Dang, I'm falling love with fucking Shemp! What the hell?
Edg --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <shempmcg...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > Pushing buttons *IS* a noble thing, in spiritual > > > environments filled with people who wish to > > > identify those "buttons" in themselves, identify > > > the attachments they reveal, and work on elim- > > > inating them. In such environments, the person > > > who can help you to pinpoint your own hot > > > button issues (and thus your samskaras and > > > attachments) is your friend. > > > > Thing is, in genuinely spiritual contexts, the > > button-pushing is not fueled by hostility, hatred, > > and obsession, and it's usually done with honesty. > > > > The honesty thing is very important because, without it, the "I'm pushing > buttons for your own spiritual growth out of pure love and compassion for > your welfare" routine can be used as an excuse to be nasty to someone. > That's why "pushing buttons" is usually left to fully enlightened teachers > who can be counted on to perform such incredibly powerful -- and potentially > damaging -- spiritual practises with minimal or zero negative effects. > > Somehow, Barry, I can't get the idea out of my mind that you don't have the > best intentions when you are engaged in your "pushing buttons" agenda. I > think of your 12 plus years of pushing Judy's buttons on virtually a daily > basis. Am I wrong in concluding that it is not the love in your heart that > motivates your hate relationship with Judy? > > You also love to put down the TMO. Fine, they deserve it in most cases. > Indeed, you've written some of the best critiques of the Movement I've ever > seen...stuff that should be required reading of the top echelon of the TMO. > An example (and if anyone has a link to it, I'd love to have it so that I > bookmark it for future reference): a few months ago you wrote a fanciful > tract, from the perspective of a high schooler, of what would happen if that > high schooler were approached to start TM under the David Lynch project and > the high schooler went online to do research of what she would be getting > into. Simply great stuff. > > But too often your actions remind me of the very worst I've seen in the TMO, > the very people you criticize. > > I'll give you an example. Back when I was active in my local center in the > '70s, there was an initiator who whenever someone wasn't deemed acceptable to > go on teacher-training always volunteered to be the one to tell the declined > candidate the bad news. "Oh, I'll tell him", he would always say when the > matter came up during meetings of the center's teachers. He just loved being > the one to tell the failed candidate that he couldn't fulfill a deeply held > desire to become a TM teacher. > > You remind me of him. This "pushing buttons" thing is something you revel > in, I suspect, not because it produces any spiritual growth -- which it may > or may not do, I simply am not competent to say -- but because of the > sadistic satisfaction you get out of it. > > If I'm wrong on this, fine. But your "pushing buttons" approach would work a > hell of a lot better if you backed things up with facts, not some of the > obvious bullshit you come up with. I've called you on this on at least 3 > occasions over the years and exposed stuff you said as simply figments of > your imagination. I suppose you justify those instances by saying to > yourself: "well, it COULD have happened; therefore, why not SAY it > happened?". But that's not good enough. It doesn't pass the smell test most > times (People aren't idiots; they can smell a rat). > > YOu are on even shakier ground when you play with facts because they can be > disputed by research oftentimes. But we can all make mistakes like that; why > not just admit it and say: well, I got my facts wrong but this is what I > meant. In this recent episode it fell to that mental case in Vermont to > suggest what you meant which wasted everyone's time. We all know the point > you were trying to make but the facts that you obviously made up simply took > away from your point. And it wasn't necessary. >
