The flock needs a lassie. No problema - here's one by Dani Garcia: http://www.cgarena.com/gallery/3d/details/characters/magamix052011.html
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba <no_reply@...> wrote: > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
