Oh, Robin, sometimes I wish you would say to your critics something along the lines of "I am what I am. If you don't like it, go fuck yourself," but I guess that's not your style. Over the last few days I felt like I was a voyeur at some kind of War Crimes Tribunal or at one of those sessions they have in prisons where victims get to confront those who wronged them. It all seems a bit over the top. I would say: Stuff happens. Get used to it. But again, that might be a little blunt for your elegant mind. I'm also reminded of a passage in D. H. Lawrence's Women in Love, where the character Birkin says something like, "For every murder there is a murderee, someone who wants to get murdered." So I think everyone has to take responsibility for the situations they get into rather than being so eager to lay blame and whine about being a victim.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@...> wrote: > > Dear Vaj, > > You are a beautiful guy and I love you. I have read and read your post--and I > can come up with nothing in rebuttal to a single thing you have said. > > OK, I was wrong about you; certainly you have the satisfaction of having > given yourself a clean conscience in all this--which must surely advance you > in your spiritual quest. > > I apologize for my desperation to conceal my doubts and fears as to the truth > of the testimony of my personal history, and there can be no doubt about it: > Lord Knows got the better of me in every way in that debate. Any > disinterested and impartial reader cannot but reach this conclusion. So I > don't think there was any need to point this out. > > After all, Lord Knows is salivating for me to throw just one more punch so > that he can knock me out for good. (For me I only felt the just blows of his > righteous fists. But I have a reputation to uphold here on FFL--and it is not > a pleasant thing to have my honour taken from me as Lord Knows did--uncannily > described here in your objective post--The question occurs to me, Vaj: Why > not before this? I wish you had drawn blood before with your lion-hearted > spirit.) > > I am sorry we have not reconciled about other matters. But what is saintly > about you--if you will permit me to tempt you with condign praise--is your > refusal to become engaged with any critical remarks that are directed towards > the consistency, honesty, and coherence of your rather overly charitable > approach to systems of belief which differ from your own. I think you are the > gold standard when it comes to sincerity and fearlessness. And I envy as > well, your serenity and lovableness. > > But to your main point: Yes, Lord Knows triumphed over me--I am almost > certain this is the unanimous verdict among FFL readers. I just couldn't > think of anything significant to say. But he had me. All I could do was fire > blanks at him. He knows he won decisively; I think your making this so plain > to everyone was utterly unnecessary and an attempt to rub my humiliation in > my face. > > But perhaps this did me some good. Certainly the nobility and beauty of your > motivation in this post trumps anything I could say by way of apology and > regret. > > I would only ask you, Vaj, to consider how hard it is when some critic comes > onto FFL and utterly takes my measure--as Lord Knows has done. > > How I screwed up on the double-posts, that pretty much summarizes my entire > life. I just get it wrong, Vaj. It's like my ontological IQ is in the range > of imbecile. > > I would have thought you had objectified this before and would approach me, > not so much with the fluency and eloquence of your superior wit, but with the > more healing compassion of your bright and radiant soul. > > I have eschewed irony here in the attempt finally to bear my own soul to you. > > I mean once Lord Knows had his say, I couldn't think of anything to say back > to him. And I believe oxcart nailed it in his post to authfriend. That was > almost like a revelation to me. > > And do you mind stop gloating, Vaj? > > Affectionately, > > Sri Robino > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > > > > On Aug 7, 2012, at 6:19 PM, Robin Carlsen wrote: > > > > > Dear Vaj,, > > > > > > I am sure you can explain this, but why is it that your post here > > > contains what Lord Knows posted 22 minutes later. Are you colluding > > > with Lord Knows?--surely you can provide some explanation for what > > > seems suspiciously like a joint enterprise. But if I am wrong and > > > there is an innocent (I rather think there must be, this is too > > > much keystone cops) reason for this, you will tell me what it is. > > > > I'm responding to the email list. I assume you're responding to the > > web interface instead? > > > > > What I find staggering and nonplussing is your depiction of me > > > here. You have never met me, Vaj, else you would know how fatally > > > off the mark you are in almost everything you say about me--once, > > > that is, you become critical. No one who has ever met me would say > > > the things you say. They represent an imaginative reading of me-- > > > and do not in any way whatsoever contain the force and truth of > > > some direct encounter with me. Lord Knows, Lord knows, he does know > > > me--after a fashion. > > > > > > But again, Vaj, tell us how you preempted LK888's post to me? I am > > > more curious than anything else. > > > > Simple manipulation of space-time continuum, that's all. By applying > > samyama on certain email servers, and then applying a filtering > > meditation I'm able be digitally omniscient R. > > > > > You do not know me, Vaj. You are being driven by something other > > > than the search for the truth. > > > > Says the always truthful Robin? > > > > > And by the way: you must tell your friend, Lord Knows that he > > > ducked the real fight, and I consider him to be cowardly for doing > > > so. *That* should compel him to respond to those first three posts, > > > don't you think? > > > > Unless of course he thought he scored a knockout - and is back at the > > hotel drinking champagne.... > > > > > Especially the third one on free will. Where I have addressed a > > > very personal question to him, which in avoiding answering, he > > > damages his credibility fatally. > > > > From my POV LK was the first person to truly call you on your sh*t. > > So therefore LK's post was not only the most revealing post aimed at > > you ever on FFL, it did so with a certain modicum of respect, > > something difficult to do in such a charged situation. It was like a > > small bell rang and everyone listening, no matter how near or how > > far, heard it loud and clear. > > > > If the walls of Sunnyside had decided to talk, they couldn't have > > spoken with more honesty and integrity. And bravery. > > > > > Of course only in my eyes. I am sure he has garnered sympathy from > > > other quarters. For me, though, when I make a serious accusation > > > and judgment about someone and that someone responds to me, I look > > > forward to seizing upon what he or she has said, because if I am > > > right about what I think of him or her, he or she will just provide > > > even more proof of my judgment of his or her integrity, his or her > > > motives. > > > > > > Get your buddy, Lord Knows to come clean and get in the ring. Else > > > I will say that his not answering that post on free will versus > > > cosmic will is a tacit admission of defeat: that he cannot, then, > > > reconcile his judgment of me with taking on the truth of my > > > experience. > > > > Like I said, LK is back at the hotel, drinking Dom with Lady Ga Ga > > and watching reruns of RWC show. > > > > > > > And then there is the post in which I narrate (an excerpt from one > > > of my books) the actual moment of becoming enlightened. That too > > > has to be incorporated into this matter. > > > > > > What say you, Vaj: Shall we be courageous and direct and play by > > > the rules of the cosmos? > > > > Whose cosmos? > > > > I think the cosmos of interdependent origination hath already > > spoken. ;-) > > > > > I think you should at least be happy that someone has finally > > > spoken up about me. But having done so, he or she must now > > > demonstrate he or she is prepared to sustain his her her sincerity > > > and conviction when, in the service of truth, I have attempted to > > > make this issue conform in this discussion to what actually > > > happened in those ten years. > > > > Actually, nothing of the kind is required. Of course, you're allowed > > to do the Canadian squirm for as long as you like (as long as it's > > under 50 posts/week). I'm finding this squirm dance is very > > entertaining to watch. It's like watching someone dance in their pain > > - at least they're still dancin'. > > > > Don't worry, I'm working on getting you a disco ball and spotlight... > > >
