Hi Ravi, I agree with most of what you say here with 1 possible and 1 definite exception.
Firstly, you seem to be holding M as pure Satguru. This, of course, is your prerogative. But, if so, we have no basis for discussion, because any blemish, shadow or dysfunction seen in him would, by definition, be pure projection of the observer. I hold that no human is pure Satguru, though Satguru exists in all things. If human, the possibility of blemish, shadow or dysfunction could, at any time, arise in any person, guru or not, and be truly perceived by a discerning observer and not be projection. Secondly, the statement "sexual frustration is just a judgment" is downright silly. Sexual frustration is an event, like sex, that can occur within anyone. Unlike sex, which is, traditionally, a physical act between two physical bodies, sexual frustration is a psycho-physical-emotional-energetic complex that arises within an individual and can effect their mind, body, mood and appearance and spill over into overt behavioral acts. Because it occurs within the individual, it's harder to perceive and more prone to projection. But, with discernment on the part of the observer, it could reliably be perceive in another as reality and not projection, especially if it occurs regularly ever long periods of time and affects the mood, appearance and behavior of the individual in which it is occurring. What is YMMV? On Jul 22, 2011, at 1:30 AM, Ravi Yogi wrote: > Mark - Thanks for your reply. I have to clarify that at no point I suggested > or would ever imply that you were an imbecile or reborn as a donkey for the > things you said about MMY otherwise I wouldn't have wished for your success. > I hope I can try to address your points and further clarify my thoughts. > > > "So, just as an example, if I say "M slept with women and got sexually > frustrated when he couldn't get any," what kind of statement is this? Is it > purely my projection? Is it a moral judgement? Is it objective? Is it > subjective? Is it true? Is it false? Is it cavil? Will I be reborn a donkey > for saying it?" > > M slept with women would be reality and portrayal of his behavior as sexual > frustration is just a judgment and most likely your projection. > > "Because, as Robin says, the images that forced themselves upon us forced us > to revise our estimation of the man" > > I wouldn't have revised the estimation, that would be swinging to the other > direction, I would have doubted my initial estimation. > > I explained before how a Satguru as a perfect mirror, of pure awareness, > would cause an array of dizzying, bewildering, conflicting emotions. > > However if one is aware we would find this opportunity in our day to day > interactions. Any person or situation that causes bewildering, conflicting > emotions would be our Guru, would point to the core pains that haven't been > healed within us. > > This will definitely happen in any loving, intimate relationship and a > relationship with someone like M definitely surpasses that. > > In my life my ex caused these kind of emotions, I madly loved her, so my > initial estimation of her was very positive but soon over the years, she > caused me lot of grief which caused me to revise my estimation like you. I > was bitter, angry, miserable. > > But eventually I realized that all these emotions were all mine, she was who > she was, but by her very nature she created this array of emotions in me, she > was much more of a Guru than my Guru Ammachi. Now I just look at her, I just > look at the reality, untainted, undisturbed by my own pain. > > Once I was healed, I was free to truly act without projecting any of my > pains, I was free of the grip, grip of my own fears, insecurities, pains > reflected by the other, which can only be caused by a deep intimate > relationship. > > A deep intimate relationship where the center falls to the other, a great > start but not the end, the end isn't until the center falls back in to you, > into your own core. > > Till you are tethered to the other, the fascination continues, the blame > continues, since you are not to blame. How could you be blamed? You are > innocent, gullible, you are a victim, the other is to blame, the other is > responsible. And the drama continues. > > YMMV. > > > --- In [email protected], Mark Landau <m@...> wrote: > > > > Ah, yes, first the easy way out. Thank you, Ravi, for your well wishes on > > the sandals, but let's go into epistemology. And, of course, Robin does so > > eloquently in a subsequent response, which beautifully exemplifies the not > > so easy way out and will not be as easy for me to reply to. > > > > It's all Mark. None of it could be MMY. Mark must be an imbecile not to see > > this. (Should I even reply to this email? Let's see if it might be > > fruitful...) > > > > In order to make it fruitful, I guess I have to bring up spiritual maturity > > again, previously alluded to as "developed being." > > > > I believe in discernment. I believe that, with true, sincere discernment, > > one can more and more approach an objective appreciation of the truth. And > > I know, quite directly, that using real discernment to winnow judgement and > > projection from reality ain't easy. I also believe in what Robin called > > (will call) meta-psychological effect, the profound resonance and > > repercussions that can ensue when our highly developed inner truth meter, > > if we have the spiritual maturity to have developed one, encounters a > > deeper truth than we have yet allowed ourselves to assimilate. > > > > So, just as an example, if I say "M slept with women and got sexually > > frustrated when he couldn't get any," what kind of statement is this? Is it > > purely my projection? Is it a moral judgement? Is it objective? Is it > > subjective? Is it true? Is it false? Is it cavil? Will I be reborn a donkey > > for saying it? > > > > Only discernment can cut through it all if one really wants the truth. Of > > course it's not necessary to really want the truth. I believe that most > > people don't. > > > > Why did so many skin boys get disillusioned? Because, as Robin says, the > > images that forced themselves upon us forced us to revise our estimation of > > the man. Bevan never really became skin boy. He always wanted to, but was > > "spared" that. Most of the skin boys got close enough to the man to see his > > underbelly. And it wasn't as pretty as we all thought it was. > > > > So, yes, my statement above is either true or false. I leave that for each > > to decide for yourselves. Is it purely my projection? I, obviously, don't > > believe so. For me, there is such overwhelming evidence, that, as I said, I > > believe it simply to be true. Is it moral judgement? This gets trickier. > > Can I make the above statement with no moral judgement? I believe that > > would be the sign of true spiritual maturity. Have I attained that? Let's > > say I'm still working on it. Is it subjective, objective? For me, both. Is > > it cavil? I would say that depends on one's real motivation, and who can > > know another's? I came to the decision, long ago, that, in the case of MMY, > > it really would be liberating for many people to know God's simple truth, > > the actual reality of what occurred. Cavil would come from hurt, smallness, > > venality, self-loathing, etc., etc., etc. Can I say that I have eliminated > > all elements of cavil from everything I say about him? Let's say that's > > something else I'm still working on. Will I be reborn a donkey for saying > > it? Perhaps, I had an experience with M about just that at the San Diego > > Zoo. Maybe I'll get to recount that sometime. But, for me, the truth became > > more important than my next life. If that's what's meant to be, so be it. > > We all must take the consequences of everything we do, no? > > > > So, enough of this for now and the future, if it's fruitful for one person, > > it's worth it. If not, forgive my indulgence. > > > > m > > > > >
