On Mar 8, 2006, at 2:12 PM, t3rinity wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <no_reply@> wrote: >> >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <no_reply@> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Maybe first learn reading what a person actually has said, >>>> and don't just dump on him once he appears. Once more: my >>>> post is not about the difference of opinions about Maharishi >>>> that Michael and Irmeli have, but about her dumping on the >>>> devotional attidute per se. That in itself is an intolerance, >>>> and it is your intolerance of even disallowing to bring this >>>> angle up. Poor you! >>>> >>> >>> In fact you are like the dog in the cattle manger: You have >>> no use of Bhakti yourself, and dump on those who enjoy it. >>> >> >> I have a great respect for bhakti, when its adnerents >> actually practice it and don't use it as an excuse to >> feed their own victim fetish. >> > > First: Bhakti is not necessarily something you need to practise, but > it is something you have or don't have. it has something to do with > appreciation. In the case of Michael Goodman, it is clear that his > appreciation of MMY has something to do with graditude and love, and > not with 'ego' as Irmeli wrongly proposed. > Second: I don't feed a victim fetish (gosh, what are you doing here > all the time!), but just point out something which seems obvious to > me, and I feel every right to do so, just like anybody here. Now > suddenly everybody here is full of respect for bhakti, why otherwise > this topic *never* comes up in any of your or Irmelis posts. Love of > Guru, appreciation of a teaching, dedication to a certain cause is > without exception ridiculed here on this board by people like you. I > just point this out. Continue if you want, I don't care. But people > talking so much about 'authentic' teachings, should just know a little > bit about authentic teachings. > > >> I think that's what you >> are doing. Irmeli didn't dump on bhakti; that's just >> how you interpreted her words so you could feel offended >> and slip into outraged victim mode again. IMO, of course. >> > > Of course. No, that appreciation of Michael IS Bhakti; sure, it's a > defense, a rationalization, but from a POV of apprecitation. Get to > his arguments, no problemo. But refrain from dumping on his reverence. > Thats all. Get it? >
This kind of Bhakti? Is addiction or attachment to Bhakti considered desirable? http://www.polyamoryonline.org/interviews/poly_interview_120905.html ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
