[FairfieldLife] "Clap on, clap off" (was Re: Ron Dector: A Prison of the Mind, Sthapatya Veda)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I don't even see what you're on about, > unless it's Just Another Attempt To Make Barry Seem > Stupid Or Without Values. Please don't get so defensive. Just asking a question and trying to get an answer. :-) PS I thought this forum was all about clarifying spiritual topics. That is honestly all I am trying to do. As to my statement that Maharishi is enlightened as an undisputed fact, yes, it still holds, but just for me. At the time you wanted me to admit that I couldn't see it any other way, and that somehow that is a failing on my part. I agree that I couldn't, and can't. Sort of goes to new morning's earlier comment about whether a black cat is black or white. You can see Maharishi as the most ignorant fool. I am OK with that, though it won't change my perception of him as enlightened, and privately and personally I think it is your loss to not see that. And that and $100 will buy you a cup of coffee at someplace very fancy.:-)
[FairfieldLife] "Clap on, clap off" (was Re: Ron Dector: A Prison of the Mind, Sthapatya Veda)
Jim, I want you to know from the outset that I am *wasting* one of my last remaining posts to deal with this silliness, because you really are missing the point on something, and it would be unkind of me to allow you to keep missing it. If you choose to keep on trying to debate it, it will be with others on this forum, because I'll be saving my last few posts for something more interesting. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > wrote: > > > > I think I covered all of this in my earlier reply > > to larry.potter's posting. To claim that your beliefs > > equate with truth, you pretty much have to be claiming > > that your state of consciousness equates with truth. > > To state that such-and-such belief is one of your > > "convictions," you have to assume that you will *remain* > > in the state of consciousness from which that belief > > appears to be true forever. To assert that this convic- > > tion is "true" for others, you have to declare that > > attaining that SOC/POC (or *regressing* to that SOC/POV) > > would be "better" for them than the SOC/POV they have > > currently. You may be comfortable doing that. I am not. > > End of story. > > > > Those who are uncomfortable with contradictions are > > uncomfortable with life. > > It appears you have misunderstood meI am not making the point > that if I believe something, others should believe it, or attempt > to believe it too. Not at all. Understood, although that has *not* been your position consistently on this forum. I remember several instances in which you have declared one of your *beliefs* -- such as Maharishit's enlightenment -- to be indisputable fact. > Rather, I am making the point that if I believe something (not > necessarily "forever"), and if someone contradicts my belief, I can > reconcile it with my own belief, as opposed to folding up and > declaring, "Well said". I didn't "fold up." I still hold my opinion. I can *also* appreciate Rory's. You and Judy seem to be incapable of understanding that. But as to what you said above, who is this "I" you speak of that has beliefs? :-) If it is your current small s self, doesn't the belief that your beliefs will *endure* and be "true" tomorrow imply that you believe you'll have the *same* small s self tomorrow? I do not have the luxury of such an assumption. Chances are there will be a different "I" tomorrow, and "his" beliefs may not be the same as the ones that this one holds. The opinions I write on this forum are written by the "self in charge" at the time I write the posts. As the selves change, so might the beliefs that each of them hold *at the time of writing*. If you're still claiming that what you refer to as "I" is the Self, well, I'll leave you to make the case for *it* having beliefs. :-) > That was the nature of my question to you, and it still remains > unanswered. It's based on a faulty assumption, that I "capitulated," as Judy put it earlier and as you put it later. I did not. The current "I" still believes what "yesterday's I" said yesterday. But at the same time I can *completely* grok where Rory is coming from, and appreciate his point of view on the matter. I have no problem with *both* points of view being valid, with *both* perceptions being "true," as much as *anything* can be said to be "true." > It seems from your answer to Rory that you have no > answer for his statement that there is no difference between > self and Self, which you plainly don't see the same way. On the contrary, I see it exactly the same way. Sometimes. It all depends on point of view. > Rather than resolving the contradiction, you stated, "Well > said". It was this capitulation to which my remarks were > addressed. And, as I have said, it's based on your inability to "get" the nature of seeming contradictions, and "get" that I can understand and appreciate another point of view while holding my own. That's not my problem; it *would* clearly seem to be yours. > Should I then conclude that it is you who are uncomfortable with > contradictions, and choose to dismiss them as "just another SOC", > vs. resolving them? And further, that anything else you disagree > with or see another way is handled the same way, by simply > capitulating without resolution? :-) You can conclude anything you want. That doesn't keep you from being incapable of juggling contradictory concepts at the same time. "I" seem to have no such limitation, so I don't even see what you're on about, unless it's Just Another Attempt To Make Barry Seem Stupid Or Without Values. I would say that if the latter was your intent, you haven't succeeded, at least as far as I am concerned. I can *fully* appreciate Rory's position on this matter. His point of view and opinions on the subject are *just* as valid as mine, more so from a certain point of view. At the same time, I still hold to my previou
