The below is merely and only my opinion. I don't believe it, but it's been said that Judy is a True Believer in TM.
So why does she not practice the most basic "outside of meditation" "commandment" that Maharishi STRONGLY underlined and espoused, and, in fact, in most of his public appearances was an embodiment of -- that is: "Speak the sweet truth." (In private too, I never saw Maharishi break this rule; but, others testify to Maharishi's numerous instances of yelling in a seemingly out of control manner, so maybe Judy thinks that she too is justified.) One was said to achieve this sweet truth if one's speech was true, sweet and NECESSARY. Judy's rebuke of Peter does not follow this "guideline," and, I, for one, have yet to see her follow this principle. Ergo, she is directly "going against" her Master's bidding, and, by the TM algorithms, she's stressing her nervous system in some damaging way and to some extent mitigating the benefits of the meditation's practice and binding herself into conceptuality after having gained some freedom from it by meditation. The frequency of her "being unsweet" in her posts here, could be argued to entirely undo any healing that meditation could be said to bring to her life. Indeed, after decades of being a spiritual practitioner, here we can find her daily spewing some of the most unsweet and untrue and UNNECESSARY clouds of angst in an environment that aspires to have a "nice atmosphere for a chat." Maharishi also was very fond of "It takes a thorn to remove a thorn." And perhaps this is Judy's rational for the abuse she heaps upon Peter and anyone else who disagrees with her POV of the moment. After probably decades of practicing TM, she does not have the emotional control to speak the sweet truth, but neither, it seems has the practice of TM given her intellect the breadth (wide angle) and sharpness (point value) dynamics that are so necessary to "be a thorn." Her heart fails her, her intellect fails her. Her lack of compassion for the "problem that Peter is dealing with," signifies that she has not the breadth to see his entire matrix and to understand it as yet another blindness equal to that which Peter is suggesting that Richard J. Williams is a victim of. Nor, does she have the point value acuity of intellect to give Peter a precise instruction to remove or at least begin to remedy his dilemma of having parochial judgments about the psychology of others. Judy puts down Peter for putting down Richard. This is simple hypocrisy -- she is engaged in intellectual dishonesty and mean-spirited revenge upon Peter for past actions that seem to still be remembered by Judy. In fact, it seems she's dedicated to amplifying in her nervous system the effects of such negative thinking by indulging in regularly recalling these past "sins against Judy" and therefore making them even more likely to be operative dynamics in her other thought productions. She practices "vigilantism" in the name of a "protecting/defending Richard" -- though she has no actual compassion for Richard it seems and is using Richard's plight as her shield of empowerment to be negative, angry, revengeful, spiteful, and as painful as an arrow into the heart to anyone her merest whim targets. She left-handedly is saying that Richard is, indeed, a poor soul in need of professional help -- publicly and, go figure, thus agreeing with Peter! Using Judy's words as an "inadvertent confession," it is easy to see that she is a classic case in need of some Byron Katie whoopass turn-around-and-look-at-yourself-by-seeing-the-"true you"-in-your-descriptions-of-others. When Judy calls Peter "Unethical *in the extreme*," she is showing that she wants Peter to think extremely ill of himself. I know of no psychologist who would ask folks to think ill of themselves. Judy, didn't, but could have said, "Peter, if Richard is in need, can you show us how to be even more kind and gentle than you were in your last post to him? I'm hoping your training can teach us about this kind of emotional control when others present such strongly challenging POVs." When Judy says: "for a mental health professional to publically attempt a diagnosis of psychopathology via someone's posts on a Web forum, *especially* as a putdown," she shows that she feels herself to be above this moral value of "being discrete with the tender feeling levels of others" and proceeds to "put down" Peter -- misspelling "publicly" while she doing so -- which is perhaps an indication of her being somewhat out of emotional control, since her past postings show almost a "debilitating obsession" with grammar, spelling and typos. Thus, she must have typed her post and sent it off "fast" because she wanted so badly to "harm Peter." She is, thus, being what she projects on Peter when she attempts to correct him by putting him down in public as she accuses Peter of doing to Richard, and she seems to assume her view of Peter is "true" and that she has some sort of mantle of authority to make such an assement, but she does not have the credentials for such analysis of anyone. Nor did she bother being sweet about it, and since she has no credentials, she can hardly claim that her words are necessary. When Judy says, "And that's what it was, a putdown. If Peter had been seriously concerned for the person's mental health, he could have communicated with him privately," obviously she is not listening to her own moral advice, nor does she inquire if Peter's "healing method" being "applied to Richard" is perhaps some new confrontational therapy that he's willing to continue until Richard is healed, or that Peter is actually also posting using the "avatar" Richard as a foil, a "sample patient," whatever, or that Peter, like most folks here, has experienced Richard as so trollish, so disconnected from reality, so emotionally poisonous to this group's mindset and spiritual intent, that, despite his professional persona, despite his great heartedness and deep desire to be a healing influence for everyone he deals with, Richard's relentless and intense brand of dysfunction is so potent that Peter's own "residual rage" has been sparked aflame. Ask others here is they too have reached such levels of frustration from a troll getting under their skins. Peter is, after all, human, and when he shows his frustration, my first impulse is to say, "Brother, comrade, fellow traveler on this path of challenges, hail to thee, well met!" And, of course, Judy chose not to communicate to Peter privately. Finally, Judy says, "This is utterly inexcusable." The word "utterly" goes directly against Maharishi's many warnings that we should not "try to find the Absolute in the Relative." Judy herself probably has, from childhood, been saying, "never say never." Yet, here we find here being an absolute authority in her own mind and willing to take action upon others from this stance. This, despite a life which must have taught her again and again how wrong she can be about some of the most easily analyzed situations in life. We all have been so instructed by life's little yagya-ic moments, and surely she has not ducked under the punches of karma -- she's been taught as have we all been taught. In sum, since I am not a psychologist, my analysis of Judy has little "probative value," but common sense in others here surely will agree that Judy is almost comically transparent in her projection of her inner low esteem and the torture of her easily seen spiritual dissonance. Have pity on her. If you're a TB, speak sweetly about her. But always remember, if, to you, she looks like a horse, eats like a horse, and shits like a horse, don't expect her to drink from your trough no matter how pure the water therein. She will drink only from the foul pools of negativity she brews within. All the above is my opinion and has no value whatsoever -- except for such value that the reader's thinking may construe. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <drpetersutphen@> wrote: > > > > Dude, with all respect, you need to be back on your > > Seroquel. I kid you not. You have symptoms of a mild > > psychosis. > > Unethical *in the extreme* for a mental health > professional to publically attempt a diagnosis > of psychopathology via someone's posts on a Web > forum, *especially* as a putdown. > > And that's what it was, a putdown. If Peter had > been seriously concerned for the person's mental > health, he could have communicated with him > privately. > > This is utterly inexcusable. >
