I guess I must have been dreaming, obbajeeba. No sticks and stones. Hey Ravi! How about insulting, goading, provoking, violating obbajeeba *after she says this*? :-)
What you have said here is fiction, baby doll. Your humour mode got the best of you. Says sourpuss Canadian lad. You areI'm doing the job of Ravi herequite beautifully sitting on the fence at al times, obbajeeba. We love you, but your charm just might be treacherous at any moment. After getting hit like this, though, obbajeeba, maybe it's time for *me* to unsubscribe. What do you say to *that*? Do I hear some cheers? Your brilliant humour is your defenceor can be. This was a stupid post, obbajeeba. But since "it is not possible to insult, goad, provoke, even violate other human beings on this forum" then you won't mind putting this to the test. Love from Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba <no_reply@...> wrote: > > 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, RaviI 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 evidenceat least there has always been for me, > > even when I was a young childof the malice, hatred, frustration, violence, > > resentmentor whatever: something negative in other wordsin 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 themselvesJudy is an exception to > > this; or at least so I believe. Whatever Judy's problem iswhich I am not > > privy toit 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 > > confrontationswhat 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 everyoneonce 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 trutheither through irony or > > just logic and reason; through moral embarrassment or humiliation; or > > whatever is one's means of doing thisbut 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 inevitablyeven > > if we are talking about someone as unredeemable as Charlie Mansonshow > > 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 FFLI am not going to be > > specific hereyou 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 FFLat least based upon my own close inspectionhas, *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 > > youat a gut levelwhich 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 desecrationyou > > 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 thisI 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 soundfor 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 Modedeployed in it > > most extreme and seemingly indefensible form in one post to raunchydog]. > > > > You see, no one at FFL has figured outI certainly haven'tthe 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 > > actjust take one of your posts todayor 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 > > onthe 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-drivenor 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 frustrationI am sure there is a specific theory that > > each person at FFL holds about you; but I doubt that any are literally > > identicalalthough there will be amongst some persons, some politically > > driven need to categorize you without any willingness to entertain the > > complexity of the real factsand 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 interestedthis is my > > biasin the PERSON THAT IS RAVI CHIVUKULA. Because he, so far, remains > > hidden altogethercertainly 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 factwhen you have finished > > writing your postare 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 omnisubjectiveor at > > least he was when he was aroundit 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 yetthis is the whole point of > > this postnot 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, RaviI am sure of thisif you were undergoing an experience > > subjectively of being who you arethat is, having a first person > > ontological experiencethen 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 ontologyat least in this one act of confronting > > mercilessly, pitilessly, tenaciously a particular poster at FFLis 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 estimationNo, not even you, sweet Barrynor you, > > puissant Curtishas the slightest notion of what is going on with Ravi > > Chivukula. Of course in reading these very words you will reflexively, > > involuntarily deny this pointeven without taking it in and using the > > Negative Capability which is almost a prerequisite here at FFLif, 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 > > waymanifestly doing that which would make people certain of your madness, > > your id-ness, your insecurity, your crudeness, your stupidity, your > > indulgent recklessnessor whatever: every reader on FFL will have formed > > his or her theory about Ravi Chivukula. But there will be no one whoexcept > > through some arbitrary and abstract theorycan 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 usand 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 knowyour anti-transgressive modeare revelational > > as to a person who is deeply thoughtful, humble, open, intelligent, and > > fair. I wonder if there is anyone in the worldor has ever been anyone in > > the worldwho could so suavely switch from the RTM to the RLMthe 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 > > >
