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:


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.

*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?

Reply via email to