--- In [email protected], "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "seventhray27" steve.sundur@ wrote: > > > > Why he didn't say, right from the start, "yes I have struck > > my students, and here's the context........" > > Two reasons. One, he was accused of striking his students > in a very specific context in which he believed he had not > done so; and two--well, you'll need to read the Open Letter > for that reason.
Why not clarify it at the outset? Someone makes a rather serious charge, why not take the time at that moment to set the record straight. If, as he says, the truth was going to come out, address it in a pre-emptive fashion. He offers some rationale for why he did not do that, and leaves it to others to decide if this indicated integrity on his part, or a lack of integrity. >From the open letter: When Vaj first accused me of hitting someone at a seminar, I knew it was not true. After all, many persons were there for the first time. Had I done what I was accused of, a majority of those who had never before attended a seminar would have walked out. I don't remember a single person leaving a seminar. It was just not ripe for me to explain all this. I did not deny something I knew was true. I denied what I was accused of. And knew, probably, eventually the truth would come out, which might have the appearance of my having at the very least equivocated on this matter. But my conscience is clear. I never hesitated for a moment in knowing it was premature of me to on the one hand deny having done what I was accused of in one contextwhich was true: I did not strike anyone during a seminarwhile at the same time feeling an obligation to acknowledge that this indeed did in fact happenon rare occasionsin a quite different and more intimate context. I will leave it to the readers of FFL to determine whether I am morally culpable in having acted as I have. And this part, from an earlier part of the open letter, were his reasons for the striking. So why not just address the issue since it had been raised rather than giving, at least, the "appearance" of trying to conceal it. But he evidently had his reasons for letting it play out the way it did, so I will respect that. If the person seemed so identified with this deceitful representation of themselves through the malice of this fallen angel that they were in fact defending or upholding the integrity of themselves in resisting the beneficent and merciful inspiration of my enlightenmentconsciously as it were, or unconsciously colluding with the fallen angelI might, on occasion shock that person out of such an identification. And this took the form sometimes of striking them. Maybe in total 4 or 5 persons were struck. I hardly think it was more than this. And this was not something that happened on a regular basis. It was in extremis. But we shall see if this testimony is contradicted by someone who was there. This was not anger, punishment, retaliation, ritualistic violence. It was an inspiredand much resisted (I hated it)response in me in order to facilitate the process whereby a person could experience liberationeven momentarilyfrom their trance caused by their being identified with the particular fallen angel which had been chosen somehow to present this formidable and ultimate existential challenge to this person's soul, and their whole sense of who they really were. Now I have come, in having repudiated and deconstructed my enlightenment, to see that once I became enlightened on that mountain above Arosa, that my perception had been played such that I could only apprehend each human being in terms of this cosmic battle between good and evil. Now I am able to see each person absolutely on their own, without respect to 'the demonic'. And therefore I am sorry for all that I did which amounted to being determined by this hallucination. Which especially included on occasion trying to shock the person out of his or her identification with the fallen angel which was tormenting and deceiving them, even if they appeared oblivious to this truth.
