--- In [email protected], "Jason" <jedi_spock@...> wrote: <snip> > Are you implying that he is a cunning, calculative, > publicity seeking and attention seeking hound.? > > I now get a feeling that he tries to hide his illogical > points tucked inside inside his voluminious post and further > tries to hide it behind rare bombastic words.
Did you have trouble understanding what he wrote that you quote, Jason? > --- "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> wrote: > > > > If Maharishi posted something on FFL at, I say, at the > > height of his powers and influence and prestige *we would > > recognize that this poster—even if we didn't know who he > > was was, in his discussion and analysis of enlightenment, > > providing the most potent metaphysical subtext of anyone > > posting on FFL*. > > > > Well, then, I had better realize this, shouldn't I, else > > my irony sensibiity has atrophied something serious since > > I gave up this enlightenment business. Oops, Jason, you didn't note that you made a big snip between the above two paragraphs. That's a no-no. > > > But more than this, it is not the intelligence which > > > created the universe which has created this state of > > > consciousness; nor does the intelligence which created > > > the universe have anything to do with the actions of the > > > enlightened person I mean in the sense of being the > > > direct and specific cause of those actions, In this > > > sense the "cosmic" in cosmic consciousness is not cosmic > > > at all. It certainly is a metaphysical power, and > > > perhaps even is being controlled by very powerful > > > intelligences; but those intelligences would be > > > Maharishi's Vedic gods, or personal gods, or "impulses > > > of creative intelligence". I wonder why Jason included this quote from a much earlier post of Curtis's, since it has nothing to do with the current discussion. It's interesting, though, in and of itself; it comes from a post in which Curtis was defending Robin from Barry's criticisms (this was from before Robin and Curtis had their big falling-out, but I doubt Curtis would disavow what he said in this post even today). http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/284791 > --- "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> wrote > > > > > > > > It was a pretty strongly worded FU to him, so he must > > > > have gotten some of your attention. I ignore plenty of > > > > people here without having to tell them I am ignoring > > > > them. I believe you have a little more skin in the > > > > game than you are claiming. I think he got to you in > > > > the same way some posters have gotten to me. > > > > > > > > I think you may be missing his intent and POV in his > > > > responses. Another unmarked snip above.
