Share, save your fingers. You simply do not have the mental capacity to understand a reasoned argument. And I don't have the patience or the stamina to attempt to clue you in.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > 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 <authfriend@...> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 1:23 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditators > > > > Â > --- 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.) >
