Yes, I don't really see the people on FFL lined up into the two camps you described, Turq, and I am not trying to heal Judy. I see nothing in Judy that needs fixing, any more than I see anything in you that needs fixing. I didn't find when I tried to point out her a-priori enlightenment, that she just "got mad." Rather, she showed me rich and lovely multisensory layers of a particle-self of mine that had *not* been loved before -- including constriction, stagnation, suffocation, deep shame, and finally, beneath it all, Love. That's how the process usually works for me -- I introduce a Truth, process the bodymind's objections, and discover a deeper and richer synthesis as all my particles come to Understand and be Understood in a whole new light.
That's my *only* "goal" in communicating with anyone here -- to find more of my unloved and underappreciated particles and to Understand and Love them, and thereby to be Understood and Loved -- to expand, to grow in simplicity, while simultaneously becoming more rich and subtle and nuanced and complex. It's fun -- generally delightful and immensely rewarding. I do this because for me there is no real difference between a small self and a large Self. Loving the small self is feeding oblations to the large Self, expanding the influence of the large Self, helping the Immense and the infinitesimal to appreciate each other as two sides of the same coin. Being Shiva, utterly free, includes adoring Shakti -- every particle of Creation -- as Shiva's bodymind, the perfect Lover. Whether any of this has *any* bearing on what *you guys* go through, "out there, outside of me" -- if there *is* an "out there, outside of me" -- is of no real import to me; it's not my business; it can't be my business. Shalom Shanti Shanti! :-) --- In [email protected], new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I quite view things differently than you. First, as far as the TB camp > assumption, the TB's agreeing with everything she writes, is silly > since she writes on many things other than TM. And we all appear to > have differnt defs of TB. In mine, Judy is hardly a TB.Just beacuse > someone likes something doesn't make them a TB, IMO. > > Second, if those in the so-called healers group, really do belive they > are healers, which other than you and perhaps rory, I doubt, I would > suggest they "heal thyself first", take out the log sitting in their > own eye before commenting on, judging, and attempting to remove a > small splinter in Judy's eye. > > Third, I think there is a significant third group, you are the king -- > or rogue leader of the scoundrels :), who find nothing better to amuse > themselves with than to regularly bait Judy (despite your repeated > vows to not do so, to not read her posts, to not give her > "attention"). Why Judy regularly takes the bait is mystifying to me, > but to each their own. As I said, some posts are not worthy of a > response -- and yours and others' baiting posts are core examples of > such. And that you find your baiting amusing is even more > mystifying. I find it pretty childish if not mean spirited. > > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > Rory, with all due respect, you're not exactly > > > > tuned in here. > > > > > > You're right! I'm not tuned in to agree completely with > > > what *you* are saying. It's not that I didn't understand > > > it; I was offering a different look at it. > > > > You still don't understand, Rory! That makes > > you WRONG!!! There IS only one way of looking > > at things, the Judy Way. Anything else is > > delusion or mean-spiritedness, and if it's > > repeated several times after she's "refuted" > > it by expressing the RIGHT way of looking at > > things, the repetition becomes lying. > > > > Face it, dude...you're on the road to becoming > > Yet Another FFL Liar. :-) > > > > > To rephrase: I am suggesting that what Barry *says* he > > > wants, and what he *really* wants, may not be the same > > > thing. He *says* he wants people to ignore you... > > > > Just to pour some gasoline on the fire :-), that's > > not precisely what I said recently. What I did was > > express in words what already seems to be happening. > > Most folks on this forum already ignore her, and > > never bother to respond to her posts. On the whole, > > the only people who still DO respond fall into two > > categories. The first is the TBs who agree with her > > because she's a TM TB, one of the few left on the > > forum; this group would include Nablus and Off and > > Jim and occasionally others. > > > > The second group consists of those (in my *opinion*) > > who, although they may be fools for doing so, still > > have some hope that there really IS a human being > > inside Judy Stein somewhere, and that if they try > > long enough, someday they might actually help it to > > "come out of its closet" and express itself. This > > group -- whom I