Dear Aunt Share - thanks for love, support and concern. This is what I do, day in and day out - eat well, rest well, work well. I'm not a masochist like these conster, fraudster Gurus, because I don't need anything from anyone - the existence provides me and has provided me everything I need.
In fact I only take care of myself, always true to myself, totally lost in my beloved Rosathea, always thinking of her, the things I need to do to impress her, why yesterday I went for labor day shopping and bought a few Abercrombies, I think of how to win her love, admiration, respect, hoping I will hear from her soon - the rest of all this is very accidental. Love, Ravi. On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Share Long <sharelon...@yahoo.com> wrote: > ** > > > Ravi, just take good care of yourself, ok? Maybe get some good rest. > Some healthy delicious food and beverage. Some fun exercise in sunshine > and fresh air. Such common sense approaches can help a lot when the old > world starts shaking us up. I realize you're a young, strong man, etc. > Nonetheless, very wise to take good care of the body mind vehicle. If only > to be an even better lover of all that is. Share > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Ravi Chivukula <chivukula.r...@gmail.com> > *To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 4, 2012 2:59 PM > *Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Our Little Secret > > > I just want to add here something quick - I'm not here to share my > personal stories to titillate, woo some old farts here jaded, wearied, worn > down by their failed spiritual journeys, sold into Maharishi's con, > deception - as Nabby stated it so beautifully - it's in the fine print - > what does the fine print say? Three words - responsibility, accountability > and transparency(self-honesty). > > I'm not going to elaborate my personal stories for some factual accuracy, > or to clarify the slander, lies spread by people with chin-envies and small > penis complexes. > > I use my personal stories to add a certain context, to add detail, > personal touch, feel to my stories. > > Because this is not some dry, intellectual, writing - no nedo-advaitic > puny, pathetic platitudes that I'm indulging in nor is it the passable, > presentable, platitudes that some Gurus deceiving and deluding themselves > as divine mothers, avatars > > My writing is a love affair, regardless of who's reading or not, the > audience I'm talking to is not alien, distant to me. As I write I feel lot > of love, oneness with whom I'm communicating, writing in this case. I want > my audience to feel the primary motivation of my writing - which is > ultimately love. > > I'm not trying to deceive innocent, naive, gullible audience like Barry > and Curtis do and then turn around and cry wolf, slander, lie, indulging in > their shameless, clueless, whiny, drama queenery. > > I try to create a rich tapestry, a stunning mosaic to express my love, my > journey, my thoughts, on my spiritual journey - this tapestry, mosaic with > the beautiful set of English adjectives. > > I don't claim to be an omniscient, omnipotent, all-knowing person - just a > simple, vulnerable, helpless, loving, created being at the mercy of this > dynamic, organic, mysterious entity known as the existence, reality or God. > All I have is my brutal-self honesty and integrity. > > Of course I also use my writing to create a complex, intricate, maze, den, > web, context to GIS (Goad, insult and slay) my adversaries and cruelly > expose their biases, fears, insecurities, anxieties, their deception. > > One can feel the love of my writing and reciprocate my love. > > But if you are GIS'd - you can preserve your self-dignity like many others > or be shameless, clueless, manipulative, deceivers like Barry, Curtis. > > Either way I strongly believe I can't ultimately touch, taint or tarnish > anyone's consciousness - the purity of their first person ontologies, their > unique expression, manifestation within this organic, dynamic, mysterious > entity. > > So feel my love or slander me. It makes no difference to me. > > Love, > Ravi > > > > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 10:16 AM, authfriend <authfri...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > ** > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > > > Isn't it a bit ironic that Barry uses FFL to criticize Rick > > who started FFL?! > > Well, he isn't the first to do so, and he won't be the last. > I've done it myself on occasion. > > What *is* ironic is that Barry usually fawns all over Rick, > especially for having created this forum as a place where > everyone can feel free to say what they think. > > > > As for Barry's reply to Raunchy: clearly she was not praising > > Ravi, as Barry accused. She was objecting to using the family > > topic to criticize Ravi. > > Right, she wasn't praising him in that post, but from her > other posts, she's obviously friendly toward him. That's > what makes Barry crazy, that other people *like* Ravi. > > I actually tend to agree with Barry that whatever someone > has said about their private lives on FFL is fair game > for comment. (Preferably appreciative or compassionate > comment, but we know there are some here from whom that > cannot be expected.) > > What I think is utterly inexcusable is to *misrepresent* > what the person has said and embroider and distort it with > speculations presented as if they were established fact-- > which is what Barry did. > >  For all the reasons you mention, Judy, I think that objection was spot > on. > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: authfriend <authfriend@...> > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2012 11:16 AM > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Our Little Secret > > > > > >  > > Let's consider some facts for a change. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Barry, how low can you go? Leave Ravi's family out of > > > > your personal grudge against him. Whether you're lying > > > > about him or not, it's none of your damn business and > > > > certainly none of ours. His private life has no bearing > > > > on his participation on this forum. Shame on you. > > > > > > Speaking of "asleep at the wheel," Ravi himself > > > volunteered this information, in the context of > > > telling people how cool he was to have flirted > > > with his ex-wife's divorce attorney. > > > > Actually, here's what Ravi said: > > > > "My ex taunted me at the courthouse as she walked away with everything, > the kids - the complete physical, legal custody > > with no visitation, even her lawyer privately apologized to > > me." > > > > And here's what Barry said: > > > > "Rick doesn't seem to have considered, when allowing him to > > return, that even *courts* have decided that Ravi is too > > unstable to allow him access to or even visitation rights > > with his own children." > > > > IOW, Ravi did not tell us what Barry claims he told us. > > Barry does not know why the court decided what it did. > > > > (Oh, and notice Barry's multiplication tactic: "courts" > > rather than "court." Sounds so much more definitive if more > > than one court had decided the same thing, doesn't it?) > > > > Let's get real here. It's not as if nobody had ever > > succeeded in convincing a court that a former spouse was > > Bad News for the kids purely out of spite. It's a very > > effective way of getting back at the former spouse for > > whatever had gone wrong in the marriage. (And while > > fathers occasionally manage to wangle a no-visitation > > decision from a divorce court, traditionally courts tend > > to favor the mother in such cases.) > > > > From what Ravi has told us about his interactions with > > his ex-wife's attorney, it appears the attorney may have > > had her doubts about the justice of the court's decision > > for her client (also see the quote below from a later > > post of Ravi's). > > > > Finally, all this happened years ago. Rick had no basis > > *whatsoever* for taking it into consideration when he > > decided to allow Ravi to return to FFL. > > > > And for all we know, the legal situation may have changed > > in the interim. Is Ravi still forbidden to see his kids? > > We don't know. Maybe he'll tell us. > > > > Here's what Ravi went on to say about his wife's attorney > > in a subsequent post: > > > > "Like I said I was being playful with her lawyer - Kelly, she > > was a bit older than me but good looking - drove my ex mad.. > > LOL..she was like, don't talk to my attorney - not realizing > > the stupidity and hilarity of her statement. Anyway her lawyer > > starts explaining how she is a nice, honest person, goes to > > bed every night peacefully (as in I'm just doing my job) and > > I'm like whatever and then she looks me in the eye and says - > > look Ravi, you are a really nice guy, I am still being playful > > and she repeats with emphasis - No, Ravi listen - you are a > > very nice guy and then I finally acknowledged and gave her one > > of my patented bows." > > > > > I have no "grudge" against Ravi. I have stated > > > my position with regard to him many times, and > > > have *followed through on it*. That is, I will > > > not interact with him or any of the other people > > > on this forum whom I suspect to be mentally ill, > > > because I have neither the training nor the > > > inclination to do so. > > > > > > You obviously feel otherwise, and that praising > > > an unstable person when he acts out is a favor. > > > > But Barry considers himself to have the training to > > know when someone is unstable--and rather obviously > > has a powerful inclination to repeat that conclusion > > over and over, as if it were established fact, in an > > attempt to anathematize those he has declared to be > > unstable and turn other posters against them. > > > > When considering whether Barry is being candid when > > he claims not to have a grudge against Ravi, FFL > > readers should perhaps bear in mind that Barry has > > pronounced his expert diagnosis of "instability"--or > > worse--virtually exclusively on his critics. > > > > Enough said. > > > > > >
