Ahh, nothing like a little animation to the alleged story, here, boys and girls. Let's go deeper into the rabbit hole http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDxgvMHCDXA
Stop, Steve! This whole thing is looking ridicules to us all and as you say, I am not Shakespeare, (Don't have a dick, like you say that I am infatuated with.) the draining of time and place on a subject to prove what? About someone not even posting here anymore...you must want to desire to see that person post again. I can't take it anymore! Stop! Steve! Stop! Please! Go after Nabby at least, because he will at least attempt to rebuttal and maybe even through in a really nice song or two from the way back machine. You sir, are picking on a man who is not present. If he were dead, than that is fair game too, to contemplate the what was, has been aspects. Become that nice person you were before. Be the husband, the father, the man with a life. Please don't let us down to think if we all had a life as grand as yours, we would be posting here on FFL? :) --- In [email protected], "seventhray27" <steve.sundur@...> wrote: > > > > --- 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. >
