--- In [email protected], maskedzebra <no_reply@...> wrote: > > Hey Ravi: Feels pretty good to me. Glad you've more or less dropped the charges. We're all on probation here on the earth. I want just to get to know enough reality so that this same reality informs me how to go through the death experience, because that's the big metaphysical kahuna. How much reality can I bear? That's the criterion I set for myself spiritually. India is inside of you. This makes you a good resource for me. So, fresh start, right?
A good FFL period. > > --- In [email protected], "Ravi Yogi" raviyogi@ wrote: > > > > Dear maskedzebra, I would concur with what Steve said earlier - it was > > very hard to get any coherent picture from your posts and they were just > > all over the place - not something I would expect from someone who > > supposedly spent 10 years in UC - whatever that means. Your subsequent > > posts have clarified lot of things, though I don't agree with them it's > > good to have that POV. So please continue on your merry way - I > > apologize for causing you any distress and like Curtis says nothing is > > meant to be personal. May be I could have engaged you in some dialogue > > but that's just not my way, or may be given some time for all the wide > > array of your thoughts to unfold. Anyway, so I unconditionally retract > > all my statements :-) > > My responses below > > > > --- In [email protected], maskedzebra <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > RESPONSE: First of all, Ravi, I wouldn't worry about Deniseof > > course I don't know her at all, but I don't think you could "scare" her. > > > > > > This "egoist" business, perhaps you could clarify 1. what you mean in > > the context of your experience of my posts 2. what specifically it is > > about me which warrants this characterization of myself. > > > > > I don't parse individuals words but the tone of your posts, the > > denunciation of spiritual practices, states and Gurus. Clearly you spent > > lots of years with your Guru and so recommending your current state as a > > prescription to others doesn't make any sense. Looking back a few years > > my struggles, attachments look silly, even following a Guru looks silly. > > Looking back to last year even the enlightenment looks false, hence my > > statement that I was a liar and conned Rick. It looks silly that I did > > an interview :-). I go to my Guru just because of my love, there's no > > need for any acknowledgement anymore but I can't offer this as a > > prescription to others that the path is false or the Guru is false or > > that enlightenment doesn't exist. > > > I hope THAT is not an egoistical responseAre you meaning > > solipsistic perhaps?and I assume you are aware of the distinction > > between egoist and egotist. I take you at your word: I am, consciously > > or otherwise, self-consciously obsessed with myself in the act of > > expressing myself. This is what you mean, right? > > > > > I didn't mean you were obsessed with yourself rather obsessed with > > words. > > > I wouldn't say I was "fascinated with [my] intellect". I have a > > subjective personal side to my consciousness, and I emphasize the > > importance of this as against the impersonal side of my consciousness > > (which I contend is an illusion). We are just personal, and this is the > > bias (a correct one in my estimation) of the West. In India the bias > > goes the other way. Perhaps this might be at the bottom of your reaction > > to me? > > > > > No problem I have no issues with focus on the personal or the impersonal > > sides. > > > But who knows? maybe you've clinically nailed me. We'll see. > > > > > > "I would love to be proven wrong in my assessment". Well, Ravi, that > > will be my goal. If I achieve it, would you be willing to retract your > > judgment of me as an egoist? (Actually the term you used was more > > hurtful than thisYEP: that would be IRONY there, Ravijust in > > case you didn't realize it.) > > > > > It was meant to be hurtful and as stated above I retract it. > > > I will work on the hating Hindus thing. I don't hate Hindus, actually. > > But I certainly was a bona fide Hindu for ten years when I was in Unity > > Consciousness. I saw the universe just the way the Gita describes > > itMaharishi too. > > > > > > For me your Beloved does not exist. Although for quite some time I saw > > Her everywhere. > > > > > > I WAS Her. > > > > > Good enough, to say the beloved doesn't exist is false too. > > > Thanks for the change of tone, Ravi. I hope this tolerance doesn't > > compromise your principles. > > > > > Change of tone has resulted from your clarifications, I am neither > > intolerant, nor do I really have any principles to speak of. > > >
