--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I speak as someone new to FFL who mostly lurks. I sometimes > feel to share in a discussion but know that if I do, someone's > sure to throw shit at me, and it just isn't worth it.
While there is some merde-slinging on this forum, there is another way of looking at it that you might not have examined. There is often a 'tude among people who have pursued long-term spiritual paths that the people who walk that path (or similar paths) with them are somehow different from those in the "real world." You know what I'm talking about -- they are somehow "better," or "more evolved," or "less attached," or "beyond their samskaras." 40+ years spent pursuing spiritual paths or non- paths of one sort or another has taught me that this isn't true. People are people. In the most serene and peaceful abbey or monastery there are catfights and petty jealousies and sometimes outright violence. I mean...the Sixth Dalai Lama was murdered, technically by the Chinese, but with the active participation of many of his own monks, because his lifestyle had grown too out- rageous for them (he liked to party with women). You need look no further than the serial abuse within the Catholic Church or within many Zen and Eastern-based communities to see the truth of what I'm saying, let alone the TMO. So it seems to me that the problem lies where it *always* does -- with expectation and attach- ment. If we walk around with an unrealistic fan- tasy that spiritual people should act "spiritual," well duh! -- we *deserve* to be disappointed. It's just not realistic. People are people. Despite some claims to the contrary, I consider no one here enlightened, and even if they were I would consider them capable of bad or improper behavior. We're all just "workin' things out," each in our own Way. So it seems to me that, if one feels strongly that there IS some kind of "proper behavior" for those on a spiritual path, the only way to *do anything about it* is to try to live it yourself. Bitching about others *not* living it is just bitching. > As far as someone's suggestion that we just read the people > we like and ignore the rest, it takes a long time for new > people to figure out who is who in the forum. It's easier > to just get up and leave. That causes FFL to become a rather > incestuous little group, unleavened by fresh viewpoints. With all due respect, as I suggested when you first posted here, it is the newbie's "duty" to spend some time figuring out How Things Work On This Forum. It is *not* the long-term members' "duty" to make things easy for them. Do the work; you might find it reward- ing. There are some diamonds here among the turds. > And where does it leave the new visitors, often people > disillusioned or questioning TM, looking for a safe place > to talk about and share experiences? They can't do it at > Fairfield Life, unless they want to be fried and eaten for > breakfast. That is simply not true, at least not the way you phrased it. I have found that those who are "questioning" *rarely* are "eaten for breakfast" by those others here who are questioning. They are often berated by those whom we term True Believers, who seem to feel the need to "defend" Maharishi, TM, and the vagaries of the TMO. It's all right there on the title page of this group. If you have some questions as to the INTENT of this group, and what it was founded for, I think Rick did an admir- able job of putting it in print on that statement: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ "The healthy mind challenges its own assumptions," etc. This place was *created* for people who are "questioning." In my opinion (and that is all that it is, opinion), much of the strife comes from people who are afraid of asking questions themselves, and affronted when others do it in their presence. > And who wants that damage to their tender feeling level, when > they're already working through enough shit from their confusing > years in the movement? While I understand your reference to the "tender feeling level," the only advice I can offer in that regard is to again look around you at LIFE. LIFE doesn't really give a shit about your "tender feeling level," or anyone else's. It *tough* out there. Just when you think you've got the serenity thing down pat, along comes a tsunami and your peaceful little shack on the beach is kindling. The issue is not what life throws *at* your "tender feel- ing level," because it always will. The issue seems to me to be about keeping it alive no matter what life *does* throw at you. > Sure, new people could put up a shield and get tough, but a > lot of us don't want to. Certainly most women don't want to > do that. We value the intelligence and sensitivity of our > feelings, and don't choose to participate in forums where > they are dealt with violently. Define "violently." Seriously. In my opinion, no one on this forum has acted in any manner even approaching violence with you. Among the guys there is Off's "Say that again and I'll punch you out" macho posturing, which we all know is just bullshit, and the occasional harsh word. And there are