[FairfieldLife] "Clap on, clap off" (was Re: Ron Dector: A Prison of the Mind, Sthapatya Veda)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think I covered all of this in my earlier reply > to larry.potter's posting. To claim that your beliefs > equate with truth, you pretty much have to be claiming > that your state of consciousness equates with truth. > To state that such-and-such belief is one of your > "convictions," you have to assume that you will *remain* > in the state of consciousness from which that belief > appears to be true forever. To assert that this convic- > tion is "true" for others, you have to declare that > attaining that SOC/POC (or *regressing* to that SOC/POV) > would be "better" for them than the SOC/POV they have > currently. You may be comfortable doing that. I am not. > End of story. > > Those who are uncomfortable with contradictions are > uncomfortable with life. > It appears you have misunderstood meI am not making the point that if I believe something, others should believe it, or attempt to believe it too. Not at all. Rather, I am making the point that if I believe something (not necessarily "forever"), and if someone contradicts my belief, I can reconcile it with my own belief, as opposed to folding up and declaring, "Well said". That was the nature of my question to you, and it still remains unanswered. It seems from your answer to Rory that you have no answer for his statement that there is no difference between self and Self, which you plainly don't see the same way. Rather than resolving the contradiction, you stated, "Well said". It was this capitulation to which my remarks were addressed. Should I then conclude that it is you who are uncomfortable with contradictions, and choose to dismiss them as "just another SOC", vs. resolving them? And further, that anything else you disagree with or see another way is handled the same way, by simply capitulating without resolution? :-)
[FairfieldLife] "Clap on, clap off" (was Re: Ron Dector: A Prison of the Mind, Sthapatya Veda)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Those who are uncomfortable with contradictions are
> uncomfortable with life.
You have articulated the points about contradictions of differnet SoC
well. A few additional points (which you may have already made elswhere)
- Contradictions abound in "material" Soc (aka waking state -- which
is ironically named since it is an unawakened state)
- Such contradictions are oftne the genesis of breakthoughs in art,
science, techology, business and humor.
- However it does NOT follow that ALL contradicions are necessarily
"spiritual" and/or the genesis of great breakthroughs.
- Many contradictions are mundane, capricious, silly and the result of
poor reasoning and logic, misconstrued findings ("aka "facts") etc.
[FairfieldLife] "Clap on, clap off" (was Re: Ron Dector: A Prison of the Mind, Sthapatya Veda)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > > > wrote: > > > > Well said. > > > > > > Are you familiar with the expression, "The courage of your > > > convictions." Just curious how you reconcile apparently not > > > having any.:-) > > > > I'm not sure who you are speaking to here. > > > > If to me, I see no problem with anything Rory said. > > It's just as valid a way of seeing things as was > > mine. And far more poetic. I repeat my earlier > > "review" -- Well said. > > > > If to Rory, that's not my business -- is of no real > > import to me. :-) > > Hi, I was writing to you Turq. I guess where I am going with this is > you appear to have set things up in your writings here so that > anytime it is convenient for you to disavow ownership of something, > you do, while on the other hand, when you want to express an opinion > strongly, you do also. Best of both worlds it would seem. However > what I am left with is it looks like you are making the point that > integrity or having the courage of your convictions is merely for > lesser evolved beings who are attached to their illusory small > selves; in other words, patsies or suckers. > > Ownership of our beliefs is not a bad thing, imo. In my experience, > life does not progress without such ownership and such conviction. > Otherwise all I am left with is emptiness. Not the emptiful absence > of manifestation of the Absolute, but truly nothingness, no life. > > So I am curious how you reconcile the ownership, the dedication to, > and hard work towards your values and ideals, while at the same time > saying you have no values or ideals? How do you accomplish > anything? :-) I think I covered all of this in my earlier reply to larry.potter's posting. To claim that your beliefs equate with truth, you pretty much have to be claiming that your state of consciousness equates with truth. To state that such-and-such belief is one of your "convictions," you have to assume that you will *remain* in the state of consciousness from which that belief appears to be true forever. To assert that this convic- tion is "true" for others, you have to declare that attaining that SOC/POC (or *regressing* to that SOC/POV) would be "better" for them than the SOC/POV they have currently. You may be comfortable doing that. I am not. End of story. Those who are uncomfortable with contradictions are uncomfortable with life.
