabilitated.
Sometimes jail is not possible and I personally don't think jail cures
anyone of anything, in fact, jail mostly makes bad guys badder. And of
course you are talking about a criminal level of toxicity when you
talk about jail. Most of the toxicity is not something you could
incarcerate someone for. I'm talking garden variety toxicity.
Here online, if someone says something untrue, we say what is true. If
someone says something we don't agree with, we say we don't agree. If
someone is a jerk, we say we think that, ONE time. To say it over and
over is imo a sign that the name caller is projecting and or venting.
I think a lot of the nastiness online is people venting what they are
unwilling or unable to vent about in their 3D life.
If the asshole keeps on and on and on then one time is often not
enough in terms of responding to it or attempting to deflect the
untruths or negativity. When someone keeps farting in the room you
just can't get away with opening the window once.
Again, my opinion.
Ditto.
*From:* "awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife]"
<FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
*To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Monday, November 3, 2014 10:16 AM
*Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] 7 Techniques to Handle Toxic People
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote :
Fleetwood, in many fairytales, if the king and queen don't invite the
Wicked Witch to the birth celebration of their baby, then she arrives
anyway and puts a curse on the little one! Meaning that we all have
toxic elements in us to some degree. If we don't deal with them in a
healthy way, then they show up in our life as allegedly toxic people, etc.
First you call people toxic. Next thing you know, you're burning them
at the stake or leading them into the gas oven!
Is it okay to call someone as "asshole", "obnoxious", "annoying" or
any other number of adjectives? Is it possible for people to actually
be these things or are we merely putting our own subjective spin on
how others act? Under what circumstances do we hold others responsible
for their actions and effect on us or on others? What is the point
where we say enough is enough? Or do we simply accept the behaviour of
others as none of our business even when it impacts our lives?
