Funny too, that it's them, and not you, who are breaking off the communication, but that's to be expected, I think.Ê It leads me to ask which are the parties who feel they have something to protect -- who feel there is some kind of risk in continuing the relationship and therefore must end it.Funny you should say that Joe. Actually I was thinking that there is probably another dynamic that is active in my 'bust ups' with these people. It's on a more personal level. I can see how they need to break off communications because of the futility that continuing to discuss the past with me represents. It occurs to me that actually I may have 'targeted them' for confronting talks because both these people have been quite 'heavy' with me in the past at times (to the extent that I felt mistreated and unable to make them understand that) and I may have been 'punishing them' to some extent by trying to confront them with some home truths. I maybe need to express this to them - or maybe not - this is something that I am only just realising now. Their need to validate their experience by 'healing me' may be partly out of guilt even for all I know. My guess is that for all the insecurity they accuse me of, they have it themselves in spades. It takes two to tango.
The fact remains that I do have respect for them in other ways, otherwise we wouldn't have enjoyed each other's company at all - actually I have respect for them that they tried to talk about Maharaji at all with me - it must have been hard!
I don't seem to get so embroiled in argument with some other premie friends - maybe this is because we don't want to take our relationship to the brink by going down what we know will be a very contentious road. Maybe we value each other too much for that.
you might actually be persuasive, can't be written off as just an angry fool, etc..Ê It takes so much energy to continue to rectify those things that you get exhausted.Ê
That's exactly when they do write you off as an angry fool!
"And yes, I think the Forum sucks. Nothing new. For years it has, in some guise or other, made people aggressively and patronisingly and superciliously righteous."
Is he saying that the ex-premies are "righteous" or is it that the existence of the Forum makes premies be that way?Ê I can't tell from what he wrote.Ê Also, the "nothing new" comment kind of suggests this guy is following the Forum fairly closely, or else how would he know.
He's saying it's influenced people negatively isn't he? You know what, I think premies maybe read one or two posts and just make a sweeping dismissive judgement. I don't believe for a moment that the guy who said that has visisted the forum once. He has read a few posts which I and others emailed him over the years but I don't think he has logged in. Maybe but I doubt it.
For sure, most premies avoid it like the plague. They're very condescending about it - always. Of course it's the lowest common demonitor syndrome. They are not prepared to dig around for the good, sincere posts. They just see it as literally a place where people get 'aggressive, patronisingly and superciliously righteous'. It's a truism but it's not the whole picture.