[FairfieldLife] "Clap on, clap off" (was Re: Ron Dector: A Prison of the Mind, Sthapatya Veda)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > > wrote: > > > Well said. > > > > Are you familiar with the expression, "The courage of your > > convictions." Just curious how you reconcile apparently not > > having any.:-) > > I'm not sure who you are speaking to here. > > If to me, I see no problem with anything Rory said. > It's just as valid a way of seeing things as was > mine. And far more poetic. I repeat my earlier > "review" -- Well said. > > If to Rory, that's not my business -- is of no real > import to me. :-) > Hi, I was writing to you Turq. I guess where I am going with this is you appear to have set things up in your writings here so that anytime it is convenient for you to disavow ownership of something, you do, while on the other hand, when you want to express an opinion strongly, you do also. Best of both worlds it would seem. However what I am left with is it looks like you are making the point that integrity or having the courage of your convictions is merely for lesser evolved beings who are attached to their illusory small selves; in other words, patsies or suckers. Ownership of our beliefs is not a bad thing, imo. In my experience, life does not progress without such ownership and such conviction. Otherwise all I am left with is emptiness. Not the emptiful absence of manifestation of the Absolute, but truly nothingness, no life. So I am curious how you reconcile the ownership, the dedication to, and hard work towards your values and ideals, while at the same time saying you have no values or ideals? How do you accomplish anything? :-)
[FairfieldLife] "Clap on, clap off" (was Re: Ron Dector: A Prison of the Mind, Sthapatya Veda)
Very sweet, Rory, thank you. And nicely said. ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes, I don't really see the people on FFL lined up into the two camps > you described, Turq, and I am not trying to heal Judy. I see nothing > in Judy that needs fixing, any more than I see anything in you that > needs fixing. I didn't find when I tried to point out her a-priori > enlightenment, that she just "got mad." Rather, she showed me rich > and lovely multisensory layers of a particle-self of mine that had > *not* been loved before -- including constriction, stagnation, > suffocation, deep shame, and finally, beneath it all, Love. That's > how the process usually works for me -- I introduce a Truth, process > the bodymind's objections, and discover a deeper and richer synthesis > as all my particles come to Understand and be Understood in a whole > new light. > > That's my *only* "goal" in communicating with anyone here -- to find > more of my unloved and underappreciated particles and to Understand > and Love them, and thereby to be Understood and Loved -- to expand, > to grow in simplicity, while simultaneously becoming more rich and > subtle and nuanced and complex. It's fun -- generally delightful and > immensely rewarding. > > I do this because for me there is no real difference between a small > self and a large Self. Loving the small self is feeding oblations to > the large Self, expanding the influence of the large Self, helping > the Immense and the infinitesimal to appreciate each other as two > sides of the same coin. Being Shiva, utterly free, includes adoring > Shakti -- every particle of Creation -- as Shiva's bodymind, the > perfect Lover. > > Whether any of this has *any* bearing on what *you guys* go > through, "out there, outside of me" -- if there *is* an "out there, > outside of me" -- is of no real import to me; it's not my business; > it can't be my business. Shalom Shanti Shanti! :-) > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning > wrote: > > > > I quite view things differently than you. First, as far as the TB > camp > > assumption, the TB's agreeing with everything she writes, is silly > > since she writes on many things other than TM. And we all appear to > > have differnt defs of TB. In mine, Judy is hardly a TB.Just beacuse > > someone likes something doesn't make them a TB, IMO. > > > > Second, if those in the so-called healers group, really do belive > they > > are healers, which other than you and perhaps rory, I doubt, I would > > suggest they "heal thyself first", take out the log sitting in their > > own eye before commenting on, judging, and attempting to remove a > > small splinter in Judy's eye. > > > > Third, I