--- In [email protected], "markmeredith2002" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > It's a pretty strong indictment of the claim that > > > > > > TM makes one more able to deal with 'stress' and > > > > > > function effectively in the real world. I can only > > > > > > hope that the next time I fly the person in charge > > > > > > of air traffic control does NOT practice TM. "Oh... > > > > > > two planes on a collision course...better meditate..." > > > > > > > > > > Heh. I wouldn't blame TM, but only the insular environment > > > > > where they are living. > > > > > > > > I'm not convinced. The same mindset has been present > > > > in *every* TM environment I've ever lived or worked > > > > in, including the centers and administrative offices > > > > in the heart of Los Angleles. One can create an 'island' > > > > anywhere if one wants to. > > > > > > > > The question for me is whether this mindset is the > > > > result of TM per se or the effect of decades of > > > > indoctrination in "Don't focus on the negative." > > > > I don't know. > > > > > > Since I've been practicing TM for 30+ years and been in various > > > enviornments where emergencies are contrived to happen (e.g. > > > USAF/NATO exercises) I can assure you it's the lack of > > > experience/practice with emergencies. The military spends a LOT of > > > time and money training people to know what to do "under fire." > > > The TMO doesn't. > > > > The TMO, in fact, trains people in the *opposite*, > > that they will become 'in tune' with the 'laws of > > nature,' and thus nothing bad will ever happen. I > > still think that *this* is the problem. Not only > > were these people not trained in how to react to > > such a situation, they didn't want to *believe* it > > was happening. Rather than deal with it, they tried > > their best to make it 'go away' and *not* deal with > > it. I'm afraid that this attitude will continue at > > MUM, no matter what policies are implemented or > > what training is provided. This myth of being > > 'invincible' due to the power of TM and the siddhis > > is part and parcel of the TMO teaching and its > > environments. The first reaction to a bad situation > > happening is always going to be, "This isn't really > > happening, because it *can't*. These kinds of things > > just aren't supposed *to* happen." > > But the school has had a history of dealing with mental illness > problems. In the 80s after the sidhis came out, there were numerous > mental health incidents on campus. The policy then was to quickly > ship the person off to the mental hospital in nearby mt.pleasant. In > recent yrs I've heard of MUM putting staff who've gone off the deep > end onto the Trailways bus in town headed to their parents' home. The > problem with Sem was that they needed to wait a day to get him on a > plane and he was obviously violent. > > I think the real culture problem here is the tmo's obsession with > getting good PR and avoiding bad PR to keep up the perfect image. Not > wanting news of an attack to leak out kept faculty and administrators > from contacting the proper authorities and generally dealing with it > effectively. > > In fact, MUM probably has a more peaceful campus than most, and what > MUM TBs need to realize is that even if news of the initial minor > attack by pen in the classroom had gotten into the local paper by > contacting the proper authorities, that would not have severely > damaged the public's perception of MUM because most people realize > that shit happens periodically, esp. involving the mentally ill, and > no-one in the real world thinks MUM is perfect heaven on earth anyway.
Well said...and I would also add that because TM attracts a disproportionately high number of people who aren't "normal" (which, obviously, it does because it promises -- and, in my opinion, delivers -- solutions to their suffering, you are going to get a disproportionately higher number of mental health "incidents", such as you describe above. > > PS - read in the blogoshere yesterday how insurance cos may be a force > to address global warming. they see the real evidence of it in their > statistics on natural disasters and are getting hesitant to provide > liability insurance for directors of cos. that both contribute to GW > and actively work to deny it (Exxon) fearing it could lead to major > lawsuits later on. Insurance cos may the force to get MUM down to > earth as well. > Good point about the insurance companies and their reluctance to insure people/organisations who continue to rack up liabilities. However, I'll disagree with you on Exxon and global-warming. Denying the existence of global-warming is not, in itself, actionable. If Exxon were consuming inordinate amounts of oil-based products themselves then, yes, maybe. But they don't; they just manufacture the stuff. It is people like you and me that consume the oil-based products, such as gasoline, that lead to the alleged problem. That's why gun manufacturers will never be successfully sued when a gun they manufacture is used to illegally kill or injure someone (and when I say "successfully sued" I mean that a guilty verdict in the lower courts is not eventually reversed in a higher court). ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 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/
