http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PivWY9wn5ps
--- On Fri, 9/9/11, Bob Price <bobpri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Bob Price <bobpri...@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Excuses for avoiding liberation? [was Re: Blissy
vs. Happy]
To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Friday, September 9, 2011, 8:54 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MMw773XFLg&feature=related
________________________________
From: maskedzebra <no_re...@yahoogroups.com>
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, September 9, 2011 7:07:13 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Excuses for avoiding liberation? [was Re: Blissy vs.
Happy]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote:
Excuses for avoiding liberation? [was Re: Blissy vs. Happy]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@...> wrote:
<snip>
> > > You want proof of this? Just observe what your mind is doing
> > > right in this moment: it is refusing, a priori and
> > > involuntarily, to do anything but react to what I am saying.
> > > You can't take in even the content of what is being presented
> > > to you in this moment.
> >
> > Robin, he's most likely not reading it at all. That's
> > one of his prime defensive strategies.
<snip>
> RESPONSE; I appreciate this, Judy: The "not reading it
> at all" as "one of his prime defensive strategies" had
> never occurred to me. Now that takes away some of my
> perplexity. What has baffled me up until this point is
> that in his dismissal of my posts he does not disclose
> any of the real substance of his *experience* which
> leads him to this judgment. He might as well be accusing
> me of being a Salem witch: there is no accountability
> for his opinions: they occur (or are expressed) in a
> personal void. Therefore he can never feel out the
> feedback he gets from reality—and can say and believe
> anything at all. As if he is immune to the very life
> which gives him existence.
>
> I certainly don't mind having critics—or even enemies. The
> problem comes up when there is no revealed context within
> which to understand this opposition or antipathy:
> turquoiseb feels he can make sweeping statements about
> anything and remain utterly invulnerable to the very real
> implication and responsibility that inheres in this act.
That's right. As you say, he accepts no accountability
whatsoever for his behavior.
<snip>
> Turquoiseb (talented, intelligent, witty fellow that he is)
> is unknowingly disassociated from his own self. I wonder how
> he understands children—or a would-be lover.
Well, let's remember we're seeing only the electronic
side of him, as it were. He's apparently living with a
couple who have a young child he's known from birth,
and from what he says, he relates to her very closely.
So his real life may be very different from what we
see of him. It's very hard to maintain invulnerability
in the face of the innocence of a child.
RESPONSE II: Whoa. I would never have believed this. Thanks so much for this
information, Judy. It makes the issue more humanly complex for me. And I like
that. "So his real life may be very different form what we see of him."
Certainly this has to be the case, because I had assumed, somewhat
peremptorily, that he lived the life of a secular hermit—in other words,
literally an 'all-alone' existence. This makes the data much more interesting.
One theory of mine has been completed destroyed: viz. that his psychology
precluded the possibility of the very facts you have just provided me. The
mystery, then, deepens.
I would defer to the young child's version of turquoiseb: she knows so much
more than I do. Would she find anything we have said here compatible with her
experience of her friend, turquoiseb?
> But I am going further than I should here; I certainly sense
> you have him in your crosshairs: it is a wonder to me that
> none of your bullets leave a mark upon his consciousness—does
> he even know he is so de-sensitized?
Not reading the posts of those who have him in their
crosshairs (I'm not the only one by any means; you've
just demonstrated that) is a fairly recent strategy.
Up until a couple of years ago (I first ran into him
on the Usenet newsgroup alt.meditation.transcendental
back in 1994), he did engage with people who disagreed
with or criticized him. That leads me to believe that
he was more sensitized than was comfortable for him,
and he ultimately withdrew to his present posture so
he wouldn't have to deal with the discomfort.
Thing is, even then he wasn't very good at debate,
which was likely a major factor in his discomfort.
Whether he's aware of this dynamic or has convinced
himself of the rationalizations for his withdrawal
that he's trumpeted here--he doesn't read certain
people's posts, including mine, because we don't
have anything interesting to say, e.g.--I'm not sure.
He apparently doesn't realize how transparent his
motivations are, though. Just on the basis of his
posts, he has less self-knowledge than just about
anyone I've ever encountered.
RESPONSE II: Well, there is a real person there after all. And I was about to
(before reading this latest post of yours) suggest that his problem was that
*he was no longer experiencing a personal history*; that is, it seemed to me,
based upon how he reacted to me, that his experiences are not *creating him*
anymore. He refuses to assimilate into himself experiences which would shape
and mould him into a more mature and deeper person than he is right now. He
seemed psychologically arrested in this sense. Again what you tell me here
makes me realize: I don't really know this person at all. What does it say
about someone who unthinkingly, just because I am critical of Adyashanti,
accuses me of jealousy, then almost immediately after that launches into a
criticism [of Adyashanti] more pointed than my own (apparently oblivious of the
irony of this)?
He doesn't track his past; his immediate past does not feed into his present
experience; therefore personal history for the time being is useless to him.
Which is sad really. Every one of his posts appears to be as if he never
received any feedback from anyone about anything. He writes as if he is an
outsider making his first post.
After learning what I have learned from you, Judy, I think I have to be
satisfied that, given what I know now, I can't sum him up (the way I thought I
could before hearing from you).
He must have been unconsciously hurt by the suicide of his second Master (after
MMY).
He must realize, if he is reading this (very doubtful, that), that the only
motive in discussing him is out of—ultimately at least—some concern about his
apparent estrangement from the living truth of himself.
I do note that he has some admirers at FFL. His movie reviews are definitely
worth reading.
What *is* the problem, Turq?