some well-deserved insults hurled at one woman who has done more than enough to deserve them for decades. But there is no "violence" here. That's how you're choosing to perceive Normal Life. In my opinion, that is. > So we visit a while and move on. But where are we to go? Where > can we go to talk and explore spiritual issues, if not in a > chatroom supposedly devoted to spirituality? You seem to be asking the "chatroom" to conform to your *idea* of spirituality. > I do understand how a chatroom of predominantly ex-TMers can > become negative. You must not have spent much time around the inner work- ings of the TM movement. :-) Most of us did. We learned over time that however they might present themselves, TMers are no different than most of the people around them in the "real world." > For years we taught to "never entertain negativity," and the > strain of that was enormous. We had to tippy-toe around and > watch our words and manner, fake smiles on our faces, or we > would likely get kicked out of the dome for a simple offhanded > remark. It was like living surveilled by the Gestapo. People > subjected year after year to that level of thought-and-speech > monitoring are going to crack eventually. When we did crack, > we did it in an eruption of forbidden expletives. Oh, DARN !!! Sorry, I was just trying to imagine what a "forbidden expletive" might be in the dome. :-) > For my part, I've been heartily using swear words ever since I > left the movement 20 years ago. Every time I use one, it's a > statement of independence and individuality. I hate the > extremeness of the movement in demanding sweetness and light > from its members, regardless of how they are feeling. And *expecting* them to act that way, even when they *know* that it's pretence. That's what I'm saying about online chat forums. We don't really want that kind of pretense here, either. It's better in my view to have to wade through a little shit than to expect people to stop having to take a dump every so often. > But I also know that the other extreme is no better. To let > ourselves turn into despairing, hating monsters on account > of our abused past is a mistake. Just as a question, who here would you characterize as a "despairing, hating monster?" > It hurts us personally, and our get-even attitude gets taken > out on our undeserving fellow victims. In just the sort of > attacks people make on each other sometimes here. > > I don't think personal attacks ever should be permitted in > a forum that courts independent thought, vulnerability of > expression and sincere sharing of experiences -- the sort of > things that would help all of us heal the years we spent as > victims. While it might be nice in some pretend world up in the clouds for things to work that way, they DON'T work that way. There will always be people who get their buttons pushed, even in the most serene monastery, and they will act out when those buttons are pushed. Legislating against it won't stop it and neither will whining. As for the deeper import of what you're saying here, I certainly don't consider myself a "victim" of TM or any of the other spiritual trips I've been a part of. The "victim mentality" just doesn't resonate with me at all. Some good stuff went down and some bad stuff went down. Just like LIFE. > I do think we should be permitted to use swear words -- why > the hell not, after all that we've been through? It isn't an *issue* of "being permitted." No one has the authority or ability to prevent it. > But even then, it's smart to self-monitor and keep it fairly > decent. I fully agree with you here. But please bear in mind that within the TM movement there is a strong dogma *against* "self-monitoring." It's almost considered "off the program." Proper behavior is just supposed to happen magically the longer you meditate; trying to force it is "mood making." Remember? If you've been brainwashed by that sorta stuff for a long time, it's really difficult for someone to make the tran- sition to exercising a little control over one's behavior. > A post that's 90 percent full of barf and dogshit is going to > turn off sensitive readers, certainly women like me, who would > otherwise participate in FFL. > > Someone wrote that the existing rules are already there, they > just need enforcing. Yeah, I think they do. Rick doesn't want > to play the policeman, but that's part of the role of a > moderator, isn't it? No, it really isn't. Above you've been complaining a little about the "moderation" that was imposed on you for years in the TM movement. You feel now as if you were a "victim" of it. Why then call for "moderation" of a different kind here? Rick is not Daddy. Maharishi was not Daddy, although he wanted to be perceived as one. People don't NEED a Daddy once they're past a cer- tain age. And in my opinion -- no matter how rough around the edges it gets here from time to time -- the folks at Fairfield Life are adult enough to not need a Daddy here in the form of some heavy-handed moderator. I think Rick's doing a pretty fine job trying to provide a forum and *not* go the way the TM movement went in "controlling" it.
