I'm with you there. A real paradox.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <r...@...> wrote:
>
> 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" <rick@> 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.
> >
>