think there is a significant third group, you are the > king -- > > or rogue leader of the scoundrels :), who find nothing better to > amuse > > themselves with than to regularly bait Judy (despite your repeated > > vows to not do so, to not read her posts, to not give her > > "attention"). Why Judy regularly takes the bait is mystifying to me, > > but to each their own. As I said, some posts are not worthy of a > > response -- and yours and others' baiting posts are core examples of > > such. And that you find your baiting amusing is even more > > mystifying. I find it pretty childish if not mean spirited. > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > > > Rory, with all due respect, you're not exactly > > > > > tuned in here. > > > > > > > > You're right! I'm not tuned in to agree completely with > > > > what *you* are saying. It's not that I didn't understand > > > > it; I was offering a different look at it. > > > > > > You still don't understand, Rory! That makes > > > you WRONG!!! There IS only one way of looking > > > at things, the Judy Way. Anything else is > > > delusion or mean-spiritedness, and if it's > > > repeated several times after she's "refuted" > > > it by expressing the RIGHT way of looking at > > > things, the repetition becomes lying. > > > > > > Face it, dude...you're on the road to becoming > > > Yet Another FFL Liar. :-) > > > > > > > To rephrase: I am suggesting that what Barry *says* he > > > > wants, and what he *really* wants, may not be the same > > > > thing. He *says* he wants people to ignore you... > > > > > > Just to pour some gasoline on the fire :-), that's > > > not precisely what I said recently. What I did was > > > express in words what already seems to be happening. > > > Most folks on this forum already ignore her, and > > > never bother to respond to her posts. On the whole, > > > the only people who still DO respond fall into two > > > categories. The first is the TBs who agree with her > > > because she's a TM TB, one of the few left on the > > > forum; this group would include Nablus and Off and > > > Jim and occasionally others. > > > > > > The second group consis
[FairfieldLife] "Clap on, clap off" (was Re: Ron Dector: A Prison of the Mind, Sthapatya Veda)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" > wrote: > > > > > > Yes, I don't really see the people on FFL lined up into the > > > camps two you described, Turq, and I am not trying to heal > > > Judy. I see nothing in Judy that needs fixing, any more > > > than I see anything in you that needs fixing. I didn't find > > > when I tried to point out her a-priori enlightenment, that > > > she just "got mad." Rather, she showed me rich and lovely > > > multisensory layers of a particle-self of mine that had > > > *not* been loved before -- including constriction, stagnation, > > > suffocation, deep shame, and finally, beneath it all, Love. > > > That's how the process usually works for me -- I introduce a > > > Truth, process the bodymind's objections, and discover a > > > deeper and richer synthesis as all my particles come to > > > Understand and be Understood in a whole new light. > > > > > > That's my *only* "goal" in communicating with anyone here -- > > > to find more of my unloved and underappreciated particles and > > > to Understand and Love them, and thereby to be Understood and > > > Loved -- to expand, to grow in simplicity, while simultaneously > > > becoming more rich and subtle and nuanced and complex. It's > > > fun -- generally delightful and immensely rewarding. > > > > > > I do this because for me there is no real difference between > > > a small self and a large Self. Loving the small self is feeding > > > oblations to the large Self, expanding the influence of the > > > large Self, helping the Immense and the infinitesimal to > > > appreciate each other as two sides of the same coin. Being > > > Shiva, utterly free, includes adoring Shakti -- every particle > > > of Creation -- as Shiva's bodymind, the perfect Lover. > > > > > > Whether any of this has *any* bearing on what *you guys* go > > > through, "out there, outside of me" -- if there *is* an "out > > > there, outside of me" -- is of no real import to me; it's not > > > my business; it can't be my business. Shalom Shanti Shanti! :-) > > > > Well said. > > Are you familiar with the expression, "The courage of your > convictions." Just curious how you reconcile apparently not > having any.:-) I'm not sure who you are speaking to here. If to me, I see no problem with anything Rory said. It's just as valid a way of seeing things as was mine. And far more poetic. I repeat my earlier "review" -- Well said. If to Rory, that's not my business -- is of no real import to me. :-)
