[FairfieldLife] Re: Prometheus trailer

[Ravi Chivukula]

Dear Bob,
"This next one is for Robin and Ravi; without you two, this place just
isn't the same. "
What can I say - FFL has been long dominated by the troika of Barry, the
mediocre reviewer, Vaj, the liar and Curtis, the messiah of intellectual
dishonesty posing as great writers, great minds on this list - they have
always been able to entice, enthrall and entertain the retards of this
list such as Steve, Barry2, Rick and the likes..LOL..that is until you
came on board. Your posts are always so creative, so full of love,
hitting these torch bearers of mediocrity pretty hard. Coupled with your
genuine love, humility, and understanding of spirituality - that is
indeed a very rare combination.
I might not be able to comment on every single post of yours, but then
our relationship is such and I'm in awe of your talents :-)
Love,Ravi

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price  wrote:
>
> below
> 
> From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 8:03:12 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Prometheus trailer
>
> Ridley Scott is a sometimes great filmmaker, but he
> got his start in advertising, so he is a genius at
> trailers. Here's his first trailer for the upcoming
> prequel to "Alien," which manages to entice without
> giving away any of the plot:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sftuxbvGwiU
>
> Turn it up to 720p and go full screen. The trailer
> is so good, there is actually a trailer for the
> trailer.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch_hhDLtrFE
>
> Check out the credits. Noomi Rapace (the original
> Girl With A Dragon Tattoo), Charlize Theron, Michael
> Fassbender, Guy Pearce, and Idris Elba. One to look
> forward to.
>
>
> ***BP:
>
>
>
> Barry,
>
> Happy New Year Bro, hope that *hot* date didn't disappoint. I
> apologize for my neglect over the holidays, but I'm back and
enthusiastically
> ready to follow you "where no poster has gone before".
>
> I trust you know how much some of us are rooting for you to
> make it as a film reviewer. I think its completely understandable for
you to be
> practicing to be a film reviewer on a forum about spirituality, that
is named
> for a town, where many people practice a technique you stopped
practicing
> nearly *40* years ago. I also believe the voice you employ, which
seems to
> assume there are no televisions in America, may have legs. For this
reason I
> think it's important, whenever we can, that we lend you a hand with
the reviews:
>
> "The forum that reviews together, stays together", sort of thing.
>
> For starters, mentioning that Ridley Scott got his start in
> "advertising" might be considered one of those "duh"
> moments since most current Hollywood directors have made television
commercials
> at one time or another during their careers. Your readers might find
it more
> interesting if you mentioned RS actually got his start as a
*production
> designer* in the early 60's, a good ten years before his television
commercial
> period, and that the quality of the *production design*, in his films,
is what
> sets his work apart from many of his peers.
>
> You could also mention that this was more than demonstrated
> in "Blade Runner" (many production designers consider this an
> immersion course in production design) and "Alien", where Scott's
> artistic sense as a *production designer* lead to his brilliant
decision to attach
> Swiss graphic artist HR GIGER to the Alien project, whose work, in
many ways,
> made the film so visually exceptional. You might also point out that
prior to
> Giger's work, on Alien, most people had never considered the fusion of
organisms,
> and organic materials with industrial machinery, and technology;
today, because
> of Alien, and the many movies that copied it's pioneering work, the
public take
> this sort of visual fantasy for granted.Â
>
> You could also point out that Scott has been quoted as
> saying "Texas Chainsaw Massacre", not "Star Wars" was the
> antecedent he referenced in making Alien. It might also be of interest
> to mention the script was kicked around Hollywood for nearly ten
years, and almost
> everything from the original story changed except for the chest
bursting scene
> which kept the Producers trying to green light it. .
>
> Scott was a British unknown when he was invited to Hollywood
> and offered the project with a $2 million budget, which obviously
(good to
> throw in a few of these in your style of review) in 1978, was not the
micro
> budget it is today. After reading the script it took Scott a week to
produce a
> storyboard (again the production design thang) that convinced the
producers to
> increase the budget from 2M to 11M. One of the reasons the Alien
sequels, with
> much bigger budgets, have never achieved the brilliance of the
original is that
> they have never achieved the authenticity of the world Scott, and
Giger created.
>
> Scott does not pretend to be a writer; his noble failures
> can usually 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Prometheus trailer

