From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Joe Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 4:14 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk Feet of Clay Hmmmm
Using a position of power to have sex with your disciples is not OK in my book. True. A momentary lapse in judgementalism. But what I meant was that his flaws don't cause me to totally reject the man. I'm still very grateful to him. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> , "Rick Archer" <r...@...> wrote: > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> ] > On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 > Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 3:50 PM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk Feet of Clay Hmmmm > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> > <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> , "Rick Archer" <rick@> wrote: > > > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> > <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> > [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> > <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> ] > > On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 > > Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 11:30 AM > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk Feet of Clay Hmmmm > > > > > > > > One has to be pretty naive, or steeped in rumor-monging like Rick Archer > > not to see what is going on there. > > > > > > > > Hi Nabby. Nice to hear from you. I've been meaning to ask you about this > > rumor-monger thing. You've been calling me that for years. Now that the > > primary rumor I was mongering turns out not to have been a rumor, and > you've > > shifted your story from "it didn't happen" to "it didn't matter, because > his > > robes were white, not ochre", what rumors are you now alluding to in > > continuing to use the term? > > I still consider it a rumor. This book proves nothing whatsoever. My point > is; I don't believe a word of it, > > > > Don't believe a word of what? You haven't read the book. > > > > but if it happened that would be OK in my book. > > > > Because he wore white robes and not ochre? That's the only explanation you > have offered so far as to why it would be OK. And you know what? It's > actually OK in my book too, but maybe for different reasons. I'm fascinated > by the complexity of the man, the issue of Guru/disciple relationships, the > importance of accepting things as they are and then trying to make sense of > them (or not trying to), vs. remaining in denial in order to preserve one's > fantasies, etc. >