[FairfieldLife] "Clap on, clap off" (was Re: Ron Dector: A Prison of the Mind, Sthapatya Veda)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" wrote: > > > > Yes, I don't really see the people on FFL lined up into the two > > camps > > you described, Turq, and I am not trying to heal Judy. I see nothing > > in Judy that needs fixing, any more than I see anything in you that > > needs fixing. I didn't find when I tried to point out her a- priori > > enlightenment, that she just "got mad." Rather, she showed me rich > > and lovely multisensory layers of a particle-self of mine that had > > *not* been loved before -- including constriction, stagnation, > > suffocation, deep shame, and finally, beneath it all, Love. That's > > how the process usually works for me -- I introduce a Truth, process > > the bodymind's objections, and discover a deeper and richer > > synthesis as all my particles come to Understand and be Understood > > in a whole new light. > > > > That's my *only* "goal" in communicating with anyone here -- to find > > more of my unloved and underappreciated particles and to Understand > > and Love them, and thereby to be Understood and Loved -- to expand, > > to grow in simplicity, while simultaneously becoming more rich and > > subtle and nuanced and complex. It's fun -- generally delightful and > > immensely rewarding. > > > > I do this because for me there is no real difference between a small > > self and a large Self. Loving the small self is feeding oblations to > > the large Self, expanding the influence of the large Self, helping > > the Immense and the infinitesimal to appreciate each other as two > > sides of the same coin. Being Shiva, utterly free, includes adoring > > Shakti -- every particle of Creation -- as Shiva's bodymind, the > > perfect Lover. > > > > Whether any of this has *any* bearing on what *you guys* go > > through, "out there, outside of me" -- if there *is* an "out there, > > outside of me" -- is of no real import to me; it's not my business; > > it can't be my business. Shalom Shanti Shanti! :-) > > Well said. > Are you familiar with the expression, "The courage of your convictions." Just curious how you reconcile apparently not having any.:-)
[FairfieldLife] "Clap on, clap off" (was Re: Ron Dector: A Prison of the Mind, Sthapatya Veda)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes, I don't really see the people on FFL lined up into the two > camps > you described, Turq, and I am not trying to heal Judy. I see nothing > in Judy that needs fixing, any more than I see anything in you that > needs fixing. I didn't find when I tried to point out her a-priori > enlightenment, that she just "got mad." Rather, she showed me rich > and lovely multisensory layers of a particle-self of mine that had > *not* been loved before -- including constriction, stagnation, > suffocation, deep shame, and finally, beneath it all, Love. That's > how the process usually works for me -- I introduce a Truth, process > the bodymind's objections, and discover a deeper and richer > synthesis as all my particles come to Understand and be Understood > in a whole new light. > > That's my *only* "goal" in communicating with anyone here -- to find > more of my unloved and underappreciated particles and to Understand > and Love them, and thereby to be Understood and Loved -- to expand, > to grow in simplicity, while simultaneously becoming more rich and > subtle and nuanced and complex. It's fun -- generally delightful and > immensely rewarding. > > I do this because for me there is no real difference between a small > self and a large Self. Loving the small self is feeding oblations to > the large Self, expanding the influence of the large Self, helping > the Immense and the infinitesimal to appreciate each other as two > sides of the same coin. Being Shiva, utterly free, includes adoring > Shakti -- every particle of Creation -- as Shiva's bodymind, the > perfect Lover. > > Whether any of this has *any* bearing on what *you guys* go > through, "out there, outside of me" -- if there *is* an "out there, > outside of me" -- is of no real import to me; it's not my business; > it can't be my business. Shalom Shanti Shanti! :-) Well said.
