Hey, Ravi Yogi, I'm new to FFL. I probably should read some of your other posts 
before responding to this one. However, I just want to say it: You really know 
how to hurt a guy. I am sure you're right that I am an egoist, but could you 
explain what it is about this response to CurtisDeltaBlues that reveals this so 
decisively?

After all, if I thought someone would see through me so easily and expose my 
inward cunning (and narcissism) to the world like this, well, I would never 
have posted anything. I need, I suppose, a "beloved" like you have—What pray 
tell COULD be the beloved I could "stay home with" so as to relinquish this 
illicit infatuation with myself?

Seriously, Ravi Yogi, I merely wish to know what there was about that response 
to CDB that disqualified me in your eyes from contributing something honest and 
serious to this conversation?

You see, from this response here (the one I am making right now), that I am 
very determined to not have any of the readers of this blog find themselves 
agreeing with you. That could prove devastating to me—and my shaky self-esteem. 
After all, the beloved, is that the Self?

Excuse the very limited perspective I have, having not read your other posts. 
But I sure will read them NOW, after you have revealed me to be what I have 
always secretly suspected I was. It feels good to enter this next phase of my 
life knowing the truth about myself.

No, Jesus Christ, Ravi Yogi: You gotta tell me in what way I unwittingly 
f****ed up in this response to the hard-hitting and entertaining 
CurtisDeltaBlues.

Otherwise I am likely to become hostile to all Hindus. And I am sure you are a 
nice guy. Just a little too powerful and accurate in your put-downs of us 
de-Hinduized fellas.

--- In [email protected], "Ravi Yogi" <raviyogi@...> wrote:
>
> FFL Bitches stand up and acknowledge "maskedzebra", the "prodigal pimp"
> of the TM movement, yet another pimp (egoist) in the parade of assembly
> line of pimps here, jostling for enthrallment.
> He's got the hottest and meanest whore (intellect), a whacky whore
> indeed. Oooh he's sooooo proud of it !! He demands a high price for it
> !!!
> Ravi Yogi's not falling for it, a pimp's a pimp, a whore's a whore, a
> pimp fascinated with the whore, in a co-dependent relationship. No
> thanks, he's staying home with his beloved.
> 
> --- In [email protected], maskedzebra <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > e: Help a Saint - Lose Your Badge
> > MIU anti-saint? WTF! CDB
> >
> > CDB:Let's recap the "teaching". All humans have an innate capacity to
> reach the
> > ground of all being, the home of all the laws of nature, the source of
> thought,
> > the Self in a simple natural, innocent way. Through repeated exposure
> to this
> > level of life alternated by activity consisting of speaking in a soft
> lilting
> > voice and eating mountains of celebration cake you stabilize this
> state of
> > consciousness into a permanent state where you are functioning
> according to all
> > the laws spontaneously due to the need of the time or in accordance
> with the
> > dictates of movement lawyers.
> >
> > RESPONSE: Not a single person in my lifetime has demonstrated
> impeccably and infallibly that such a "ground of all being" even exists.
> That is, if I am to go by his/her claim to become the embodiment of such
> an irreducible level of reality. In fact, I would go further: I have not
> observed a single person who even gives evidence that they have made
> contact with such a fundamental form of reality. For me the "home of all
> the laws of nature" is a metaphysical fiction. Sure, the EXPERIENCE
> seems to verify this reality (via TM), but, given how wonderfully
> convincing one's initial experiences are of TM (the auguring of
> everything MMY promises), the final pay-off (nothing to show for it, an
> extraordinarily disappointing trajectory of 'progress' in one's
> 'evolution' over decades of doing TM), logically forces one to conclude:
> THESE EXPERIENCES ARE FALSE; that is, they DO NOT COINCIDE WITH REALITY.
> There IS no such thing as Enlightenment.
> >
>


Reply via email to