--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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
It may be of greater value for you to look in the mirror with regard to the same essentisl message you have just used to aim at Judy. [This is my view and I do consider it to have significant value.]