[FairfieldLife] "Clap on, clap off" (was Re: Ron Dector: A Prison of the Mind, Sthapatya Veda)
Yes, I don't really see the people on FFL lined up into the two camps you described, Turq, and I am not trying to heal Judy. I see nothing in Judy that needs fixing, any more than I see anything in you that needs fixing. I didn't find when I tried to point out her a-priori enlightenment, that she just "got mad." Rather, she showed me rich and lovely multisensory layers of a particle-self of mine that had *not* been loved before -- including constriction, stagnation, suffocation, deep shame, and finally, beneath it all, Love. That's how the process usually works for me -- I introduce a Truth, process the bodymind's objections, and discover a deeper and richer synthesis as all my particles come to Understand and be Understood in a whole new light. That's my *only* "goal" in communicating with anyone here -- to find more of my unloved and underappreciated particles and to Understand and Love them, and thereby to be Understood and Loved -- to expand, to grow in simplicity, while simultaneously becoming more rich and subtle and nuanced and complex. It's fun -- generally delightful and immensely rewarding. I do this because for me there is no real difference between a small self and a large Self. Loving the small self is feeding oblations to the large Self, expanding the influence of the large Self, helping the Immense and the infinitesimal to appreciate each other as two sides of the same coin. Being Shiva, utterly free, includes adoring Shakti -- every particle of Creation -- as Shiva's bodymind, the perfect Lover. Whether any of this has *any* bearing on what *you guys* go through, "out there, outside of me" -- if there *is* an "out there, outside of me" -- is of no real import to me; it's not my business; it can't be my business. Shalom Shanti Shanti! :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I quite view things differently than you. First, as far as the TB camp > assumption, the TB's agreeing with everything she writes, is silly > since she writes on many things other than TM. And we all appear to > have differnt defs of TB. In mine, Judy is hardly a TB.Just beacuse > someone likes something doesn't make them a TB, IMO. > > Second, if those in the so-called healers group, really do belive they > are healers, which other than you and perhaps rory, I doubt, I would > suggest they "heal thyself first", take out the log sitting in their > own eye before commenting on, judging, and attempting to remove a > small splinter in Judy's eye. > > Third, I think there is a significant third group, you are the king -- > or rogue leader of the scoundrels :), who find nothing better to amuse > themselves with than to regularly bait Judy (despite your repeated > vows to not do so, to not read her posts, to not give her > "attention"). Why Judy regularly takes the bait is mystifying to me, > but to each their own. As I said, some posts are not worthy of a > response -- and yours and others' baiting posts are core examples of > such. And that you find your baiting amusing is even more > mystifying. I find it pretty childish if not mean spirited. > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > Rory, with all due respect, you're not exactly > > > > tuned in here. > > > > > > You're right! I'm not tuned in to agree completely with > > > what *you* are saying. It's not that I didn't understand > > > it; I was offering a different look at it. > > > > You still don't understand, Rory! That makes > > you WRONG!!! There IS only one way of looking > > at things, the Judy Way. Anything else is > > delusion or mean-spiritedness, and if it's > > repeated several times after she's "refuted" > > it by expressing the RIGHT way of looking at > > things, the repetition becomes lying. > > > > Face it, dude...you're on the road to becoming > > Yet Another FFL Liar. :-) > > > > > To rephrase: I am suggesting that what Barry *says* he > > > wants, and what he *really* wants, may not be the same > > > thing. He *says* he wants people to ignore you... > > > > Just to pour some gasoline on the fire :-), that's > > not precisely what I said recently. What I did was > > express in words what already seems to be happening. > > Most folks on this forum already ignore her, and > > never bother to respond to her posts. On the whole, > > the only people who still DO respond fall into two > > categories. The first is the TBs who agree with her > > because she's a TM TB, one of the few left on the > > forum; this group would include Nablus and Off and > > Jim and occasionally others. > > > > The second group consists of those (in my *opinion*) > > who, although they may be fools for doing so, still > > have some hope that there really IS a human being > > inside Judy Stein somewhere, and that if they try > > long enough, someday they might actually help it to > > "come out of its closet" and express itself. This > >
[FairfieldLife] "Clap on, clap off" (was Re: Ron Dector: A Prison of the Mind, Sthapatya Veda)
