Housekeeping: As is posted on the EMF Message Board page, this forum is for support, sharing opinions and experiences for those who have left RSE and have doubts and concerns about their tenure there. It is NOT a place for proselytizing for RSE, JZK Inc or Ramtha. Play nicely or your post will be sent to cyberspace time-out for all eternity. The disclaimer for EMF is located on this page http://enlightenmefree.com/disclaimer.html and all posters agree to the terms of the disclaimer. Be sure you've read it before posting.
You may also want to visit a complementary forum at FACTNet http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/3/779.html
If you wish to use a Spell Checker, you may wish to use this free one: http://www.jacuba.com/
I had this thought recently: That the human way to get rid of and process feelings and emotions is usually to talk about them -- unless you're drinking them away, acting them out, etc., but that's another thread -- and when we talk about them, what we are essentially doing is "giving them to" or "putting them on" other people... This actually is not my own theory, but one told to me by someone "in the field" -- no, not THAT field -- a long time ago....
Besides the obvious reasons of fear and paranoia one would feel after essentially being emotionally hijacked and betrayed in a most intimate way, it made me wonder if some of ex students' feelings are actually residual feelings "given" to them by JZ... If one accepts the probability that she was severely emotionally and physically abused and that R is really just a manifestation of that abuse and trauma, it makes me think that a lot of the fear and paranoia she evokes in students is really her own fear and paranois that she is processing on a grand scale...
I say this with the thought that it might be of some comfort to you to know that not all your feelings are truly of your own origin.. ..
Just a thought -- something more to think about -- thanks for letting me carry on!..[I had to take a breather]
and when we talk about them, what we are essentially doing is "giving them to" or "putting them on" other people...
Well, can't entirely agree with this part...we may also be expressing empathy, seeking to inspire or encourage; as "If I can get through that .....you can get through whatever it is too", or words to that effect.
Totally agree with the rest of what you said, Marie. If often does occur to me, and I have said this, that whatever "she/he" goes through, the students/masters must go through also - all in the name of enlightenment. Kind of makes you wonder...if her/his thoughts can have that effect on students, imagine what her/his thoughts are doing to her/him (to paraphrase a scene in What the Bleep!)
Lost -- well, you made me think -- actually I think when we speak encouragingly to someone, aren't we trying to "give them encouragement?"... Or "make them happy" when we speak our good feelings??.. I'm thinking, usually all we want is understanding when we articulate, and the best way to achieve that is to "make" someone else feel what we're feeling?.. But I think what happens when we talk about our feelings to someone else is that we basically unload them on to someone else.... *I* feel better after I've told *you* how bad I feel....and then what happenes is, now you have absorbed my feelings and feel bad too... That's why the need for strong emotional boundaries... Sometimes we have to mentally remind ourselves that we are not the other person, and their experiences were not ours.... so therefore, their burden is not ours to carry.
I understand what you are both saying, but sharing is a huge element of helping others, and healing oneself. I agree, one must understand it is not their burden; but then again, if it is someone we care about deeply, then it is our burden in another manner.
I, too, believe Jazeek's teachings reflect whatever she has experienced during her lifetime - the greatest "projection" of all.
Nice to see you back
two things here.
If JZ is doing this on a grander scale, she is diluting her emotions. But it is not a two way street-there is no one on one with JZ. It is one on 1000. It is like being on a teeter totter with someone.
Someone bounces someone off.
Then the other person decides to let the other person's butt hit the ground.
Then they both get on and say "hey! that doesn't quite work. can you scoot forward some?"
But JZ does not do that.
She teeters...and 1000 people act out her
delusions. "Audrey is bad. Don't associate with her. Joe D is bad. Don't associate with him. David McCarthy is bad.
Don't associate with him. Tree is bad. Dpn't associate with her." and on and on.
She is never put to the test to ultimately change HER SELF. She never has to. It is not a two way street for self improvement. She has never one on one confronted any of these people. She has a habit of firing staff indirectly....NEVER one on one.
secondly,I am more in favor of the Philosophy of Thich Nhat Hanh.
Part of his message is learning to do what one can do relieve suffering of others.
For example, I blow a gasket one day, whether I deem it "justifiable" or not
(there was a teaching by JZ/ R on 'justifiable anger' which I won't get into right now), but what I have done, is cause suffering in someone else.
It is up to ME to go about removing or attempting to relieve the suffering I put upon someone else. Self responsibility in the form of amends of some kind.
And then I have to look at what caused MY suffering? Did someone intentionally steal from me, yell obscenities, or other worse things? How do I go about relieving my OWN suffering? Talk to that person?
What if they are a delusional Naricissitic Axis II personality?
There is no way, other than not associating with them any more.
But if the other person is growth-inspired, they will see to a meaningful conversation and endeavor to abolish the behavior that originally caused my suffering.
If someone has narcissitic tendencies, then there is no hope in communication and growth between the two. And in Ramster's cases, they will just say:
"I am no longer frequency specific to you."
Thich Nhat Hanh:
His philosophy is not limited to pre existing religious structures but speaks to the individual’s desire for wholeness and inner calm.
