[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[obbajeeba]

Pardon me if I point out it is not possible to "insult, goad, provoke, even 
violate other human beings on this forum."
There is no flesh or blood, or wine or bread.
 Jesus would agree. 
Fiction, all the above and all the below. : )

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Ravi,
> 
> You must help me out, Ravi, for I am more perplexed and stymied by a 
> particular reality than I think I have ever been over anything I have 
> experienced in my life.
> 
> Now this is going to be a little complicated, but I am going to do my best to 
> clarify just what my question is to you (which I would like answered), so 
> that I can resolve this mystery. The mystery, of course, is all about you.
> 
> You see, Ravi—I am going to say something terribly obvious here, so stay with 
> me,—you do insult, goad, provoke, even violate other human beings on this 
> forum. Now, whenever someone actually unjustifiably does something like this, 
> there is always evidence—at least there has always been for me, even when I 
> was a young child—of the malice, hatred, frustration, violence, resentment—or 
> whatever: something negative in other words—in the person who does this. 
> Even, I believe if there in fact is some *justifiable* basis for going after 
> a person; hardly anyone knows how to do this without exhibiting something 
> deficient or distorted in themselves—Judy is an exception to this; or at 
> least so I believe. Whatever Judy's problem is—which I am not privy to—it is 
> not evidently a personal one. There may be something intrinsically 
> problematic about the existential Judy, but for all we know, she could be a 
> tough love secular saint. That's my read on her anyhow. But let me get back 
> to my main point: Ravi, in your creative confrontations—what I would like to 
> from here on refer to as the Ravi Transgressive Mode (RTM)—not only do you 
> not exhibit evidence of your own weakness, envy, jealousy, unhappiness etc 
> etc etc; but more than this: *You don't give evidence of anything personal at 
> all!* In other words, there is no disclosure of who the person Ravi is in the 
> act of deploying your RTM. Now no one knows this; no one asks this question; 
> but, as Maharishi was fond of saying, everyone *is in the benefit of* this 
> truth: Ravi does not reveal anything about himself in the very act of being 
> more outrageous and shameless than anyone I have ever known.
> 
> Now, as I say, Ravi, I have made it a point of conscientious study since I 
> was a small child to see the projection factor in everyone—once they go to 
> the negative side of life. Even if they are engaged in an act of justice or 
> purportedly righting a wrong: like, say, taking down Saddam. No matter how 
> inspired or objective one is in seeing something unattractive or corrupt or 
> false in someone, the very act of redressing this is fraught with peril. Not 
> in terms of necessarily the final efficacy of the execution of this act; that 
> is, stinging the person with the truth—either through irony or just logic and 
> reason; through moral embarrassment or humiliation; or whatever is one's 
> means of doing this—but in terms of not drawing out some, however 
> infinitesimally, unexamined, unresolved, unclarified 'fault' in oneself. When 
> we judge someone [which presumably is why Christ uttered those words: Judge 
> not that you be not judged"], we almost inevitably—even if we are talking 
> about someone as unredeemable as Charlie Manson—show something of the 
> underside of ourselves, perhaps something we have never recognized to 
> ourselves, but it is there.
> 
> Now in your going after various persons at FFL—I am not going to be specific 
> here—you almost make it impossible for someone who is a witness to the RTM 
> not to infer that there is something mad, dark, perverted, wrong, negative 
> about yourself. But here is where, Ravi, it gets interesting. Not one person 
> at FFL—at least based upon my own close inspection—has, *to their own 
> objectified and self-evident satisfaction*—found the secret mote in Ravi's 
> eye, the cancer in his heart, the blackguard truth in his soul, the insanity 
> in his mind.
