RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk Feet of Clay Hmmmm

2010-07-13 Thread Rick Archer 
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of WillyTex
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 9:49 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk Feet of Clay H

 

Apparently Judith is a New Age spiritual
teacher - a Neo-Advaitin and rumor monger 
of the first degree. Nothing either of these
characters can be believed. I'm surprised
you'd spend $37 for trash like this. Connie
and Judith's names are mud all over the 
internet! Go figure.

 

Why don't you read the book before you judge it Willy? Or can't you afford
the $37?

 

Apparently keeping your promise to your 
guru dev means nothing to you - you failed 
to keep the teaching pure. 

 

Are you addressing Maharishi here? Sounds like it.

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk Feet of Clay Hmmmm

2010-07-13 Thread Rick Archer 
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of nablusoss1008
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 11:30 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk Feet of Clay H

 

 One has to be pretty naive, or steeped in rumor-monging like Rick Archer
not to see what is going on there.

 

Hi Nabby. Nice to hear from you. I've been meaning to ask you about this
rumor-monger thing. You've been calling me that for years. Now that the
primary rumor I was mongering turns out not to have been a rumor, and you've
shifted your story from "it didn't happen" to "it didn't matter, because his
robes were white, not ochre", what rumors are you now alluding to in
continuing to use the term?

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk Feet of Clay Hmmmm

2010-07-13 Thread Rick Archer 
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of WillyTex
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 3:33 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk Feet of Clay H

 

 > > Nothing either of these characters can be 
> > believed. I'm surprised you'd spend $37 for 
> > trash like this
> >
Rick Archer: 
> Why don't you read the book before you judge 
> it Willy? Or can't you afford the $37?
> 
Why don't you read it, Rick? 

 

It's in the mail. I probably will have read it by a week from now. Order
your copy then we can discuss it.

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk Feet of Clay Hmmmm

2010-07-13 Thread Rick Archer 
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of nablusoss1008
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 3:50 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk Feet of Clay H

 

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com

[mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 ]
> On Behalf Of nablusoss1008
> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 11:30 AM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 

> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk Feet of Clay H
> 
> 
> 
> One has to be pretty naive, or steeped in rumor-monging like Rick Archer
> not to see what is going on there.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Nabby. Nice to hear from you. I've been meaning to ask you about this
> rumor-monger thing. You've been calling me that for years. Now that the
> primary rumor I was mongering turns out not to have been a rumor, and
you've
> shifted your story from "it didn't happen" to "it didn't matter, because
his
> robes were white, not ochre", what rumors are you now alluding to in
> continuing to use the term?

I still consider it a rumor. This book proves nothing whatsoever. My point
is; I don't believe a word of it, 

 

Don't believe a word of what? You haven't read the book.

 

but if it happened that would be OK in my book.

 

Because he wore white robes and not ochre? That's the only explanation you
have offered so far as to why it would be OK. And you know what? It's
actually OK in my book too, but maybe for different reasons. I'm fascinated
by the complexity of the man, the issue of Guru/disciple relationships, the
importance of accepting things as they are and then trying to make sense of
them (or not trying to), vs. remaining in denial in order to preserve one's
fantasies, etc.

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk Feet of Clay Hmmmm

2010-07-13 Thread Rick Archer 
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Joe
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 4:14 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk Feet of Clay H

 

  


Using a position of power to have sex with your disciples is not OK in my
book.

True. A momentary lapse in judgementalism. But what I meant was that his
flaws don't cause me to totally reject the man. I'm still very grateful to
him.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com

[mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 ]
> On Behalf Of nablusoss1008
> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 3:50 PM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 

> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk Feet of Clay H
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 
>  , "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> >
> > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 
> 
> [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 
>  ]
> > On Behalf Of nablusoss1008
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 11:30 AM
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com


> 
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk Feet of Clay H
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > One has to be pretty naive, or steeped in rumor-monging like Rick Archer
> > not to see what is going on there.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Hi Nabby. Nice to hear from you. I've been meaning to ask you about this
> > rumor-monger thing. You've been calling me that for years. Now that the
> > primary rumor I was mongering turns out not to have been a rumor, and
> you've
> > shifted your story from "it didn't happen" to "it didn't matter, because
> his
> > robes were white, not ochre", what rumors are you now alluding to in
> > continuing to use the term?
> 
> I still consider it a rumor. This book proves nothing whatsoever. My point
> is; I don't believe a word of it, 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't believe a word of what? You haven't read the book.
> 
> 
> 
> but if it happened that would be OK in my book.
> 
> 
> 
> Because he wore white robes and not ochre? That's the only explanation you
> have offered so far as to why it would be OK. And you know what? It's
> actually OK in my book too, but maybe for different reasons. I'm
fascinated
> by the complexity of the man, the issue of Guru/disciple relationships,
the
> importance of accepting things as they are and then trying to make sense
of
> them (or not trying to), vs. remaining in denial in order to preserve
one's
> fantasies, etc.
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk Feet of Clay Hmmmm

2010-07-13 Thread Vaj 

On Jul 13, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Joe wrote:

> Take a deep breath Willy boy. This topic clearly upsets you.
> 
> If you are unable to process what is being presented, which despite all your 
> efforts to muddy the water, is simply that Judith, along with several other 
> girls, had sex with MMY in the late 60s and early 70s.
> 
> The Conny Larson story is a separate matter, but as it happens, he ended up 
> having regular sex with his guru (Sai Baba) after he left his position as one 
> of MMY's "skin boys" and began to follow Sai Baba.


Let's keep in mind, Conny actually had a book out before Judith Bourque ('The 
Beatles, Maharishi and I' presumably waiting to be translated into English) 
which is an exposé on Beatles-era Maheshian escapades.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk Feet of Clay Hmmmm

2010-07-13 Thread Vaj 

On Jul 13, 2010, at 4:49 PM, nablusoss1008 wrote:

> I still consider it a rumor. This book proves nothing whatsoever. My point 
> is; I don't believe a word of it, but if it happened that would be OK in my 
> book.
> Got it now ?


Yeah, you're a great rationalizer in deep need of some form of objective 
therapy. Your family should be having you hauled off to an exit counselor as we 
speak.

(Any family members should feel free to contact me off-list for suggestions 
and/or assistance--I'm, of course, glad to assist.)

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk Feet of Clay Hmmmm

2010-07-13 Thread Rick Archer 
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of nablusoss1008
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 6:46 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk Feet of Clay H

 

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On Jul 13, 2010, at 4:49 PM, nablusoss1008 wrote:
> 
> > I still consider it a rumor. This book proves nothing whatsoever. My
point is; I don't believe a word of it, but if it happened that would be OK
in my book.
> > Got it now ?
> 
> 
> Yeah, you're a great rationalizer in deep need of some form of objective
therapy. 

HaHa: "Objective" as in "Buddhist" I presume.

 

What have you got against Buddhists Nabby. You're critical of them because
MMY made some disparaging comments?