Any excuse will serve a tyrant.
Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.
Truth stands, even if there be no public support. It is self-sustained.
If my soldiers were to begin to think, not one of them would remain in the army.
~Frederick the Great er JZ Knight
Have never heard of Mr./Ms. Hahn, will google that.
Marie, what I meant was, sort of like in "AA" (reviled at the ranch, I understand) or some Christian prayer meetings (also reviled by many), or group therapy (reviled by me, lol), you tell your story, not to "put it" on others,or to gain sympathy, but to show them one way in which evil or temptation or pain and suffering, or adverse circumstances, may be overcome, and in that sense, you could serve as an inspiration. Not quite the same as dumping on others.
Lost -- I see!...agreed.
Thich Nhat Hanh was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize in 1967.
There were no prizes made that year or the next due to the war.
He recently had a discourse with John McCain, as both had been in Viet Nam during the war (under same, yet different circumstances).
check it out.
Marie, I know you mean well but your description of how we 'put our emotions on others' when we speak is very similar to a point of view taken at rse. Which is why people at rse are often completely disinterested to the point of being nasty if you ever have an issue or 'drama' going on. Forget lending an ear, people are so afraid that they will 'take on' your drama that they don't even want to hear it. 'Blah, blah, blah, blah...' if they have to, to tune you out.
So, while I agree that there is potential to be dragged down by the emotions another may be feeling when speaking, I don't see that as a rule. Many factors are involved, the situation, the place the person speaking is at in regard to the issue, personal involvement, etc. To say it as a rule implies something negative to me and I'm not sure I can agree with it. You may not have meant it that way, but I can't help perceiving it that way maybe because of my previous beliefs.
I realize that you meant to assure us and I can see how it's possible that we would take on JZ's fear/paranoia thru her 'processing' essentially, but more in the sense that loved ones tend to take on similar traits just by being around each other. Or via peer pressure and the general prevailing thought that somehow what is important to JZ needs to be important to everyone.
"I say this with the thought that it might be of some comfort to you to know that not all your feelings are truly of your own origin.. .."
I am with littlewiseone here.
This line really does not sit well with me
1) I really am self resonsible for what I do with my own emotions.
Which, oddly enough, at RSE, one is led to believe that they really should not have any emotions or that they should be "greater" than having emotions.
A really great example is I saw one couple this past summer in a really tenuous position with a land developer.
Even though they maintained they were "greater than their emotions", the actions and nastiness that I observed between these 3 (all in RSE) was just astounding. That night, one of the three suggested they have a few glasses of wine and "be done with the past" of the day.
So, of course, they drank.
The next day, all three had a bit of a hangover and basically just "left the experience in the past" and never addressed that any of them were emotional about it at all (a fair amount of money was at stake here).
I stood by in awe.
Here they were, DENYING they had ANY emotions, and then having a few toasts, and just let it be at that.
Now truly, how is that a way to responsibly deal with one's actions as a result of emotions, in particular, when one is taught that emotions are essentially "bad"??
I would say this is a result of a belief system gone bad, and NOT JZ's emotions.
It has been my experience that many Ramsters even REFUSE to see that they indeed have emotions and that they are "greater than that" (e.g. arrogant about it all).
2) in the example I gave in another post regarding have been thrown in the pokey for a drunken altercation and declaring,
"I truly think I would not have engaged alcohol this way had it not been for the wine ceremonies at RSE."
Which, is still true.
I was STILL responsible for my actions and lack of forethought to reasonably just kick this person out of my house before it escalated, thus it went, enormous fines, etc.
So I MUST, and I did, take responsibility for my actions. I cannot lay this on JZ,
although , my original premise still stands.
In hindsight, I am much more sound mentally, than the last 18 years.
So there is something to be said about recovering from such a group and taking even a more wider perspective and approach in regards to my emotions and the way I decide to play them out.
They are all mine, and no one else's.
Thus, I do not see where JZ's emotions come into play in this scenario
(other than setting up the group think in the first place).
So, Marie, I would tend to think your line might apply to current RSE students.
Not those in the aftermath, esp those working with trained professionals.
To clarify -- it's not "my" line -- it is a generally held concept of how people / human beings deal with and process emotion...
I didn't mean to have everyone over think this -- just made a general comment ... It has nothing to do with how people in RSE are different from people who are not in RSE.. it is a GENERAL statement about how people, IN GENERAL, process feelings and emotions...
I understand that you mean it as a general way people process but we have to accept that premise to accept the rest of your post. All I was saying is that I'm not sure I accept the general premise. Where are you quoting this line from?
LWO -- As I said in my initial post, this was told to me by a therapist, someone who counsels people and helps them, someone "in the field"... of helping others.
Ok, I got it. I still wonder what philosophy that's based on. I'm not an expert on psychology but I don't like the sound of this premise.
Also, we're not attacking you, I know you meant well.
I don't know what's to like or not like...It wasn't an accusation or anything meant to infer blame or non-responsibility... I'm surprised it has been construed that way.. It's not something people do on a conscious level, it's just one of those things "that is"...