I quite view things differently than you. First, as far as the TB camp assumption, the TB's agreeing with everything she writes, is silly since she writes on many things other than TM. And we all appear to have differnt defs of TB. In mine, Judy is hardly a TB.Just beacuse someone likes something doesn't make them a TB, IMO. Second, if those in the so-called healers group, really do belive they are healers, which other than you and perhaps rory, I doubt, I would suggest they "heal thyself first", take out the log sitting in their own eye before commenting on, judging, and attempting to remove a small splinter in Judy's eye. Third, I think there is a significant third group, you are the king -- or rogue leader of the scoundrels :), who find nothing better to amuse themselves with than to regularly bait Judy (despite your repeated vows to not do so, to not read her posts, to not give her "attention"). Why Judy regularly takes the bait is mystifying to me, but to each their own. As I said, some posts are not worthy of a response -- and yours and others' baiting posts are core examples of such. And that you find your baiting amusing is even more mystifying. I find it pretty childish if not mean spirited. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Rory, with all due respect, you're not exactly > > > tuned in here. > > > > You're right! I'm not tuned in to agree completely with > > what *you* are saying. It's not that I didn't understand > > it; I was offering a different look at it. > > You still don't understand, Rory! That makes > you WRONG!!! There IS only one way of looking > at things, the Judy Way. Anything else is > delusion or mean-spiritedness, and if it's > repeated several times after she's "refuted" > it by expressing the RIGHT way of looking at > things, the repetition becomes lying. > > Face it, dude...you're on the road to becoming > Yet Another FFL Liar. :-) > > > To rephrase: I am suggesting that what Barry *says* he > > wants, and what he *really* wants, may not be the same > > thing. He *says* he wants people to ignore you... > > Just to pour some gasoline on the fire :-), that's > not precisely what I said recently. What I did was > express in words what already seems to be happening. > Most folks on this forum already ignore her, and > never bother to respond to her posts. On the whole, > the only people who still DO respond fall into two > categories. The first is the TBs who agree with her > because she's a TM TB, one of the few left on the > forum; this group would include Nablus and Off and > Jim and occasionally others. > > The second group consists of those (in my *opinion*) > who, although they may be fools for doing so, still > have some hope that there really IS a human being > inside Judy Stein somewhere, and that if they try > long enough, someday they might actually help it to > "come out of its closet" and express itself. This > group -- whom I henceforth dub as The Compassion > Group -- consists of you, Shemp, Vaj, Rick, Curtis, > myself, and a few others. > > Just as a matter of definition, the first group is > always RIGHT; the second group is always WRONG. :-) > > But the second group has more fun, because they > won't give up on someone who has gone to extra- > ordinary lengths to get them TO give up on her. > > You want to see Judy REALLY hit the roof? Express > compassion towards her. Watch what happens. In fact, > watch how she reacts to this post of yours. > > > ...what he may really want, is to continue to engage you, > > to "nip" you -- to do whatever it takes to irritate and > > get a rise out of you, virtually regardless of the seeming > > content of his posts. If so, I'd say his tactics appear > > to be working beautifully, and have been *for years*. > > N'est-ce pas? > > I'd have to say that this is a valid way of seeing > things, with one minor correction. I rarely try to > engage with the "you" you refer to above, the self > that has Judy firmly under its control, and that > has made her a prisoner of its machinations, an > automaton that "has" to compulsively lash out at > any way of seeing things except her own. I occas- > ionally try to speak to the Self that she really is, > but that doesn't really work, as you found out > earlier on FFL. All she does is *get mad* when you > remind her that she's already enlightened. > > So in lieu of being able to speak to the Self, I > occasionally may taunt the self that has her in its > control, to (as you say) get a rise out of it, to > get it to *act out* its silly fantasies in public > *even more*, and thus get *laughed at* by more people. > It is my fervent spiritual belief that the more people > laugh at one's self, the greater the chance that > someday the self will become able to laugh at itself. > The corollary belief, of course, is that a self that > can laugh at itself is a Good Thing. > > . . . > > > > But I
[FairfieldLife] "Clap on, clap off" (was Re: Ron Dector: A Prison of the Mind, Sthapatya Veda)
> > Rory, with all due respect, you're not exactly
> > tuned in here.
>
> You're right! I'm not tuned in to agree completely with
> what *you* are saying. It's not that I didn't understand
> it; I was offering a different look at it.
