Well said, Buck. yes there is a small group of individuals here, who did not 
receive a lasting benefit from Maharishi's TM and TMSP techniques, didn't do 
the work, and now have both no lasting inner silence, or the support of nature 
that accompanies it. So, essentially those who have been successful with TM, 
and those who haven't, live in two very different worlds. Theirs (TM bashers) 
is one where success comes rarely, if at all, whereas the other group simply 
thinks, and desires are realized.  

 There isn't any way for those ignorant of spiritual experience to catch a 
clue, regarding what existence is like, along with the success of TM. It takes 
a lot of self introspection, an ongoing, and uncompromising look at one's self, 
which those who don't do TM are simply incapable of, to any degree of depth. 
You are correct - It isn't personal. It isn't even about ideas. It is about one 
group, which regularly integrates the transcendent value of life, to their 
great benefit, vs. another group who lives life as they have for thousands of 
years, unfulfilled, and unaware of the vast potential, within each one of them. 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <dhamiltony2k5@...> wrote :

 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. I can 
appreciate that you guys can not see this and that you think instead that it is 
about you. -Buck 
 

 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 
http://digg.com/video/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?
 

 



 


 




















 


 














Reply via email to