Hey, Vaj: Would you consider telling me what your diagnosis is of Ravi Chivukula? Since you claim to have an explanation for his behaviour, how about doing me the courtesy of giving your interpretation of Ravi Chivukulasimply to disprove my claim that no one at FFL has confidence that they have understood the causal basis of Ravi's Transgressive Mode (RTM).
Since your whole thesis (at least in your previous post) is to contradict my contention that Ravi Chivukula defies any common sense understanding, I think it only fair that you disabuse me of my fixation, since my concern here (according to you) is entirely misplaced and ridiculous. I am begging you, Vaj: Robin wants to be able to fit Ravi Chivukula into his metaphysical paradigm: you can help me do this by telling me what Ravi Chivukula is all about. And what I want here, is what you promised me is the truth; namely, that you have a specific *experience* and understanding of what Ravi is up toand why. Please just give me the broad outlines of your personal experience of Ravi Chivukula so that I can at least make contact with one person who 'gets' him. This will put a stop to this whole controversy. At least it will for me. Tell us now, Vaj: what gives with the Ravi boy? And please, use some of your powers of persuasion which draw upon your real experience. Don't make it up. Because we will know the difference. All what you say below has nothing to do with the issue:either of Ravi Chivukula, or myself. So, you do not intend to climb that mountain, then, Vaj? Believe me, the view is much better from up here. Your pal, Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@...> wrote: > > Dear Robindranath: > > On Dec 12, 2011, at 6:18 PM, maskedzebra wrote: > > > Dear Vaj, > > > > Your fantasizing, I see, extends even into the living moment. Take for > > instance, your comments here. You have provided no personal, experiential, > > even intellectually believed evidence for one to assume you have 'figured > > out' Ravi Chivukula. > > Robindra - you dipshit - that was the *point*, to leave a deliberate vacuum. > Like the unanswered question(s) you keep desperately begging. > > > > > Your insinuation that you have, remains just an invisible simulacrum of > > reality: you have no conviction about Ravi that you would submit as the > > truthsay, on point of death. You don't believe in your own words, Vaj, as > > these words, have the assumed appearance of having constructed some kind of > > argument that would have us believe you know all about the intra-personal > > mechanics of Ravi and the RTM. > > Actually, I have considerable (but not absolute Carlsenian) certainty. It's a > relative thing. And that's fine. If it makes you squirm out more letters, is > that my problem or yours? > > I would argue that the vacuity was actually always on your side. > > I merely pointed it out. Now that infamous finger is pointing again. > > > > > It is the very same with Transcendental Meditation, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, > > and your status as a former TM initiator. > > > > At least now you have providedunlike Ravithe unequivocal experimental > > evidence of what your problem is: you live in an unreal world. If you would > > declare from you heart that you believed in a single thing you have said > > herein the same way you believe that your mother loved or loves you; that > > you enjoyed your first romantic kiss; that you felt the sensation of > > finally learning to ride bicycleif what you say in this post has *any* > > resemblance to any of these experiences, then I would have to take you > > seriously, Vaj. > > LOL, oh OK! > > Not enuff draaahma? > > > > > As it is, you are writing into the exact same context which enables you to > > blithely carry on talking about your TM and initiator expertise, when in > > fact, these things do not have any real existence for you whatsoever. > > Actually, you're simply changing the context here to one of your own > obsessions. I did not mention nor did I imply anything of the kind. This is > ALL your projection - a phantom you constantly invoke. > > And you've never provided so much as a quote, an email, nothing I've said > onmy own to even present a question worth answering! Just this constant > 'begging of the question'. I suspect very much that any similar WTS > participant (victim?) would get a similar treatment (unless a favored, > certified non-demonic one), "a friend". > > These types of disconnects we call "non sequiturs" (note: this is different > from a Steinian "non sequitur", which is when a person cannot understand an > implication, often due to not adhering the linear laws of "Flatland"). > > > > But more than this, Vaj: you cannot even summon up the bluff and bravado > > and appropriate subjective responsethat defines us as human beingsin the > > face of these challenges to the veracity of your claims. You don't even > > defend yourself. This is telling. [But this no-defence is itself no > > defence: don't pull the supreme disinterestedness argument here, Vaj: you > > would be a total idiot to do this. But if you must, go ahead. You can tell > > me you are Guru Dev's grandson, and I would have to assign to this claim > > the same status as I would if you claim you are not defending yourself here > > because of some imperturbable state of spiritual equilibrium.] > > Oh Robindra. You FFL youngster. Who are you to define my disinterestedness? > > > > > > And the same goes for what you say here in this post. Now it would be very > > different if I did in fact sense that you were someone with a definitive > > and sincere 'take' or interpretation of Ravi Chivukula. You see, Vaj: *I > > would feel this*. > > What, no callouses of former demonic confrontation? > > There comes a certain point, where you can just sit back, and observe. About > the only thing that would 'perturb' me at this point is another Ravi suicide, > feel-sorry-for-me routine. > > > Take the music videos that are posted here: like Keith Jarrett at Koln: if > > you can listen to that musicabsorb it into your nervous systemand start > > posting to me, making the same assertions that you have in this post, > > without removing yourself from the innocent receptivity of listening to > > Keith Jarrettso as to appreciate himthen I am refuted. > > OK. But I gotta tell you - Keith J. is kinda passé for me. What's next, Abba? > > > > > You see, Vaj, it is very simple. You have pretended here that you do in > > fact have some visceral or psychological 'feel' for the phenomenon that is > > Ravi Chivukula. > > Well duh. I've been here a bit longer than you - and after a half a dozen or > so "look Ma, I'm enlightened" TM or Amma types, you kinda get used to it. > > Esp. if you saw it (uh-hum)...previously. >
