Why did you stand so close? The lamb rested and fell asleep.
The sharpness came from a ginsu knife, $19.95 a set. The lamb continued to peacefully sleep. The flock needs a lassie. The shepherd a reason why. Daisies in the spring from Argentina. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba <no_reply@> wrote: > > Graceless lady you know who I am. > > (Lyric from Stones song you sent me) > > If you are poised so elegantly and wisely on that Montana fence, why did you > drop the lumber near my feet? > > It seemed to me the grazing sheep came too close, and one little lamb jumped > right into your lap. > > Without really thinking you sheared him with your unthoughtout mind > Before he was ready to sacrifice his lambness for your love. > > But your farewell words, they tell me I should still look after my flock > Seeing as how I am the perfect shepherd of my own duncehood. > > Looks as if you still will insist on flowers. > > Let's do some living after we die. > > (Lyric from Stones song you sent me) > > A wall of forest looms above > and sweetly the blackbird sings; > all the birds make melody > over me and my books and things. > > There sings to me the cuckoo > from bush-citadels in grey hood. > God's doom! May the Lord protect me > writing well, under the great wood. > > St Gall > > > > > > Dreaming of cow pastures and fences is a metaphor for counting sheep. > One, jump, two, jump, three, jump. > Sleepy gaze as one grazes on the barley. > > A fence is not, as Vishnu tells of maintaining. > > A fence is not at birth or at death. Transition, balance, keeps me on a fence > to be climbed, if one wishes to venture to the other side, my dear Kanuk pal. > I straddle that lumber using my steady pace. > > Border guards could not keep me from climbing the slopes in Montana? > Border guards could not keep me from Moose Jaw. > > Wild horses http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07CSyTmA1Ic like fences too. > > If you were to unsubscribe, I would turn blue. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > >
