Curtis making a humorous aside at the end of post: > > If you do come up with an excuse to mitigate philandering > > please let me know. I've been looking for one to use for > > years! >
Judy's reaction, probably gunna be something light and humorous in response: > You're on your own with that one. I'm having trouble finding > a way to mitigate your tendency to start things and then not > finish them, as with our most recent exchange. Whoa, wait a second. Are you talking to the guy who goes further post by post on topics with you than ANYONE here? I participate as much as I can maintain interest and then move on. Which is exactly what you do also. Only you would consider shaming someone for pursuing their own interests in ever lengthening discussions here. As if your priorities SHOULD be applied to the other poster. Kind of the opposite of self realization where your standards of interest is THE standard and I should ignore my own interests here. < Considering > how badly you fared, it's not surprising.> I'm guessing you think you won something for your "I was more something than someone else cabinet." I have "fared badly" in your head Judy, not mine. I have "fared" just fine. You are being kind of cryptic here so I can only guess that you are perturbed that I opted out of discussing things we thought and said on AMT, which was how long ago exactly? Fifteen years ago? And you are thinking that it might be a good use of our time to relive that antagonistic relationship because you find our current friendly exchanges lacking in enough rancor and venom? As I told you I am satisfied with our work on AMT. Go back and read it again if you want. But don't expect me to go looking for old posts FOR you. We both thought the other was being dishonest on AMT and made our cases. Predictably neither of us changed our opinion but we both spoke our peace 15 years ago. At least I did. I can't help you if you are unresolved about it. < But as I said, it > leaves our relationship, such as it is, waaaaaaaay back at > square one as far as my opinion of you is concerned. Your > choice, of course.> No actually your opinion about me is not only YOUR choice, it is really none of my business. You have pulled the disapproval routine once to often for me to care. Disapproval is your default with certain posters here, and I am one of them. I'm cool with that. It is very low level manipulation and hasn't worked on me for decades. I guess we don't share the same preference for how we like to interact and what we value in exchanges here. I am sorry that our current discussions are unsatisfying for you. It is working for me. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > <snip> > > > > "Householders" means you marry someone and raise a family. > > > > It doesn't mean you get to be a rock star on the tour bus > > > > with 20 somethings when you are in your fifties, ditching > > > > one when you get tired of hitting that and moving on by > > > > leaving the last girl behind when you travel. > > > > > > Well, actually none of the four ashramas means this, > > > so it's kind of a non sequitur. > > > > I don't think you mean ashramas in this context. There > > are two contexts for the term brahmachari. One is the > > stage of life, the student who is surrendered to a guru > > and lives in his ashram under his instruction. In > > mMaharishi's context it means celibate lifestyle at any > > age. Maharishi was not maintaining a student lifestyle > > his whole life. Same with the term householder. It is > > a stage of life in the ashramas sequence, but as > > Maharishi used it, it was a lifestyle choice meaning > > married at any age. > > Which doesn't mean what you described either, so the "two > contexts" distinction is irrelevant as well. > > > It was not a non sequitur in the context of our discussion > > about whether there was any justification for his sexual > > activity based on what he said he was. > > Oh, you think that's what Lawson was doing? > > > As you point out there is no context where this is > > allowed in Hinduism. > > Right. That part has nothing to do with what he said he > was. > > > > And none of the four ashramas, for that matter, fit > > > MMY's life circumstances even if you don't consider the > > > women. > > > > He was faking the last one while maintaining the bennies > > of householder business life. > > Which he was also "faking," given that he wasn't married > with a family. As I went on to suggest: > > > > One could make the case that when a person embedded in > > > the ashrama tradition tries to mix two of the ashramas, > > > they're very likely to shortchange both of them. Maybe > > > that's why so many swami-types who are out in the world > > > running movements end up sleeping with their followers. > > > They have to interact constantly with women, unlike a > > > renunciate, which means they're more likely to get horny; > > > but they don't have a wife to sleep with if they do get > > > horny, unlike a grihastha. Not an easy row to hoe. > > > > My experience of Sunyasins in India is that they mingle > > in society to beg for their food. They come to homes > > and it is the woman who hands out the food, I saw them > > do it. > > Well, there are two kinds, those who mingle and beg and > those who live with other sanyasins in a monastery. But > the women who give food to the first kind are, you know, > already married with their own households, and I imagine > the interaction would be pretty brief. Quite a difference > from interacting at length and over time with young single > devotees about spiritual and business matters who are, in > effect, members of the sanyasin's household. > > <snip> > > > CAVEAT FOR THE BRAINLESS: No, I'm not trying to excuse > > > or mitigate MMY's philandering. It was wrong no matter > > > how difficult refraining might have been. > > > > If you do come up with an excuse to mitigate philandering > > please let me know. I've been looking for one to use for > > years! > > You're on your own with that one. I'm having trouble finding > a way to mitigate your tendency to start things and then not > finish them, as with our most recent exchange. Considering > how badly you fared, it's not surprising. But as I said, it > leaves our relationship, such as it is, waaaaaaaay back at > square one as far as my opinion of you is concerned. Your > choice, of course. >
