--- In [email protected], "RoryGoff" <rorygoff@...> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 6:49 PM, maskedzebra > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > Dear Tom, > > > > > > Just to clear one thing up. I never paid any attention to post counts, > > > because I never knew anything about limits. I probably should have; no > > > doubt > > > I was sent this information. But if ignorance is no excuse under the law, > > > you at least should know that I was plumb dumb about this regulation, and > > > it > > > did not seem indulgent for the authorities to overlook this initial > > > flouting > > > of the rules, when, as a recent arrival in this country (FFL), I had no > > > idea > > > that there were any binding laws of the road. And besides, I found myself, > > > once I began posting, having to fend off or respond to a multitude of > > > voices, each one more or less making a demand upon me to clarify, to prove > > > myself. > > > > > > Of course had I known about the rule, you may be sure I would have > > > conformed. And since it is the spirit not the letter of the law that > > > counts, > > > are you willing to say that, in suspending the normal punishment when it > > > came to me, the editors at FFL violated your sense of justice? > > > > > > Because if this is your experience, I am willing, in being sincerely > > > convinced of this conviction of yours, to TAKE THE NEXT WEEK OFF FROM > > > POSTING. > > --- In [email protected], Tom Pall <thomas.pall@> wrote: > > > RC, don't place limits on yourself like that. Take next week and the week > > after and the week after. > > > > But Nature's already taking its course. You're quickly becoming irrelevant > > here just as you've become irrelevant wherever you've squatted. Soon all > > that be left behind will be some rotting turds, a God awful stench and > > flies. > > > * * RC, though I may occasionally tweak your beliefs, and often find myself > unable to plough through some of your more involved posts (nothing personal; > I just don't have the intellect I once did, and feel the same about many of > the wordier posters here), I hope you know I am really glad to see you again > after all these years, and above all, to see you here. > > Like you, I too felt the overwhelming intimacy of integrating all of these > different personalities in my body or awareness-field when I first joined FFL > -- I was often so wired I didn't sleep for several days. (Not that sleep is > what it used to be, anyhow. Like you, I believe, I generally feel as if there > is a part of me that is always asleep, and a part that is always awake....) > > Anyhow, I just wanted to let you know that I for one am very happy you're > here with us, and I hope you feel like sticking around.
Dear Rory, Thank you very much for this. There is more of a loving intelligence that comes through your writing (and that description of your encounter with me back in 1982, well, it's so fair and objective and generous, I have always appreciated how you attempted to get at the truth (or the reality) of what was going on between us then). When someone responds positively to one, and there is real feeling there, it seems as if the universe itself is being friendly. In what you have said here, there is nothing but a true person speaking unaffectedlyyour sincerity gets through to me. The question remains, however, whether Tom Pall's judgment of me is equally sincere, not to say objectively true. I can't doubt his sincerity, but, if I felt what he said reflected reality's judgment of me, I certainly would have no choice but to leave off posting here. So, naturally, I am going to let myself be influenced more by what you have said to me, Rory. If, however Tom's feelings have some real justification, then I will have to hear him out. Meanwhile, it would be hard for me not to experience that what you have told me hereand the love that carries your wordsto be more congruent with the person that I am. I must suppose that my antipathy towards and disillusionment with my Master is perhaps part of the explanation for Tom's reaction? Yes, the Romance of my relationship with Maharishi was, so far, the greatest event of my life. At its height, had I been told that Maharishi was not what he seemed, nor that my experience of TM was metaphysically valid, I would have felt pity for the person who told me this. But having renounced Maharishi, his Teaching, and TM in the comprehensive way I have, I can understand Tom Pall's aversion to me and my posts (assuming he is still loyal to Maharishi). If I, in the intensity of my love and adoration of Maharishi had read anything like what I am now posting, well not responding like Tom is, I would nevertheless be determined to counter-attack in the fiercest and most uncompromising way. The critic of Maharishi and TM would get my very best shot. It would, after all, be my religious duty to respond this wayand I would believe I was only defending ultimate truth in doing so. But perhaps in Tom's case it's more than this, or something other than this. Meanwhile I can believe that your more loving intention is the appropriate one, and that Tom is fighting a rearguard action on behalf of Maharishi and the TMOof course I don't know this. I don't know anything about Tom Pall. But before reading what you wrote to me, Rory, I had very seriously contemplated not posting again until the 9th of Julyat the earliest. Just to let Tom's judgment have some effect. But you have persuaded me (love is like that, isn't it) to abandon this tentative plan, and so I remain open to posting, even though I must respect the experience of Tom's which gives him no alternative but to express his intense disapproval of me. Who knows, perhaps God deems his judgment the more appropriate onein comparison to yours. But I am praying this is not the case. If I may say it, in beginning to read your autobiography online I sense the virtual symphony of feelings, intuitions, visions, inspirations which musically and mystically play inside your consciousness. It is a little much for me to follow you in all this, especially when it starts to get complexly occult and mysterious. But your motives are transparent and authentic, so I must believe you have acquired some grace and wisdom in your intricate interface with religious truth. And I never sense someone dogmatic or deceived, or disconnected from realityno matter how esoteric your ideas are. I will persist in my attempt to read through to the end, although, as I say, it is much easier (for me) in the beginningfor example your account of the India course in 1980. That riveted me. In fact ANYONE'S careful reflections on their experiences with Maharishi are always of extreme interest to me. Rory, I didn't set out to write at such length as I have. Perhaps I just started to realize subconsciously that I somehow owed you the gratitude of your unbiased reporting of your experience with me, when I was performing out of the experience of my putative enlightenment (which has a place in your autobiography). In any case I will just express my thanks once more for the support you have given me by writing as you have. Because, believe me, Rory, it produced the desired effect. MZ >
