Good news. I've got a better understanding of the situation and am ready to move on. I'm sorry if the process didn't move along at your prescribed time table. Perhaps I can do better next time.
P.S. If you ever come to St. Louis, I recommend you try the toasted raviolis. We seem to be the only place you can get them. Be sure to get some extra parmesan cheese and extra marinara sauce. --- In [email protected], obbajeeba wrote: > > 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. > > >