> 
> So, you can anticipate my hypothesis: it is *this*—the inability intuitively 
> or even subconsciously to sense the negative or the insane in you—at a gut 
> level—which causes the disorientation, the fury, the anxiety, the hostility, 
> the righteous indignation in response to your employing the RTM. Sure, people 
> can focus strictly on the content of what you have said, and thereby justify 
> their outrage, their retaliation, their sense of having been violated; but 
> without actually getting a hold of what it is in you which has some 
> correlation with this interpersonal desecration—you essentially refuse to 
> defer even in the very least to the felt integrity and privacy of the other 
> person: that in fact is the transgressive power of the act: to knowingly 
> ignore every tacitly understood taboo within your speaking to someone whom 
> you do not know personally: you go for the ultimate shock; and few persons 
> are ready for this—I know I wasn't when I first came on FFL":—without, then, 
> sensing the psychological cause or even just the experiential origin of the 
> RTM, people are left just to lash out in a metaphysical vacuum. Because you 
> have not provided them with the infallibly known clues to why you are doing 
> this; how you are doing this; and what they should do when you do this.
> 
> With me up to this point, Ravi Chivukula [you should use that name in my 
> opinion; it has something aristocratic about its sound—for me anyhow]?
> 
> We get to the whole point of this post: I would like to ask you, Ravi, 
> whether you can explain to me, to us, what are the mechanics, the secret 
> mechanics, of your first of all: seeing into people; secondly, how you select 
> your tactics in approaching or addressing that person; thirdly, what your 
> experience is of yourself in the act of deploying the RTM [just a reminder to 
> the reader: that's the Ravi Transgressive Mode—deployed in it most extreme 
> and seemingly indefensible form in one post to raunchydog]. 
> 
> You see, no one at FFL has figured out—I certainly haven't—the cause and 
> effect principle of the RTM. Because from a psychological or even 
> metaphysical level, you leave no trace of yourself when you do this. In fact, 
> *that is the very secret potency of the act*: that you don't leave any 
> fingerprints at the crime scene that could be identified as belonging to you. 
> There are no forensics when it comes to investigating one of Ravi's 
> psychologically illegal acts.
> 
> What I want to know, Ravi, is whether you are simply a witness to this 
> act—just take one of your posts today—or whether you have access to a means 
> of remaining hidden and concealed inside this act such that, when you perform 
> it (the RTM), even you have to realize that while it is going on—the 
> enactment of this violative performance—*you yourself are forbidden any 
> experience inside yourself*—else, if you experienced some thrill or sensation 
> of satisfaction while in the act, this would be detected by the person who is 
> the object of your analysis, or at least by some more disinterested observer 
> of this execution of the RTM.
> 
> I still don't believe my experience when I read one of these posts. Now there 
> are a number of respectable and even in some cases, honourable, persons on 
> FFL who either think you mad, or imbalanced, or rude, or id-driven—or 
> whatever: but there is no intuitively felt consensus whatsoever about this. 
> Of course one may predicate one's reaction to what you do on the notion of 
> insanity or crazy enlightenment or uncouthness or vulgarity or sexual 
> frustration—I am sure there is a specific theory that each person at FFL 
> holds about you; but I doubt that any are literally identical—although there 
> will be amongst some persons, some politically driven need to categorize you 
> without any willingness to entertain the complexity of the real facts—and I 
> of course believe I am getting to, or near to, the real facts in this post.
> 
> But this will never do the job of actually *getting to the secret of the 
> RTM*, let alone the secret of Ravi Chivukula. Just answer this one question, 
> Ravi: *Are you aware of what is going on here in a way that is consistent 
> with all or at least some of what I have said here? That is to say, are you 
> conscious of the secret mechanics of hiddenness of the RTM? Do you know 
> something about yourself which we could never know?
> 
> And don't go telling me all about that Hindu crap: I refuse to attribute what 
> you do to the special powers granted or bestowed upon you by your 
> Awakening—*But* should you be able to convince me of your sincerity in doing 
> so, by all means go ahead and invoke The Beloved, the Existence, the Self of 
> whatever. *You see, Ravi Chivukula* I am interested—this is my bias—in the 
> PERSON THAT IS RAVI CHIVUKULA. Because he, so far, remains hidden 
> altogether—certainly from everyone of us at FFL; and perhaps even from 
> yourself. I am particularly interested in whether the latter is true. But for 
> that to be true, means that your unconfused mode of transgression of all 
> Western Civilization interpersonal protocol, requires you *not to know how 
> you do what you do*. And this fascinates me: as in: Is it possible, Ravi, 
> that there is an ontological form of transcendence when you insult someone at 
> FFL, such that you, in order to do this in the consummate dissonant 
> outrageous way, must yourself be detached from the experience when it happens 
> to you; and that only after the fact—when you have finished writing your 
> post—are you then permitted the satisfaction of taking delight in the 
> extraordinary unconditioned act of interpersonal lawlessness that you have 
> just so perfectly committed?