[Ravi Chivukula]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price bobpriced@ wrote:
> 
> > ***This next one is for Robin and Ravi; without you two,
> > this place just isn’t the same.
>
> I have a bad feeling neither of them is coming back.
> What a loss, if so. Thank goodness you and Emily are
> still here.
Dear Judy - thanks for your love and understanding. Your feeling was
correct but something changed and caused me to post again - but I don't
know how long though. Since I don't know how long I will keep posting,
I'm clear in one thing - I'm just going to avoid lot of posters a
technique straight out of King Baby Barry's manual of childish
interactions, just like Steve who has been obsessing over me today - I
will just ignore him, because I have said enough, I have humiliated him
enough. But he seems to be a perverse masochist, then again that kind of
attachment to a simple yogi like me can never be a bad thing.
So I will let him bark at elephants, chase cars, run around in circles
chasing his tail, be like the attention seeking child that he wants to
be. It's actually a good thing !!!

[FairfieldLife] ATB - Ecstasy

[Emily Reyn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFhZSo0dbao&feature=related


Thank you FFL - do you realize I am dropping weight.  This is the best diet 
plan I could have hoped for.  My closest friends can't figure out what is going 
on, but they acknowledge I am looking much better.  "Hot."  I just laugh.  I 
laugh a lot actually.  Emily

[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[Ravi Chivukula]

No worries, words are always limiting and it only causes more questions.
Trust me when I say this, my own intellect constantly challenges its own
statements and opinions. So whatever I say can never be the truth or the
final truth. You don't have to respond till you make sense of it or have
more questions. Remember you are at 43 posts now :-).

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn 
wrote:
>
> WaitI've had all I can take...I need to think about this statement
below in the context of what you are saying. Â
>
> "Humiliation is only a quality of the relative not of the
essence."Â
>
> I'm not sure about this statement below either. Â I'm not sure you
will be the "first" person to do this..."soothingly"...I don't know that
that was actually your first response when confronted...someone on this
forum might beat you to it :)Â
>
> "And I will be the first person, if needed to soothe, love, apply
medicine Denise."Â
>
> >
> > From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@...
> >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> >Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 10:09 PM
> >Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter
to Ravi Chivukula
> >
> >
> >Â
> >And I will be the first person, if needed to soothe, love, apply
medicine Denise. You are a mother, you will easily understand this - the
fact that you can hurt your child and then unconditionally love, soothe
them a little later.
> >
> >
> >That's why I always used to laugh at liberals, the ones who were
single childless, their fascination for projecting non-violence, peace,
non-violent communication on to others. Their furious, feverish efforts
to numb themselves, insulate themselves from pain by trying to control
the whole world used to be so hilarious and fascinating to me.
> >
> >
> >
> >On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:55 PM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote:
> >
> >
> >Thanks Denise. Well because if the other throws his shit at me I
sometimes double down and throw it back at them.
> >>
> >>
> >>Again humiliation from their perspective. Humiliation is only a
quality of the relative not of the essence. I'm not that egotistic to
think I can ever taint, or humiliate the truth. Well the truth is
essentially untouched like I say.
> >>
> >>
> >>I feel I only attack their beliefs, their personality, together with
socially, morally inappropriate curse words thrown to complete the shock
treatment but for the other it's a humiliation because they are so
identified with it.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:43 PM, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>Â
> >>>AlrightI might buy most of this.I am "taken in" by
you...you have pushed me and I appreciate that. Â But, while I do
understand the concept that you might feel the other persons pain after
humiliating themwhy choose that tactic? Â It's not clear to me
how humiliation really serves anyone except yourself possibly. Â
> >>><
> >>>P.S. Â I might be close on my posts. Â When the post count
goes out...what is UT...how do I translate that to Pacific Time?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> 
>  From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@...
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 9:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance]
Letter to Ravi Chivukula
> 
> 
> Â
> And Denise, yes Winner from the perspective of the one who wanted
to challenge me. Now having humiliated this person, I feel that person's
emotions - hurt, pain, anger, because they are another part of me, how
can I not feel hurt?
> 
> 
> But I am able to quickly internalize and transform these emotions,
both mine and the other. I feel joy and blissful very quickly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:19 PM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@...
wrote:
> 
> 
> "
> >Hm..the "winner" huh. Â Your statement here is a
bit convoluted. Â If you have no agenda, then why do you have to
"win." Â You make some assumptions here about "the person who
approaches
> you.".."
> >
> >
> >Ravi - Approaches with an agenda that is, as in to confront me.
Winner only from their perspective. I don't care either way, but the
choice to play or withdraw with my playful humor or entice them with my
love is entirely up to my intuition.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >"Yes"if you so desire" you can use whatever tactics please
you."you remain untouched." Â This is your reality then? "
> >
> >
> >Yes. Since I'm ever alert I just adapt seamlessly, a bit
unruffled at first on a completely new situation but never throws me off
balance. It's work in progress anyway, I will only get better.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:10 PM, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote:
> >
> >
> >Â
> >>
> >>Anyway my 99 cents on this. The only way anyone can approach m