You still don't understand, Rory! That makes
you WRONG!!! There IS only one way of looking
at things, the Judy Way. Anything else is
delusion or mean-spiritedness, and if it's
repeated several times after she's "refuted"
it by expressing the RIGHT way of looking at
things, the repetition becomes lying.
Face it, dude...you're on the road to becoming
Yet Another FFL Liar. :-)
> To rephrase: I am suggesting that what Barry *says* he
> wants, and what he *really* wants, may not be the same
> thing. He *says* he wants people to ignore you...
Just to pour some gasoline on the fire :-), that's
not precisely what I said recently. What I did was
express in words what already seems to be happening.
Most folks on this forum already ignore her, and
never bother to respond to her posts. On the whole,
the only people who still DO respond fall into two
categories. The first is the TBs who agree with her
because she's a TM TB, one of the few left on the
forum; this group would include Nablus and Off and
Jim and occasionally others.
The second group consists of those (in my *opinion*)
who, although they may be fools for doing so, still
have some hope that there really IS a human being
inside Judy Stein somewhere, and that if they try
long enough, someday they might actually help it to
"come out of its closet" and express itself. This
group -- whom I henceforth dub as The Compassion
Group -- consists of you, Shemp, Vaj, Rick, Curtis,
myself, and a few others.
Just as a matter of definition, the first group is
always RIGHT; the second group is always WRONG. :-)
But the second group has more fun, because they
won't give up on someone who has gone to extra-
ordinary lengths to get them TO give up on her.
You want to see Judy REALLY hit the roof? Express
compassion towards her. Watch what happens. In fact,
watch how she reacts to this post of yours.
> ...what he may really want, is to continue to engage you,
> to "nip" you -- to do whatever it takes to irritate and
> get a rise out of you, virtually regardless of the seeming
> content of his posts. If so, I'd say his tactics appear
> to be working beautifully, and have been *for years*.
> N'est-ce pas?
I'd have to say that this is a valid way of seeing
things, with one minor correction. I rarely try to
engage with the "you" you refer to above, the self
that has Judy firmly under its control, and that
has made her a prisoner of its machinations, an
automaton that "has" to compulsively lash out at
any way of seeing things except her own. I occas-
ionally try to speak to the Self that she really is,
but that doesn't really work, as you found out
earlier on FFL. All she does is *get mad* when you
remind her that she's already enlightened.
So in lieu of being able to speak to the Self, I
occasionally may taunt the self that has her in its
control, to (as you say) get a rise out of it, to
get it to *act out* its silly fantasies in public
*even more*, and thus get *laughed at* by more people.
It is my fervent spiritual belief that the more people
laugh at one's self, the greater the chance that
someday the self will become able to laugh at itself.
The corollary belief, of course, is that a self that
can laugh at itself is a Good Thing.
. . .
> > But I don't care in the slightest if he ignores
> > me; I'll continue to comment on his sophistry as
> > I see fit.
>
> As well you should! What good is one hand clapping?
It kinda depends upon what it's clapped around,
n'est-ce pas? If the one hand is clapping on thin
air, not much happens. On the other hand, if one
claps one hand on one's sexual organs, a great
deal can happen. :-)
It is my position that the neverending game of
"proving" that the small s self is RIGHT, and that
other small s selves are WRONG is a lot like the
second "one hand clapping." It's mental mastur-
bation. As long as that one hand is clapping away
at all that sensitive erectile tissue, the self can
pretend that it exists. It "knows" that it exists,
because it's literally playing with its self. :-)
There may even be a sense of momentary pleasure or
fulfillment as a result OF self playing with its
self by doing the one-hand-clapping boogie. A little
sigh here ("I'm *important*; I stood up for 'truth'
and 'righteousness' and 'honesty' and others didn't."),
a little orgasm here and there ("I *won* the argument.")
But in the end it all comes down to self playing with
its self. And in public. Except for a few pervs, nobody
is really terribly interested in watching someone else
"clap off" in public.
And when someone from The Compassion Group points out,
compassionately, that all this self clapping self
stuff looks -- from another point of view -- a *lot*
like clapping in thin air,