henceforth dub as The Compassion > > Group -- consists of you, Shemp, Vaj, Rick, Curtis, > > myself, and a few others. > > > > Just as a matter of definition, the first group is > > always RIGHT; the second group is always WRONG. :-) > > > > But the second group has more fun, because they > > won't give up on someone who has gone to extra- > > ordinary lengths to get them TO give up on her. > > > > You want to see Judy REALLY hit the roof? Express > > compassion towards her. Watch what happens. In fact, > > watch how she reacts to this post of yours. > > > > > ...what he may really want, is to continue to engage you, > > > to "nip" you -- to do whatever it takes to irritate and > > > get a rise out of you, virtually regardless of the seeming > > > content of his posts. If so, I'd say his tactics appear > > > to be working beautifully, and have been *for years*. > > > N'est-ce pas? > > > > I'd have to say that this is a valid way of seeing > > things, with one minor correction. I rarely try to > > engage with the "you" you refer to above, the self > > that has Judy firmly under its control, and that > > has made her a prisoner of its machinations, an > > automaton that "has" to compulsively lash out at > > any way of seeing things except her own. I occas- > > ionally try to speak to the Self that she really is, > > but that doesn't really work, as you found out > > earlier on FFL. All she does is *get mad* when you > > remind her that she's already enlightened. > > > > So in lieu of being able to speak to the Self, I > > occasionally may taunt the self that has her in its > > control, to (as you say) get a rise out of it, to > > get it to *act out* its silly fantasies in public > > *even more*, and thus get *laughed at* by more people. > > It is my fervent spiritual belief that the more people > > laugh at one's self, the greater the chance that > > someday the self will become able to laugh at itself. > > The corollary belief, of course, is that a self that > > can laugh at itself is a Good Thing. > > > > . . . > > > > > > But I don't care in the slightest if he ignores > > > > me; I'll continue to comment on his sophistry as > > > > I see fit. > > > > > > As well you should! What good is one hand clapping? > > > > It kinda depends upon what it's clapped around, > > n'est-ce pas? If the one hand is clapping on thin > > air, not much happens. On the other hand, if one > > claps one hand on one's sexual organs, a great > > deal can happen. :-) > > > > It is my position that the neverending game of > > "proving" that the small s self is RIGHT, and that > > other small s selves are WRONG is a lot like the > > second "one hand clapping." It's mental mastur- > > bation. As long as that one hand is clapping away > > at all that sensitive erectile tissue, the self can > > pretend that it exists. It "knows" that it exists, > > because it's literally playing with its self. :-) > > > > There may even be a sense of momentary pleasure or > > fulfillment as a result OF self playing with its > > self by doing the one-hand-clapping boogie. A little > > sigh here ("I'm *important*; I stood up for 'truth' > > and 'righteousness' and 'honesty' and others didn't."), > > a little orgasm here and there ("I *won* the argument.") > > But in the end it all comes down to self playing with > > its self. And in public. Except for a few pervs, nobody > > is really terribly interested in watching someone else > > "clap off" in public. > > > > And when someone from The Compassion Group points out, > > compassionately, that all this self clapping self > > stuff looks -- from another point of view -- a *lot* > > like clapping in thin air, and accomplishes just about > > as much in the long run, well the self has a *chance* > > to reflect, and to decide whether to continue abusing > > itself (and others) in public. > > > > Chances are that a self that has been masturbating in > > public for 12-13 years without a letup IS going to > > continue doing so. One of the toughest things in the > > world to change is a chronic, compulsive masturbator. > > But that doesn't mean you can't try, from time to > > time. The *smart* thing to do would be to leave the > > masturbating fiend alone and let her keep clapping > > away. But the *compassionate* thing might be to, from > > time to time, remind her that she's just one more > > self playing with itself, and not accomplishing much > > more than if she *were* masturbating in public. > > > > I applaud your attempt to be compassionate with Judy > > from time to time, Rory. It kinda balances out my > > version of compassion, which is to occasionally taunt > > the self into masturbating even more furiously. Hope- > > fully one of us will "get through" someday, and she'll > > be able to realize Self and get over all this silly > > self stuff. Maybe not. But at least we tried, *even > > though* she's done her best to keep us from trying. > > >
