From: "dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2014 1:19 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] 7 Techniques to Handle Toxic People No, no, you two are being way too simplistic with this. There are two groups here on FFL distinguished in their science by ontology; one group who are transcendentalists by depth of experience and the others who are ignorant of spiritual experience. It breaks out pretty clearly along that line. Yeah, right. Let's see...between Curtis and I we've probably spent more time in meditation and on "long rounding courses" than you, we've probably spent more time in the same room with Maharishi than you, and we're on record as having had some remarkable subjective experiences during our time with TM. At least two of the people you characterize as being "ignorant of spiritual experience" because they're not gung-ho TM supporters have had extended personal experiences with enlightenment. You're lying, Doug. Not just to the "audience" here, but to yourself. We have had JUST as much (if not more...when was the last time YOU had an experience of enlightenment?) "spiritual experience" as you or anyone else here has. What you're upset about is that 1) we don't VALUE our experiences as being as important as you think they are, and ) we don't INTERPRET our experiences the way you do. Plus, Curtis and my experience spending many years around Maharishi and Salyavin's experience spending many years in and around the inner workings of the UK TM movement probably give us more "hands on" experience with movement bureaucracy than you have ever had, and that pretty much anyone else here other than Rick has ever had. You're just pissed off that we don't believe what we were told to believe, the way you do. It really is that simple. We learned to think for ourselves, something you've never managed to do, and you resent it. You're a lemming, and you're pissed off that we stepped out of the crowd running, running, running for that elusive goal you were told is right in front of you, and will appear any day now. I can appreciate that you guys can not see this and that you think instead that it is about you. -Buck OF COURSE it's about us, you dumb fuck. We are the ones you demonize...over and over and over and over and over and...well, you get the picture. And as Curtis points out, you *choose* to demonize us INSTEAD OF saying anything positive about the things you supposedly believe. WE challenge ideas, and you react by trying to demonize US. There is something essentially feeble-minded and pathetic about this... turquoiseb@...> wrote : From: "curtisdeltablues [FairfieldLife]" 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. It's called "Hive Mind," and it looks like this: Bark Lice Moving In Sync Provide An Interesting Look Into The Hive Mind Of Insects 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. Ditto. 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?