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Third Open Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[Ravi Chivukula]

Dear Robin,
I'm in agreement with most of your comments, as I have said in the past
your exceptional intellect and intuition has come closest to explaining
the context of my behavior under the influence of this impersonal energy
for a lack of better term. The reason why I pay so much high compliment
is not because you are praising me, in fact I don't actually take it as
a praise because this energy that you are trying to deconstruct is not
mine that is doesn't belong to the body, mind, intellect and personality
of me. And I have struggled, as in my intellect has struggled over the
last two years to comprehend, explain my behavior and trust me you,
Judy, Jim, Rory and others have all helped me tremendously in this
regard. Helping my intellect to understand this better, the level of
growth my intellect has gone through in the last 2 years has been
tremendous.
That said a lot has happened in just the last month which has added new
understanding, maturity to my intellect  which may influence the way I
proceed to answer some of your questions.
"But was that violation a violation of the truth, of the the actual
integrity of that person?"
Like you said - no. I don't think the truth can be touched, tainted or
tarnished in anyway. Because the person(s) I attack have so much
emotional investment in their personalities it always feels very
personal to them but I don't feel any sense of guilt or regret at what I
do.
" Of course people are compelled (how could they not be?) to diagnose
you as pathological, as frail, as unstable—and certainly from what I
gather from your past, they have some justifiable basis to proceed under
this assumption;"
My previous Unity experience or Kundalini descenscion or whatever else
you might want to label it, the one during April- May 2010 , hit me
pretty hard, me as in hit my body, mind, intellect, ego pretty hard.
Psychosis was the vehicle that enabled my body, mind, intellect, ego to
transition this. In fact I actually did pretty well during the time when
I was being invaded, in the phase of this violent digestion. It was only
after that I suffered a lot. As in my intellect trying to piece together
the puzzle took me bouts of alternating pain, bliss over a period of 3
months. I was finally at peace by September 2010 having made sense of,
processed, healed, integrated this energy to functioining at the higher
state of consciousness that I now found myself operating under.
"After all, merely telling the truth about someone, what good can that
do unless there is some remedial principle that is offered at the same
time? But I suppose that is not in your 'dharma' [:-)]"
You cannot see this but I can feel the presence of a remedial principle.
I quickly internalize the intensity of emotions that arise in me and the
persons I'm provoking which soon envelopes me with sweet bliss. It is
clearly an intensely subjective experience of mine. So my intellect can
positively say that there is a remedy being offered though might not be
apparent to the other immediately.
"No, there you leave me in the dust, because it seems this RMT (Ravi
Mode of Transgression) originates even outside of yourself, or beyond
yourself. You are not personally connected to the human being Ravi when
this happens; but I suppose that is what gives your transgressiveness
its potency, its seeming accuracy. ""But when you examine very
closely the actual state of Ravi Chivukula when he does this, there is,
ladies and gentlemen nothing psychologically going on inside Ravi
Chivukula which correlates with the sense of how extreme and outre this
behaviour is."..."What is it like to be Ravi when you become the
instrument of this inspiration to pull the trigger on the RTM? Are you
essentially a witness to this?"
You are quite right, while I'm in the act of trangressing clearly my
body, my mind, intellect, my personality and strengths are being used to
transgress however it is originating outside of the body, mind,
intellect. There is an element of transcendence or witnessing as I go
through it. But the emotions are intensified, for example when I read
Rick's letter where he threatened to cut me off, I was steaming and
furious. You can say I was totally under the grip of the energy of
anger, yet I was on the phone with some one talking nicely. Soit is a
highly internal subjective yet has certain physical symptoms such as my
whole body is hot with anger.
In fact all my emotions prior to enlightenment were very superficial.
People think they love, hate, they get angry but it is very superficial
because it is all tempered by social, moral, ethical sensibilities and
so most emotions are purely intellectual. Even sex is very mental till
orgasm, Whereas after enlightenment I totally feel the emotions, the
emotions are not tempered by any moral, ethical sensibilities or beliefs
in concepts such as sin, Karma, God etc. If I indulge in sex it will be
very animalistic, totally at thebody level with no burden from my mind,
no guilt, no shame, no

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[Emily Reyn]

Thank you.  That helps tremendously, nowas soon as I finish reading:

"The humiliation of Christ: in its physical, ethical, and official aspects."

and, internalize what you've said this evening...because I have to get out 
of my head to really do that...I'll get back to you...or, maybe not :)  

Love, ~Em...





