--- In [email protected], "Irmeli Mattsson" < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It will all work out right in the end, or not. One thing you can > > definitely say about MMY, more than just about any other major > > personality in the world: he's created his own reality. > > **** > That's what people in psychosis do also, as they are not capable of > participating in the mutually shared reality in the society around. > They create their own isolated private reality, which usually doesn't > work, because we are not isolated entities and also because the > reality check in these creations is very poor. > > Many people live also in a partial psychosis, where only a part of > their personality is in the psychosis. Often they can get along in > the society. The psychosis can get expressed more in private pursuits.
I think you make an important distinction in these two paragraphs. Some spiritual organizations reject the world and create their own microcosm, IMO *because they can't handle the macrocosm*. Others have no problem with being an integral part of the outside world, because they *can* handle it successfully. > Some people are talented enough to attract around their creation > people, who are willing to share the psychosis. That is called shared > psychosis. Also called charisma or being a strong dreamer. For good or ill, their dream is so strong as to suck other people into it. Christ, Buddha, Gandhi and many others had this ability to draw people into their dream. So, unfor- tunately, did Hitler and Mussolini and others of that ilk. History records their charisma and the impact that their projected dreams had on society, no matter what. But the great ones are really remembered because they had great dreams. > In psychosis the reality check is clearly distorted compared to what > is the case generally in the society around. This kind of creation > cannot be successful in the long run. A lot of it has to do with feedback. Is feedback, other than praise and worship, *allowed* by the charismatic dreamer? The answer to this is often found in the philosophy that the dreamer teaches or espouses. If, for example, the dreamer believes thoroughly in the dogma that says that the enlightened cannot possibly do anything that is not life-supporting, how likely is it that he or she will set up a feedback mechanism in his or her dream world to keep him- or herself "on track?" If the very *definition* of being enlightened is "total support of nature," and an inability to make a false step, and the dreamer feels that he or she is enlightened, where is the need for critical feedback? It becomes redundant, and can be perceived as mere "negativity." Any critical feedback that suggests that the teacher's actions are *not* perfect is perceived as criticism of the entire dream. It cannot be allowed. Compare and contrast to strong charismatic dreamers who emerge in traditions in which the philosophy states that the enlightened *can* make mistakes. (I am think- ing of the structures of Tibetan Buddhism here.) In such dream worlds, there is a strong support structure for the charismatic teacher that enables him or her *to* get useful feedback. Criticism is not only allowed, but considered valuable. So I think he issue of whether there are "reality checks" built into an organization has a lot to do with that organization's underlying philosophy, and its definition of what a leader within such an organization is. > But if you manage to create a way of being and relating to others that > is better capable of enhancing the evolution and well-being of those, > who share this new form of relating, it has long lasting possibilities > of spreading. And this is not necessarily psychosis. I agree. The question seems to come down, yet again, to one's *intent*. If it is to serve others, on an *individual* basis (as opposed to some nebulous, abstract idea of 'serving humanity' that doesn't ever involve interacting with humanity), then the idea of the shared dream can be a powerful one. > In the modern world luckily the prospects are not anymore that good > for long lasting success, if exploitation of others and suppression > of their human rights is needed for the well-being of those who are in > power in this new creation. As Gandhi said so well, "When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall. Think of it...always." The longevity of any organization built around a charismatic individual (strong dreamer) depends on how the dream treats the *individuals* who participate in it. It doesn't depend on the *stated* goals, like "world peace." Hitler stated that as his goal; so did the Roman emperors. The issue IMO seems to be not one of long- term goals but of short-term ones. How well are the individuals who share the dream treated by the strong dreamer? How well do they treat each other? Is disa- greement with the overall dream permitted or persecuted? Are other approaches to achieving the long-term goals of the dram allowed or rejected? It's a day-to-day thing, IMO, not a long-term thing. As the Dalai Lama says, "The means are not justified by the end; the means *are* the end." There is nothing *but* "means." The "means" are the thing by which karma "judges" the actions of a charismatic dreamer or of his or her organization. > I myself am more of an adherent of participating in the predominant > society around and helping it to evolve. Me, too. I'm definitely a left-the-ashram-behind-forever kinda guy. Don't miss it, ain't going back. :-) > But experimentations in small groups with different organizations > are important too. First it gives people possibilities to participate > and live through their suppressed issues in an authentic psychodrama > setting. And sometimes also a real jewel can be found in those > experimentations, which then can be incorporated in the bigger society. I agree. I always like Chogyam Trungpa's "take" on this. He called the path he taught "the Way of fucking up." He felt that he and his students learned the most from their mistakes, not their successes. That certainly seems to have been the case for me as well. I don't think that either of the spiritual organizations I was involved with did things very well, on the whole. But each of them did some things very well indeed, and I was able to learn from that. Each of them did some things very *badly* indeed, and I learned from that as well. Even if the only thing I learned was to never fall for that line of crap in the future (or in future incar- nations), the experience was more than worthwhile. If a number of dedicated TM teachers react to some of the less-than-positive aspects of the TM movement and go out and vow to do things differently, they will have learned from the fuckups, too. They'll make their *own* mistakes; everyone does. But they'll learn from them, too. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
