Your continued dizzying use and combination of asterisks and quotes in the extreme is completely dazzling but confusing as hell. Can a post be written without either, ever?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > While having fun the other day writing my ANTI-NEWAGER > CREDO post, I adopted the literary fiction of referring > to myself as "We." Because I do not consider myself part > of any spiritual group (or even anti-group), I did this > purely *for* fun, and in violation of Mark Twain's > famous rule: "Only kings, presidents, editors, and people > with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial 'We.'" > > But that experience, combined with Buck's continued use > of the words "community" and "meditators," clearly with > a perceived notion of "We" underlying them, got me thinkin' > about the "We Words," and their effect on us as seekers. > > As I've said before, I bailed from the TM movement before > it really became heavily invested in "We." "Group program" > was just starting when I left, and one of the reasons I > did leave was that I was underwhelmed by the exclusionary > nature of it. In less than a year an impenetrable, badge- > protected wall had been erected between the peons (ordinary > TMers) and the elite (Sidhas). In subsequent years, that > wall was built higher and higher, separating the Sidhas > not only from lesser TMers, but from all of humanity as > well. The moment that the TMO rebranded its Purpose in > terms of the Maharishi Effect, it declared in no uncertain > terms that "We" were the Most Important People On The > Planet, the only ones who could save it from impending > doom and Kaliyuga Konsciousness. Not my kinda scene... > glad I missed it. > > Except for fun -- as a kind of writing exercise -- I > really have a tough time relating to the word "We." > As a pretty solitary bird of a spiritual seeker, I am > a member of no group, no sangha, no spiritual tradition. > As an ex-pat living in a country foreign to my birth, > I no longer identify with the "We" of nationality. When > I am with a group of friends, and we are doing something > together, "We" becomes relevant, but most of the time, > not so much. > > One of the reasons I like the Buddhist approach, even > though I am not a formal Buddhist and will never be, is > that their notion of "We" seems *inclusive* as opposed > to *exclusive*. The ultimate Buddhist Buzzword is > *compassion*, which aims at extending one's notion of > "We" to every sentient being in Creation. > > So today, sitting We-less at home alone because it's > raining cats and frogs and the awnings at my favorite > cafes tend to drip water all over one's computer, I > thought I'd ponder some of the other notions of "We," > and what they hath wrought. > > Take the TM movement. <insert Rodney Dangerfield voice > here> Please. > > How has its arguably more exclusionary notion of "We" and > other "We Words" like "community" worked out for it? You > who live in Fairfield, do you think that the non-meditating > members of the Fairfield community have been inspired over > the years to include you when they speak the word "We" or > think in terms of "community?" > > How about other spiritual groups and traditions? To do a > Dr. Phil, "How is 40 years of badrapping other spiritual > movements and declaring their members lesser than you are > workin' out for you?" > > To use Buck's hyperexclusionary "meditators" as an example > of a "We Word," do you think that the On The Program Yogic > High Flyers in the domes include those who have been deemed > Off The Program when they say or think the word "We?" > > Or are they "Them?" As in "Us versus Them?" > > Seems to me that there is a lot of "versus" that shows up > in the language and the thinking of long-term TMers. And > that strikes me as a little odd given their adherence to > a philosophy that holds Unity as its "highest truth." I'm > thinkin' that the thing that leads someone to believe that > they are in a "versus" relationship with those they do > not mentally include when they think the word "We" is > because of a lame and exclusionary definition of "We." >