>
> From: Ravi Chivukula 
>To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
>Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 10:18 PM
>Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi 
>Chivukula
> 
>
>  
>"
I might be close on my posts.  When the post count goes out...what is UT...how 
do I translate that to Pacific Time? "
>
>
>You have made 41 posts so far, the post count for standard time would be till 
>4:00 PM PT and in the Summer till 5 PM. You can go to the group's main page to 
>get the details on the post count 
>- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/messages.
>
>
>
>--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>>
>> AlrightI might buy most of this.I am "taken in" by you...you have 
>> pushed me and I appreciate that.  But, while I do understand the concept 
>> that you might feel the other persons pain after humiliating themwhy 
>> choose that tactic?  It's not clear to me how humiliation really serves 
>> anyone except yourself possibly.  
>> <
>> P.S.  I might be close on my posts.  When the post count goes out...what 
>> is UT...how do I translate that to Pacific Time?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> >
>> > From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@...
>> >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
>> >Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 9:37 PM
>> >Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to 
>> >Ravi Chivukula
>> > 
>> >
>> >  
>> >And Denise, yes Winner from the perspective of the one who wanted to 
>> >challenge me. Now having humiliated this person, I feel that person's 
>> >emotions - hurt, pain, anger, because they are another part of me, how can 
>> >I not feel hurt?
>> >
>> >
>> >But I am able to quickly internalize and transform these emotions, both 
>> >mine and the other. I feel joy and blissful very quickly.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:19 PM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >"
>> >>Hm..the "winner" huh.  Your statement here is a bit 
>> >>convoluted.  If you have no agenda, then why do you have to "win."  You 
>> >>make some assumptions here about "the person who approaches you.".."
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Ravi - Approaches with an agenda that is, as in to confront me. Winner 
>> >>only from their perspective. I don't care either way, but the choice to 
>> >>play or withdraw with my playful humor or entice them with my love is 
>> >>entirely up to my intuition.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>"Yes"if you so desire" you can use whatever tactics please 
>> >>you."you remain untouched."  This is your reality then? "
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Yes. Since I'm ever alert I just adapt seamlessly, a bit unruffled at 
>> >>first on a completely new situation but never throws me off balance. It's 
>> >>work in progress anyway, I will only get better.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:10 PM, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>  
>> >>>
>> >>>Anyway my 99 cents on this. The only way anyone can approach me, 
>> >>>understand me, conquer me is through love.  
>> >>><
>> >>>I know this Ravi.  This is true for all humans, in the end.  This is 
>> >>>why I sent you that painting - it really is a beautiful piece (IMHO).  I 
>> >>>think Bob understood what I was saying as he was the only one to respond, 
>> >>>except for your initial response.  It was not at all about my fixation 
>> >>>with the male sex organ (and I do not have a fixation btw).  Robin 
>> >>>thought someone should meet you where you were at...that was my attempt :)
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>If someone approaches me with an agenda to one up me, with a belief, 
>> >>>through the intellect I will always be the winner because I myself have 
>> >>>no agenda, no beliefs so this person who approaches me thus is completely 
>> >>>vulnerable to my attacks. If I so desire I will use my toxic tongue and 
>> >>>caustic sarcasm to humiliate them or may be like Barry says rip them a 
>> >>>new asshole or I may just my playful detached humor to escape or use my 
>> >>>unconditional love to spoil them with attention, love, humility and 
>> >>>kindness. Either way I remain untouched, untainted, untarnished by 
>> >>>anything outside of me.
>> >>><
>> >>>Hm..the "winner" huh.  Your statement here is a bit 
>> >>>convoluted.  If you have no agenda, then why do you have to "win."  You 
>> >>>make some assumptions here about "the person who approaches you." 
>> >>> Yes"if you so desire" you can use whatever tactics please 
>> >>>you."you remain untouched."  This is your reality then? 
>> >>>
>> >>>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[Emily Reyn]

WaitI've had all I can take...I need to think about this statement below in 
the context of what you are saying.  

"Humiliation is only a quality of the relative not of the essence." 

