Good Lord, Judy, can you really not see how you praise Robin yet not Rory for what seems to me to be the same combo of strong and vulnerable?! Oh right, ONLY Robin is strong yet vulnerable. Rory, in contrast, according to you, gets hurt by a few criticisms and, from another post, appears to be invulnerable. IMHO you are the Queen of Double Standards!
________________________________ From: authfriend <authfri...@yahoo.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 1:23 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditators --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea <no_reply@> wrote: (snip) > > > Judy, I get what you are saying. And I wasn't giving out my > > > opinion right away. But you have to take into account, that > > > we are not talking here about anybody. We are talking here > > > about somebody who claims the highest state of enlightenment, > > > > Claimed it *as of 35 years ago*. > > No, right here, he was still making appeals to have special > insight into, what he called people's first persons ontology. But not on the basis of being enlightened. His whole *point* was that anyone could cultivate this kind of insight. > You yourself believed him to be still in a sort of enlighetend > state (as you wrote to me in one of those mails.) As I said, you are leaving out part of what I told you. (snip) > > > So at some point, rightly or wrongly, I felt that I had to > > > make my own position clear, not being vague, and people knew, > > > I was hiding my opinion, and called me out on that. That was > > > right or wrong, but I did it. I am not the ultimate judge > > > over him, and I am not the first. > > > > > > And please note, I didn't do it out of aggression or > > > to hurt him. > > > > Sorry, I don't believe you. I think you wanted to punish > > him for having the nerve, in your view, to claim to have > > been enlightened. > > See, Judy, that's really what makes you so weird, you believe > you know peoples motivations, and come up with the most absurd > theory. What makes you so sure about this rubbish you just said? Your behavior generally on this forum, and the angry vibes behind your posts to and about him. > > Same with Barry. > > Now that's the point! That says more about you than you > think. A clear give away. thank you. Uh-huh. That's real convincing, iranitea. (snip) > > In any case, *you* didn't think he'd ever been enlightened, > > so you can't use what I thought as an excuse. > > No, you are wrong. I clearly considered the possibility. And decided against it. > > The guy had > > been through hell for 25-plus years, in seclusion, beating > > himself up for what he'd done, trying to get his head on > > straight, and finally being successful. > > According to his own dramatic testimony. Now, IF he has been > so cruel to himself, casting himself into this situation, > what am I to blame for? If he really went through all this, > really and honestly, how could my feeble opinion, me, a > nobody, have disturbed him? I can't believe you have so little empathy. Look at Rory, just now, who claims to be in *Brahman* consciousness, if not beyond. Apparently he was badly hurt by a few criticisms from the folks here. Robin just gritted his teeth and carried on, but it seems pretty clear to me he was upset by all the crap he was getting from you and Barry and especially from Vaj. I suspect that's why he got the attributions mixed up in that post. > If he could take Maharishis 'Madman' with a straight face, > and continue his act, rent a helicopter, how could such a > man be possibly lose balance by my thinking he is borderline? At that time he was in a significantly altered state of consciousness and had been for some years. His experience was that he was simply a tool carrying out the cosmic plan, that his own will had no role to play and was essentially not functioning. He doesn't have that experience any longer. It's what he spent 25 years working to get rid of, at enormous personal cost. My sense of him is that he's an extremely vulnerable person, in the sense of being open to whatever comes at him, but also an immensely *strong* person, who is able to absorb very harsh blows without losing it. That doesn't mean the blows don't affect him; it just means he doesn't fall apart from the discomfort. > (Which I had meant literally with a state, between the different states.) > > > He deserved bouquets, not brickbats. > > If he was honest. But everything about him was over-dramatized. That's your opinion; it says nothing about his basic honesty. What he'd gone through was dramatic from anybody's perspective, in any case. > > He was nothing but courteous to > > you even in his response to your hostile challenge to his > > integrity. > > Well, it was up to him. He could have been more successful, > if you weren't so outraged. (snicker) That response was written well before I became so outraged. And you replied to it very positively, apparently deciding to hide your real feelings about him. He saw right through you, though, and told you so in that post (the one with the mistaken attributions). > > > I knew - I KNEW - he could digest it. He would have been > > > above that. If not, it would have been better he stopped > > > right here. > > > > What does "stopped right here" mean in this context? > > In this case, confront his game, his one-up-manship he > played with people here. He didn't play that game any more than many others here, yourself (and myself) included. (He did play it *better* than most of the rest of us, however.)
