On May 30, 2010, at 6:55 PM, Rick Archer wrote: > On May 30, 2010, at 5:13 PM, Rick Archer wrote: > > >> FW; > >> "I knew Daniel well and have a little different take than some others. > >> this is what my perception was knowing what was going on. Had I known the > >> last 2 months he told so many people his pain was too great and he was > >> thinking of killing himself I would have intervened strongly in some way. > >> intervention may have helped but at the same time. a person has to be > >> receptive and I don't know how receptive Daniel was. that advaita group > >> all think they are beyond human help and looked to him as the mentor and > >> teacher and he had no one." <end paste> > > > > > > Whoever wrote this doesn't know what they're talking about. They may never > > have been to the group, and you certainly haven't. We loved and respected > > Dan, and he spoke with great clarity from a great depth, but the group in > > general did not look to him as mentor and teacher, and he had people he > > respected to whom he could talk as much as he wanted to. > > I sure hope not, Rick. There seems to be something > profoundly odd about a group of middle-aged people > looking to someone more than half their age as a > "mentor and teacher," JMO.
And also along these lines, Rick--didn't anyone else find it a tad odd that Dan was spending much of his free time, between the satsang group and the Buddha chat group--with people much older than him? I get the feeling, after reading some of the posts there, that people were so flattered that someone young wanted to spend time with them, that perhaps they weren't thinking of Dan's best interests--like why someone who was 25 was trying so hard to be "wise" or "deep." I agree he comes off as more mature than his years might suggest--but is that supposed to be a good thing? The whole situation sounds profoundly unhealthy. Sal