I'm not sure about this statement below either.  I'm not sure you will be the 
"first" person to do this..."soothingly"...I don't know that that was actually 
your first response when confronted...someone on this forum might beat you to 
it :) 

"And I will be the first person, if needed to soothe, love, apply medicine 
Denise." 

>
> From: Ravi Chivukula 
>To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
>Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 10:09 PM
>Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi 
>Chivukula
> 
>
>  
>And I will be the first person, if needed to soothe, love, apply medicine 
>Denise. You are a mother, you will easily understand this - the fact that you 
>can hurt your child and then unconditionally love, soothe them a little later.
>
>
>That's why I always used to laugh at liberals, the ones who were single 
>childless, their fascination for projecting non-violence, peace, non-violent 
>communication on to others. Their furious, feverish efforts to numb 
>themselves, insulate themselves from pain by trying to control the whole world 
>used to be so hilarious and fascinating to me.
>
>
>
>On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:55 PM, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
>
>
>Thanks Denise. Well because if the other throws his shit at me I sometimes 
>double down and throw it back at them.
>>
>>
>>Again humiliation from their perspective. Humiliation is only a quality of 
>>the relative not of the essence. I'm not that egotistic to think I can ever 
>>taint, or humiliate the truth. Well the truth is essentially untouched like I 
>>say.
>>
>>
>>I feel I only attack their beliefs, their personality, together with 
>>socially, morally inappropriate curse words thrown to complete the shock 
>>treatment but for the other it's a humiliation because they are so identified 
>>with it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:43 PM, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>>
>>
>>  
>>>AlrightI might buy most of this.I am "taken in" by you...you have 
>>>pushed me and I appreciate that.  But, while I do understand the concept 
>>>that you might feel the other persons pain after humiliating themwhy 
>>>choose that tactic?  It's not clear to me how humiliation really serves 
>>>anyone except yourself possibly.  
>>><
>>>P.S.  I might be close on my posts.  When the post count goes out...what is 
>>>UT...how do I translate that to Pacific Time?
>>>
>>>
>>>

 From: Ravi Chivukula 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 9:37 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to 
Ravi Chivukula
 

  
And Denise, yes Winner from the perspective of the one who wanted to 
challenge me. Now having humiliated this person, I feel that person's 
emotions - hurt, pain, anger, because they are another part of me, how can 
I not feel hurt?


But I am able to quickly internalize and transform these emotions, both 
mine and the other. I feel joy and blissful very quickly.





On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:19 PM, Ravi Chivukula  
wrote:


"
>Hm..the "winner" huh.  Your statement here is a bit 
>convoluted.  If you have no agenda, then why do you have to "win."  You 
>make some assumptions here about "the person who approaches
you.".."
>
>
>Ravi - Approaches with an agenda that is, as in to confront me. Winner 
>only from their perspective. I don't care either way, but the choice to 
>play or withdraw with my playful humor or entice them with my love is 
>entirely up to my intuition.
>
>
>
>
>"Yes"if you so desire" you can use whatever tactics please 
>you."you remain untouched."  This is your reality then? "
>
>
>Yes. Since I'm ever alert I just adapt seamlessly, a bit unruffled at 
>first on a completely new situation but never throws me off balance. It's 
>work in progress anyway, I will only get better.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:10 PM, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>
>
>  
>>
>>Anyway my 99 cents on this. The only way anyone can approach me, 
>>understand me, conquer me is through love.  
>><
>>I know this Ravi.  This is true for all humans, in the end.  This is why 
>>I sent you that painting - it really is a beautiful piece (IMHO).  I 
>>think Bob understood what I was saying as he was the only one to respond, 
>>except for your initial response.  It was not at all about my fixation 
>>with the male sex organ (and I do not have a fixation btw).  Robin 
>>thought someone should meet you where you were at...that was my attempt :)
>>
>>
>>
>>If 

[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[Ravi Chivukula]

