--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "RoryGoff" <rorygoff@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > What Bob said, Bill. Welcome, but watch your back. > > > > One thing I should suggest to you -- both on Fairfield > > Life and in real life -- is to not believe that someone > > is enlightened just because they claim to be. Going that > > route is likely to cost you money and heartbreak. > > > > For example, on this forum we currently have three people > > who you seem to have bought into as being enlightened -- > > Jim Flanegin (whynotnow), Ravi, and Robin (maskedzebra). > > My bet is that other than each other (they tend to support > > each others' delusions IMO), you can't find more than a > > handful of people on this forum who actually BELIEVE > > that any of them are enlightened. > > > > It's not that we think they're lying (except for Ravi, who > > has admitted several times that he was lying to Rick in > > the interview he did with him for BATGAP); we think they > > are a tad delusional. Those of us who think this base it > > on their real-life behavior on this forum, juxtaposed to > > their claims of supposed higher states of consciousness. > > It's the "walk the walk" vs. the "talk the talk" thang. > > > > Look into it for yourself, and make your own decisions. > > I would suggest, for all three, using the Yahoo website's > > Advanced Search engine and looking up some of their > > earliest posts on this forum. That's where all three of > > them tended to freak out and display the anger and > > reactive behavior that convinces us disbelievers that > > they are delusional rather than enlightened. For the > > poster who now calls himself whynotnow, you should also > > look up his posts under several other names, for example, > > jim_flanegin and enlightened_dawn11 (during the period > > that Jim was pretending to be female). Just sayin'. > > * * Leaving aside your other assertions, Turq -- they > are subjective and everyone can and will make up their > own minds on those --
Thanks for saying this...that is my opinion as well. I am just making the case for not believing that what ANYONE says about their supposed state of conscious- ness is true until you have weighed it terms of the Buddha's words on the FFL Home Page: "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." In particular, I am cautioning against believing what people with a seemingly *huge* investment in being perceived by others as enlightened say about being enlightened. Ravi, for instance, probably never got any attention in his entire life until Rick heard about him and chose to interview him for the BATGAP series. Ravi has said since that his interview was a put-on, taking advantage of Rick's naivete. Yet here he still is, drinking in the attention on a TM forum, when he never learned TM. Go figure, eh? Jim has now posted under several different IDs, doing IMO the same thing -- trolling for attention. In a few of those ID-incarnations, he claimed to *not* be Jim, until he made a stupid mistake like posting a song from the not-Jim ID that was clearly copyrighted to Jim Flanegin. Again, go figure. > ...I can tell you with full certainty that Jim never > pretended to be enlightened_dawn. I personally know > the woman who posted as enlightened_dawn, and she is > in fact quite female :-) Whatever. Despite what you say, I still have my suspicions that enlightened_dawn11 was Jim, putting on yet another of his false personas. As I said at the time, however, I may be wrong about this. Here is the post in which I made my arguments for them being the same person. I stand by those arguments. If you have proof that they are incorrect, I will retract them. But your word -- on this subject or about your own enlightenment -- doth not constitute proof. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/211686 You may have noticed, Rory, that I didn't explicitly name you in my earlier post as one of the "pretend enlightened." That does not mean that I actually believe that you are (I don't), only that in your latest posts to this forum you are keeping your ego-dick in your pants and not acting like the opposite of what we have been told an enlightened being would be like. Good on you for doing this.
