>
> --- In [email protected], anon_astute_ff <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > > Vaj does not only like to recycle old articles he once posted here
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Guruphiliac/message/825
> >
> > Is there a ban against selective cross-posting here?
>
> No, and did I say there should be one?
Well, you were not exactly complimenting Vaj for cross-posting. You
were not saying, "Hey, our own Vaj got a well-recieved post published
in a well-read blog, kudos to Vaj.". You appeared to be chastizing him
for posting similiar material in another forum, and imputing odd
motives for doing so.
My line, "Is there a ban against selective cross-posting here?" was a
rhetorical question. Sort of an assumed shorthand for "Is crossposting
that bad? Should there be there a ban against selective cross-posting
here?" I will try to be more literal in my responses in the future so
that you do not infer that I am such a dullard as to be thinking that
you said "Is there a ban against selective cross-posting here?" when a
second grader can see that you did not.
Please note that my post was
> more about the two followup posts of Vaj about the peculiar FFL scene
> which he doesn't have the guts to call by name.
Again, you are on the slippery slope of imputing motives. As Dr. Pete
has said (though not always practiced), no one can tell what the
inner state or motives of another are. Some feel that those who
impute motives often are telling us what they would do in such a
situation, and chastizing poster for the imputed motivations they fear
in themselves.
Why, in your view, the naming a particular satsang was important in
the context of his post, to that audience, boggles my mind. He was
making an admited limited observation about one satsang, and
hypothesied an interesting dynamic. What relevance is it whether it
was abc satsang, or xyz satsang, none of which most readers of the
blog would be familiar with.
> What I think is unfair
> is the way he characterizes dialoques going on here,
I think you are inncorrect. I don't believe his observations were
about FFL.
> in which he
> participated, in a onesided way, without giving references to the
> posts he is referring to, like I do it: I cite the posts so that
> everybody can look it up. Instead he promises to observe the scene,
> here,
Where in God's name did he promise to observe FFL?
>so that it can duely give food for Jodys blog, while everybody
> there could do that as well if he would just reference the posts he is
> talking about. My post was meant to be informative, so that you know
> waht is going on elsewhere.
Is your issue that you personally feel slighted by Vaj's post, and
that you personally feel diminished in the eyes of the readers of the
blog, because you were slighted and not able to have your personal
case presented to the blog? If so, I am amazed. Such would be quite
silly and refelctive of a very tender and weak ego I would guess --
which is not what I have found reflected in your prior posts.
What vaj posted was an interesting hypothesis of satsang dynamics --
that may or may not be relevant for all, many or any other satsangs.
>
> > On the
> > other hand, if an insight forms in a post on FFL, and the idea
> > develops over a month or two, and one submits a revised hopefully more
> > refined post on the same idea somewhere else, sometime later, where is
> > the harm. It seems to be a good thing, IMO.
>
> No argument with that. He is free to do so even though the post wasn't
> refined, and didn't include any of the possible answers to the topic
> here.
If he did not feel the "answers" to the topic posted previously here
as useful, why should he possibly feel obligated to include them in a
post to a seperate blog, about a seperate satsang? Your logic is
mind-boggling on this point.
>The first post, polemic as it may have been I didn't object to.
> Its more the follow up posts about the FFL scene, which he doesn't
> call by name, I wanted to simply inform you about. As I think he
> characterizes some posters here, and reports vaguely on some
> conversations, without giving even the slightest reference to the POV
> of the other side.
I do not follow your assertions at all. What FFL posts and their
posters did he "characterize" and their "conversations". I am totally
missing that.
>
> > > but also seeks recognition, for what he doesn't seem to get
here, and
> > > obviously with success
And you feel his motivation is recognition? Can we infer that
therefore your motivation for posting to FFL is "recognition"? If not,
why do you impute that motivation to Vaj?
> Well I do think people seek recognition for their ideas. Its normal,
> its human.
Then why are you dissing Vaj for doing so?
>Also Vaj imputes motives to the Satsang givers and takers,
I read it as a generalized, preliminary hypothesis based on limited
observation -- not comments about specific named individual. There is
quite a difference IMO.
>and then goes on to give
> as a very specific example the type of experience-sharing going on
> here.
???? He referred to FFL? My understanding, per his words, was he was
observing some live satsang, not FFL. If his hypothesis are also valid
for FFL, then it simly means his hypothesis may have some merit.
Please people feel free to share your innermost experiences of
> higher states, you'll soon find yourself charachterized on
> Guruphiliac's blog.
What a wierd conclusion. Non sequitur at the extreme.
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
SPONSORED LINKS
| Maharishi university of management | Maharishi mahesh yogi | Ramana maharshi |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