" I might be close on my posts. Â When the post count goes out...what
is UT...how do I translate that to Pacific Time? "
You have made 41 posts so far, the post count for standard time would be
till 4:00 PM PT and in the Summer till 5 PM. You can go to the group's
main page to get the details on the post count -
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/messages.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn 
wrote:
>
> AlrightI might buy most of this.I am "taken in" by you...you
have pushed me and I appreciate that. Â But, while I do understand
the concept that you might feel the other persons pain after humiliating
themwhy choose that tactic? Â It's not clear to me how
humiliation really serves anyone except yourself possibly. Â
> <
> P.S. Â I might be close on my posts. Â When the post count goes
out...what is UT...how do I translate that to Pacific Time?
>
>
>
> >
> > From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@...
> >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> >Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 9:37 PM
> >Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter
to Ravi Chivukula
> >
> >
> >Â
> >And Denise, yes Winner from the perspective of the one who wanted to
challenge me. Now having humiliated this person, I feel that person's
emotions - hurt, pain, anger, because they are another part of me, how
can I not feel hurt?
> >
> >
> >But I am able to quickly internalize and transform these emotions,
both mine and the other. I feel joy and blissful very quickly.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:19 PM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote:
> >
> >
> >"
> >>Hm..the "winner" huh. Â Your statement here is a bit
convoluted. Â If you have no agenda, then why do you have to "win."
 You make some assumptions here about "the person who approaches
you.".."
> >>
> >>
> >>Ravi - Approaches with an agenda that is, as in to confront me.
Winner only from their perspective. I don't care either way, but the
choice to play or withdraw with my playful humor or entice them with my
love is entirely up to my intuition.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>"Yes"if you so desire" you can use whatever tactics please
you."you remain untouched." Â This is your reality then? "
> >>
> >>
> >>Yes. Since I'm ever alert I just adapt seamlessly, a bit unruffled
at first on a completely new situation but never throws me off balance.
It's work in progress anyway, I will only get better.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:10 PM, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>Â
> >>>
> >>>Anyway my 99 cents on this. The only way anyone can approach me,
understand me, conquer me is through love. Â
> >>><
> >>>I know this Ravi. Â This is true for all humans, in the end.
 This is why I sent you that painting - it really is a beautiful
piece (IMHO). Â I think Bob understood what I was saying as he was
the only one to respond, except for your initial response. Â It was
not at all about my fixation with the male sex organ (and I do not have
a fixation btw). Â Robin thought someone should meet you where you
were at...that was my attempt :)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>If someone approaches me with an agenda to one up me, with a
belief, through the intellect I will always be the winner because I
myself have no agenda, no beliefs so this person who approaches me thus
is completely vulnerable to my attacks. If I so desire I will use my
toxic tongue and caustic sarcasm to humiliate them or may be like Barry
says rip them a new asshole or I may just my playful detached humor to
escape or use my unconditional love to spoil them with attention, love,
humility and kindness. Either way I remain untouched, untainted,
untarnished by anything outside of me.
> >>><
> >>>Hm..the "winner" huh. Â Your statement here is a bit
convoluted. Â If you have no agenda, then why do you have to "win."
 You make some assumptions here about "the person who approaches
you." Â Yes"if you so desire" you can use whatever tactics please
you."you remain untouched." Â This is your reality then?Â
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[Emily Reyn]

Thank god, DEFCON 1 has never been called for.



