I thought I had clarified my personal biases pretty well, perhaps not. I also tried to acknowledge that there were other ways to look at it and we didn't have all the facts. I was writing what I felt. I have read enough stories from Dome-parent raised kids to suspect that I wasn't that far off the mark.
I think we have to agree to disagree concerning Guru Dev's life. My opinion is just that. Just because I express my own point of view doesn't mean I don't understand or appreciate yours. What makes writing here fun for me is to take a position and listen to people's reactions. Sometimes it alters mine and sometimes it doesn't. I don't accept that this reveals a personal tendency that I need to look at. But of course you are welcome to your own opinion about what you can deduce about me from what I write. Considering your writing analysis skills, you can be sure I read all your feedback and give it thought. I do appreciate that you often take plenty of time to express your own reaction to what I have written in detail. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > Thanks for everyone who responded to my question about our > > relationship to dead people like Jesus. As I had hoped I was able > to > > read some fascinating perspectives. Some really took the ball and > ran > > into some complex worldview shifting perspectives, Turq, Marek, and > > Edg (special mention goes to Edg for the pantsless puja story which > > had me laughing. Perhaps the follow up string can be "Can Guru Dev > see > > your weiner?"), Sal came through with funny, appropriate song lyrics > > as usual ( I would like to have my way with your CD collection > baby!) > > > > The amazing thing to me is how mainstream the concept is of Jesus > > loving you from beyond the grave. Presidents can drop it into > > speeches with no notice made. Interestingly, if they declared that > > Poseidon loved them, or that they loved Poseidon, the S.... would > hit > > the fan. It is an interesting litmus test for world views, although > > some of you raised the bar pretty high above my pedestrian concerns. > > (they are my boundaries and I love them more than Jesus!) > > > > Then Tom and Cindy dropped a bomb that had me off and running > again... > > > > From the feeback to my original reaction I see how this post > > also is a good one to ferret out our worldviews. Rick gave > > a completely different perspective on the incident. I assume > > that for Rick the value of an "awakening" is high, and as a > > momentary lapse in breakfast serving followed by self-reported > > good parenting, my comments were not on the mark. Judy > > commented that I was exaggerating this incident's effect > > on the kids and I agree. > > Just to clarify: You were exaggerating the situation > itself, perceiving it to be chronic and more seriously > neglectful of the kids' needs than the data warranted. > > My point was that *even as a single incident* it could > be traumatic for the kids, not just at that moment but > long term, *especially* if the mother were normally > highly responsible and rational. Depends a lot on the > kids' age, though. > > <snip> > Judy also > > mentioned the need to talk straight with the kids to avoid > > the weirdness factor, although "mommy is a multi-dimensional > > being" may need some translation. > > Actually I was thinking plausibility in the kids' eyes, > and not necessarily "straight talk." All I can come up > with off the top of my head is something about Mommy > fell asleep and had a bad dream, and you know how when > *you* have a bad dream, honey, sometimes when you wake > up you think it's still going on, and the monster is > still there about to pounce on you, but all you need is > for me to tell you it's gone, that it was just a dream, > and you're fine. > > <snip> > > If the story can be taken at face value, we have kids > > trained to not disturb mommy during meditation so powerfully > > that they overcame their own hunger for hours. > > You're exaggerating again. Unless these kids were > teeny-weeny, they were perfectly capable of grabbing > something from the kitchen to tide them over. And if > they'd been really terrorized about disturbing their > mother, they wouldn't have approached her at all. > > More likely, they weren't hungry so much as they were > impatient for the promised treat. For that matter, for > all we know, they were so absorbed in their play they > weren't even thinking about pancakes until they'd gotten > tired of whatever game they were playing. > > There's a pretty wide range of possible backgrounds > to the tale as it was told to us, from horror story > to BFD. You seem to have convinced yourself it was a > horror story without even considering any of the > other more benign scenarios. Earlier you did the same > thing with Guru Dev and MMY. Seems to me that's a > tendency you might want to have a close look at. >