> 
> You see, according to my having determined that God is omnisubjective—or at 
> least he was when he was around—it must mean that, at all times, you have an 
> experience of being Ravi. This experience is somewhere known by a certain 
> intelligence in the universe which is not Ravi Chivukula. And if this is 
> true, you are having an experience of what it is like to be Ravi when you 
> deploy the RTM here at FFL. And yet—this is the whole point of this post—not 
> one of us can detect the evidence that you are in fact *having an experience 
> of what it is like to be Ravi* while performing this act of ultimate 
> interpersonal transgression.
> 
> Because, Ravi—I am sure of this—if you were undergoing an experience 
> subjectively of being who you are—that is, having a first person ontological 
> experience—then I think, with all my obsessive focus on this dimension of a 
> person, I at least could detect what that experience is. I cannot. And this 
> goes to the wonderful yet vexing mystery of Ravi.
> 
> You see, even the gods have a first person ontology when they do what they 
> do. Or at least I can't imagine them not having this kind of subjective 
> selfhood. I feel with absolute certainty that they do. But in the case of 
> yourself your first person ontology—at least in this one act of confronting 
> mercilessly, pitilessly, tenaciously a particular poster at FFL—is as if 
> suspended from existence. And there is the quintessence of what I am am 
> seeking to clarify here, Ravi Chivukula: what is the experiential context of 
> Ravi Chvukula when he unabashedly transgresses against the proprietorial 
> privileges of a given soul, privileges the person even feels that God must 
> respect. And you don't!
> 
> Nobody at FFL in my estimation—No, not even you, sweet Barry—nor you, 
> puissant Curtis—has the slightest notion of what is going on with Ravi 
> Chivukula. Of course in reading these very words you will reflexively, 
> involuntarily deny this point—even without taking it in and using the 
> Negative Capability which is almost a prerequisite here at FFL—if, that is, 
> you want to *discover anything about yourself* through posting and 
> counter-posting at FFL. 
> 
> So, then Ravi, this is the purpose of my post: to uncover the secret 
> mechanics of how you can act in such a radical and impermissible 
> way—manifestly doing that which would make people certain of your madness, 
> your id-ness, your insecurity, your crudeness, your stupidity, your indulgent 
> recklessness—or whatever: every reader on FFL will have formed his or her 
> theory about Ravi Chivukula. But there will be no one who—except through some 
> arbitrary and abstract theory—can explain the first person ontological secret 
> of Ravi Chivukula.
> 
> This letter is my attempt to do a service for myself and for everyone who has 
> any interest in the Indian yogi living in California: which is to say, track 
> you down, corner you, and force you to reveal yourself. I will be most 
> interested in seeing whether in answering this post you actually begin to 
> disclose something about yourself that so far has remained brilliantly hidden 
> from all of us—and perhaps even hidden from yourself.
> 
> I take your chanting on that video to offer no clues whatsoever as to the 
> answer to my question. And why do I say that? Because the person there, one 
> would think, could never do what you do on a regular basis here at FFL. Your 
> praises, you should know—your anti-transgressive mode—are revelational as to 
> a person who is deeply thoughtful, humble, open, intelligent, and fair. I 
> wonder if there is anyone in the world—or has ever been anyone in the 
> world—who could so suavely switch from the RTM to the RLM—the Ravi 
> Transgressive Mode to the Ravi Loving Mode. It is a mindbreakder. Now tell us 
> something about yourself that none of us know, Ravi Chivukula.
> 
> Robin
>