> > 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.
As I already told you, the first url wasn't so much my concern, and I
wouldn't have cared to inform anybody about this. What I wanted people
to know, was the other two Urls were he mentions 'an anonymous group'
of 'former mahesh students'. So thats it! Thats all from my side. I
took a cynical tone, and you may complain about it,okay no problem.
Obviously I thought this to refer to things going on here, as for
sure, there are several Satsang goers here at the forum, input here
has more than one time be called Satsang, and we were talking about
the very topics he mentioned, like the need to prove one's
enlightenment, as he said, those people are averse to it, or the
exhibition of sdhis as proof thereof. In any case, if his comments
were not directly reflecting discussions here, there is still a number
of people here involved in them, so that this is a relevent info to them.
Of course my 'judgements' were made under the impression that he was
directly commenting on FFL, nevertheless in part that may have been.
> 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.
No need to be more literal, but it served my point that the whole
thing is not about cross-posting.
> 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.
Maybe Mr Psychologist. This discussion environment is not such
sterile, that polemics or sarcasm are banned, Vajs piece, that you
defend is proof thereof. Yet this was not what the post was about.
> 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.
If it would have been about an open discussion group like FFL it would
have been. I didn't yet know about the phone Satsang, but if you
insinuate things, like he mentions this anonymous group, and offers to
rveal more details and research into it, it would be just right to
name things properly.
> > 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.
Well, that was a misunderstanding. Yet lines like: "..which is
interesting because none of these people can demonstrate a siddhi to
prove that. They are without exception very averse to the idea of
criteria or testing or recognition by their own teacher." clearly
reflect recent discussions here.
> > 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?
No need to get personal, Anon. I am not here among the Satsang goers,
nor am I a claimant to enlightenment.
> 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.
Now you are into analyzing motives. It seems to me that you aren't
against crossposting. So your complaint is really about the style of
my post, right?
> 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.
Any refinement could in fact include answers to possible objections.
But then the article would have been less polemic. But as I said: its
not about that first post.
> >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.
Well there have been discussions here about the nature of immediate
enlightenment, possible tests or the need to prove it. (he said many
are averse to that), and about Satsangs either in this forum or in
Fairfield.
> > > > 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.
Not really, your last sentence is illogical, read it again. You may
describe a situation, which is similar to that here, that is you
description applies here, but it doesn't follow that your
interpretation applies.
> 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.
No just plain sarcasm, on the assumption that he described this forum.
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.
