> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <no_reply@> wrote:
> 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.
Nobody can know, obviously, *for sure*. But one can
often make a damn good guess based on observation of
past behavior and knowledge of a person's perspective.
To suggest we should never impute motives because we
can't know for sure is kind of absurd. If we spoke
only of things we were absolutely sure of, we'd be
left with very little to talk about.
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.
This is one of those facile generalizations that
folks tend to take as a given because it sounds so
learned. In my observation, those who propose it
often do so after someone has imputed a motive to
them that they don't find flattering (or, as in this
case, as a club to beat someone up with when they
have little of substance to say).
> 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.
He was asked by another participant which satsang it
was, and he was only too happy to respond. Not to
impute motives or anything, but it seemed to me he
was *hoping* someone would ask but knew it wouldn't
look good for him to identify it from the start.
> > 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.
According to Vaj, they weren't, but it's easy to see
how Trinity could have had they impression they were.
> > 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?
You just noted that Trinity was mistaken to think the
posts were about FFL. Knowing that he was in error,
why are you now expressing astonishment at a comment
that is obviously based on that error?
Vaj did promise to observe the gatherings that he was
talking about. Trinity thought, mistakenly, they were
about FFL, hence his comment above.
> > 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.
> 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.
His logic is entirely sound, given his error (which you have
already noted, so you can't be unaware of it) as to which
gathering the posts were about.
> >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.
Several of the participants in the satsangs in Fairfield
also post here and have described them extensively. So
even though Trinity was wrong in assuming Vaj's posts
were about FFL, he happens to be correct.
> > > > 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?
Vaj obviously seeks recognition for being a learned
expert on various enlightenment traditions and for
"mature, sobering" analysis of those he doesn't like.
I'll impute another motive: In my observation, Vaj
participates here, on alt.m.t, and now on Guruphiliac
primarily to have an opportunity to bash TM and MMY.
> >and then goes on to give
> > as a very specific example the type of experience-sharing going on
> > here.
> ???? He referred to FFL?
Again you pretend surprise when you already know Trinity
was mistaken as to which gathering Vaj was referring to.
On the other hand, the same type of experience-sharing
*does* go on here, so Trinity's comment is perfectly
accurate in that sense.
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
> 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.
Neither, given, as you already know, that Trinity was mistaken
about the specific satsang.
And in any case, Vaj has already said he'll consider
doing precisely what Trinity suggests.
To subscribe, send a message to:
Or go to:
and click 'Join This Group!'
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.