From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of TurquoiseB Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 4:00 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A challenge to Rick To follow up, and explain a little, I'm not trying to overly get in your face, Rick. I'm just pointing out the essential value of your original vision in creating Fairfield Life. I understand.
I am of the opinion that the record of Jim Flanegin's thoughts, words and actions presented here on FFL is a more interesting and revealing one than the record presented on the BATGAP forum, or in his video. Same with Ravi, and with Rory's performance here compared to the ones on his website. On Fairfield Life, people did not just accept what these guys *said about* their subjective experiences. They didn't stop at allowing them to talk the talk. They asked them to walk the walk. And I don't think I'm alone in thinking that all three of the aforementioned guys turned out to be far better talkers than walkers. I wouldn't rate them equally, but to each his own. Batgap.com does have a mechanism for feedback, which some have used to comment on interviews, sometimes critically, but it's not primarily designed as a discussion forum, like this one. THAT exemplifies "What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite." THAT exemplifies "The healthy mind challenges its own assumptions." THAT exemplifies "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." THAT exemplifies "I tore myself away from the safe comfort of certainties through my love for the truth; and truth rewarded me." If "everyday enlightenment" is a real phenomenon, allow it to *prove itself* in the face of critical examination. Allow the talkers to prove their "achievement" by walking the walk of it. If they can, cool...something valuable has been learned from that. If they cannot, cool...something valuable has also been learned from that. How, in the context of BatGap, could they do that to your satisfaction? I think it's fair to say that I have a...uh...somewhat dif- ferent perspective on people who claim to be enlightened than many here. I studied with one such person for many years, and feel that I learned a great deal from his moments of clarity, in which his walk seemed to match his talk. But I feel that I learned a great deal more from those moments in which his walk did *not* match his talk, and in fact seemed to undercut it and render the talk bullshit. I am thankful to have been exposed to both sides of the story. I am equally thankful to have been exposed to both sides of the story here on Fairfield Life. I was saying that just tonight in an email to a friend. Here's the whole email, in case you find it interesting: If I got anything out of all those hours spent reading the Jaimini sutras, it was that little phrase "on the other hand." If you didn't read that, you probably saw Fiddler on the Roof. All that Susan says makes sense, and a significant part of me agrees with it. It may well be true, but on the other hand..... One thing I should have said the other day when I was talking about people taking their stories too seriously was that Dan appears to have taken his too seriously. Maharishi helped me in many ways, including screwing young women while claiming to be a life celibate. I mean it. After the initial shock of discovering that really happened (after dismissing the rumors for 25 years), I settled into a healthy skepticism. I believe many things, respect various teachers and scriptures, including Maharishi, but I can't help but take everything with a grain of salt. I can't seem to form hard and fast opinions about anything, including Dan's death. I lean on the side of feeling it was an unjustifiable act which should have been stopped somehow, but I don't know that for sure and don't know whether it could have been stopped. I fantasize myself having discovered what Dan was planning to do, refusing to leave his side, taking his gun away, etc., etc., but it's all 20/20 hindsight. I don't find myself at all drawn to reading the BATGAP forum on a regular basis, or to watching your videos, because it seems to me that only one side of the story is being presented. I think that it would be more fair to posterity to present both sides. i.e., Ravi? Add a "pre-commentary" to Ravi's video of your own if you'd like, to put it into perspective. Read a few of the things he posted on Fairfield Life, and *comment on* the discrepancy between his walk and his talk if you'd like. That seems to me to be "fair and balanced," as FOX News likes to think of itself as being. But to "disappear" his video as if it never existed? That's more like how FOX News walks its "fair and balanced" talk in real life. I was thinking something along those lines. That is, if I post the video, which I'm open to doing, I accompany it with the story of why I decided to interview him and what happened after I did. Do you think there would be any legal liability in my doing such a thing?
