> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: <snip> > I think we have to also understand R's "recovery" from Cosmic > Confrontation and refuge in Roman Catholicism has been a hard > transition for him.
As you know, because he said it here any number of times, he *gave up* on Catholicism not long after he gave up on TM/MMY. And nobody who's read his posts would imagine it wasn't anything less than horrendously, agonizingly difficult for him to make the transition from TM *and* Catholicism to where he is currently. To be placed in situations where he's forced to > "explain himself" when it was something he felt he had left behind, > is an odd juxtaposition of circumstances. Once old seminarians begin > hitting the scene, it's much harder to prevent those old habits from > instinctively kicking back in. So he's also forced to process these > two overlapping stages of his life, in the public eye and in a > context he does not control. Did somebody force him to start posting to FFL, or was making himself vulnerable in this way his own choice? Get a grip, Vaj. He always knew someone from his past might pop up here. > So in order for me to accept your proposition I'd be forced to ask > myself the question 'does Robin possess no "vulnerability" or is he > afraid of being laid vulnerable as a penitent Roman Catholic (or > whatever he considers himself to be)?' Which proposition?? What proposition did Ann state to which the above would be germane? Responding to this on its own terms, of course he was hugely vulnerable, more so than anyone else on FFL. It took tremendous courage for him to start posting to FFL, where he knew he'd be grilled. Again, hasn't a thing to do with Catholicism, which he'd left behind many years ago. He was repentant because he felt terrible about what had happened. He made no excuses for it, took all the blame on himself. > At what point does the chafing > resistance to Old Ways rub too many times against your own New > personal integrity? > > Only he knows that answer. But I'll take a guess: It was when he found himself spending most of his time defending himself from the personal attacks here that he realized he wasn't yet willing to allow himself to be as vulnerable as he thought he was. IOW: Vulnerability, to Robin, is something devoutly to be strived for, not something to be avoided. You, Vaj, are just about the polar opposite of Robin in that regard, IMHO. You go to the most extreme lengths to avoid making yourself vulnerable. Including making what you say in your posts ambiguous (see "proposition" above, e.g.). That way, if someone challenges you, you can say, Well, that wasn't what I meant. And refuse to say what you *did* mean because the person challenging you is purportedly too stupid or brainwashed to understand it. Or you offer to explain in email where nobody else can challenge what you say. You have a whole big bag of tricks designed to protect yourself. (I'm not talking about your anonymity, BTW. That's a different issue.)