>
> From: seventhray1 
>To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
>Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 9:58 PM
>Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi 
>Chivukula
> 
>
>  
>DEFCON 2
>
>--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  
>wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Denise. Well because if the other throws his shit at me I sometimes 
>> double down and throw it back at them.
>> 
>> Again humiliation from their perspective. Humiliation is only a quality of 
>> the relative not of the essence. I'm not that egotistic to think I can ever 
>> taint, or humiliate the truth. Well the truth is essentially untouched like 
>> I say.
>> 
>> I feel I only attack their beliefs, their personality, together with 
>> socially, morally inappropriate curse words thrown to complete the shock 
>> treatment but for the other it's a humiliation because they are so 
>> identified with it.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:43 PM, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote:
>> 
>> > AlrightI might buy most of this.I am "taken in" by you...you have 
>> > pushed me and I appreciate that. But, while I do understand the concept 
>> > that you might feel the other persons pain after humiliating themwhy 
>> > choose that tactic? It's not clear to me how humiliation really serves 
>> > anyone except yourself possibly. 
>> > <
>> > P.S. I might be close on my posts. When the post count goes out...what is 
>> > UT...how do I translate that to Pacific Time?
>> > 
>> > From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@...
>> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
>> > Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 9:37 PM
>> > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to 
>> > Ravi Chivukula
>> > 
>> > 
>> > And Denise, yes Winner from the perspective of the one who wanted to 
>> > challenge me. Now having humiliated this person, I feel that person's 
>> > emotions - hurt, pain, anger, because they are another part of me, how can 
>> > I not feel hurt?
>> > 
>> > But I am able to quickly internalize and transform these emotions, both 
>> > mine and the other. I feel joy and blissful very quickly.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:19 PM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote:
>> > 
>> >> "
>> >> Hm..the "winner" huh. Your statement here is a bit 
>> >> convoluted. If you have no agenda, then why do you have to "win." You 
>> >> make some assumptions here about "the person who approaches you.".."
>> >> 
>> >> Ravi - Approaches with an agenda that is, as in to confront me. Winner 
>> >> only from their perspective. I don't care either way, but the choice to 
>> >> play or withdraw with my playful humor or entice them with my love is 
>> >> entirely up to my intuition.
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> "Yes"if you so desire" you can use whatever tactics please 
>> >> you."you remain untouched." This is your reality then? "
>> >> 
>> >> Yes. Since I'm ever alert I just adapt seamlessly, a bit unruffled at 
>> >> first on a completely new situation but never throws me off balance. It's 
>> >> work in progress anyway, I will only get better.
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:10 PM, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote:
>> >> 
>> >>> 
>> >>> 
>> >>> Anyway my 99 cents on this. The only way anyone can approach me, 
>> >>> understand me, conquer me is through love. 
>> >>> <
>> >>> I know this Ravi. This is true for all humans, in the end. This is why I 
>> >>> sent you that painting - it really is a beautiful piece (IMHO). I think 
>> >>> Bob understood what I was saying as he was the only one to respond, 
>> >>> except for your initial response. It was not at all about my fixation 
>> >>> with the male sex organ (and I do not have a fixation btw). Robin 
>> >>> thought someone should meet you where you were at...that was my attempt 
>> >>> :)
>> >>> 
>> >>> 
>> >>> If someone approaches me with an agenda to one up me, with a belief, 
>> >>> through the intellect I will always be the winner because I myself have 
>> >>> no agenda, no beliefs so this person who approaches me thus is 
>> >>> completely vulnerable to my attacks. If I so desire I will use my toxic 
>> >>> tongue and caustic sarcasm to humiliate them or may be like Barry says 
>> >>> rip them a new asshole or I may just my playful detached humor to escape 
>> >>> or use my unconditional love to spoil them with attention, love, 
>> >>> humility and kindness. Either way I remain untouched, untainted, 
>> >>> untarnished by anything outside of me.
>> >>> <
>> >>> Hm..the "winner" huh. Your statement here is a bit 
>> >>> convoluted. If you have no agenda, then why do you have to "win." You 
>> >>> make some assumptions here about "the person who approaches you." 
>> >>> Yes"if you so desire" you can use whatever tactics please 
>> >>> you."you remain untouched." This is your reality then? 
>> >>> 
>> >>> 
>> >>> 
>> > 
>> > 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[Ravi Chivukula]

And I will be the first person, if needed to soothe, love, apply medicine 
Denise. You are a mother, you will easily understand this - the fact that you 
can hurt your child and then unconditionally love, soothe them a little later.

That's why I always used to laugh at liberals, the ones who were single 
childless, their fascination for projecting non-violence, peace, non-violent 
communication on to others. Their furious, feverish efforts to numb themselves, 
insulate themselves from pain by trying to control the whole world used to be 
so hilarious and fascinating to me.


On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:55 PM, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:

> Thanks Denise. Well because if the other throws his shit at me I sometimes 
> double down and throw it back at them.
> 
> Again humiliation from their perspective. Humiliation is only a quality of 
> the relative not of the essence. I'm not that egotistic to think I can ever 
> taint, or humiliate the truth. Well the truth is essentially untouched like I 
> say.
> 
> I feel I only attack their beliefs, their personality, together with 
> socially, morally inappropriate curse words thrown to complete the shock 
> treatment but for the other it's a humiliation because they are so identified 
> with it.
> 
> 
> 
> On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:43 PM, Emily Reyn  wrote:
> 
>> AlrightI might buy most of this.I am "taken in" by you...you have 
>> pushed me and I appreciate that.  But, while I do understand the concept 
>> that you might feel the other persons pain after humiliating themwhy 
>> choose that tactic?  It's not clear to me how humiliation really serves 
>> anyone except yourself possibly.  
>> <
>> P.S.  I might be close on my posts.  When the post count goes out...what is 
>> UT...how do I translate that to Pacific Time?
>> 
>> From: Ravi Chivukula 
>> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 9:37 PM
>> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to 
>> Ravi Chivukula
>> 
>>  
>> And Denise, yes Winner from the perspective of the one who wanted to 
>> challenge me. Now having humiliated this person, I feel that person's 
>> emotions - hurt, pain, anger, because they are another part of me, how can I 
>> not feel hurt?
>> 
>> But I am able to quickly internalize and transform these emotions, both mine 
>> and the other. I feel joy and blissful very quickly.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:19 PM, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
>> 
>>> "
>>> Hm..the "winner" huh.  Your statement here is a bit convoluted. 
>>>  If you have no agenda, then why do you have to "win."  You make some 
>>> assumptions here about "the person who approaches you.".."
>>> 
>>> Ravi - Approaches with an agenda that is, as in to confront me. Winner only 
>>> from their perspective. I don't care either way, but the choice to play or 
>>> withdraw with my playful humor or entice them with my love is entirely up 
>>> to my intuition.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> "Yes"if you so desire" you can use whatever tactics please you."you 
>>> remain untouched."  This is your reality then? "
>>> 
>>> Yes. Since I'm ever alert I just adapt seamlessly, a bit unruffled at first 
>>> on a completely new situation but never throws me off balance. It's work in 
>>> progress anyway, I will only get better.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:10 PM, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>>> 
  
 
 Anyway my 99 cents on this. The only way anyone can approach me, 
 understand me, conquer me is through love.  
 <
 I know this Ravi.  This is true for all humans, in the end.  This is why I 
 sent you that painting - it really is a beautiful piece (IMHO).  I think 
 Bob understood what I was saying as he was the only one to respond, except 
 for your initial response.  It was not at all about my fixation with the 
 male sex organ (and I do not have a fixation btw).  Robin thought someone 
 should meet you where you were at...that was my attempt :)
 
 
 If someone approaches me with an agenda to one up me, with a belief, 
 through the intellect I will always be the winner because I myself have no 
 agenda, no beliefs so this person who approaches me thus is completely 
 vulnerable to my attacks. If I so desire I will use my toxic tongue and 
 caustic sarcasm to humiliate them or may be like Barry says rip them a new 
 asshole or I may just my playful detached humor to escape or use my 
 unconditional love to spoil them with attention, love, humility and 
 kindness. Either way I remain untouched, untainted, untarnished by 
 anything outside of me.
 <
 Hm..the "winner" huh.  Your statement here is a bit 
 convoluted.  If you have no agenda, then why do you have to "win."  You 
 make some assumptions here about "the person who approaches you."  
 Yes"if you so desire" you can use whatever tactics please you."you 
 remain untouched."  This is your realit

[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[seventhray1]

DEFCON 2


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula
 wrote:
>
> Thanks Denise. Well because if the other throws his shit at me I
sometimes double down and throw it back at them.
>
> Again humiliation from their perspective. Humiliation is only a
quality of the relative not of the essence. I'm not that egotistic to
think I can ever taint, or humiliate the truth. Well the truth is
essentially untouched like I say.
>
> I feel I only attack their beliefs, their personality, together with
socially, morally inappropriate curse words thrown to complete the shock
treatment but for the other it's a humiliation because they are so
identified with it.
>
>
>
> On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:43 PM, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote:
>
> > AlrightI might buy most of this.I am "taken in" by you...you
have pushed me and I appreciate that. But, while I do understand the
concept that you might feel the other persons pain after humiliating
themwhy choose that tactic? It's not clear to me how humiliation
really serves anyone except yourself possibly.
> > <
> > P.S. I might be close on my posts. When the post count goes
out...what is UT...how do I translate that to Pacific Time?
> >
> > From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@...
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 9:37 PM
> > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance]
Letter to Ravi Chivukula
> >
> >
> > And Denise, yes Winner from the perspective of the one who wanted to
challenge me. Now having humiliated this person, I feel that person's
emotions - hurt, pain, anger, because they are another part of me, how
can I not feel hurt?
> >
> > But I am able to quickly internalize and transform these emotions,
both mine and the other. I feel joy and blissful very quickly.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:19 PM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@...
wrote:
> >
> >> "
> >> Hm..the "winner" huh. Your statement here is a bit
convoluted. If you have no agenda, then why do you have to "win." You
make some assumptions here about "the person who approaches you.".."
> >>
> >> Ravi - Approaches with an agenda that is, as in to confront me.
Winner only from their perspective. I don't care either way, but the
choice to play or withdraw with my playful humor or entice them with my
love is entirely up to my intuition.
> >>
> >>
> >> "Yes"if you so desire" you can use whatever tactics please
you."you remain untouched." This is your reality then? "
> >>
> >> Yes. Since I'm ever alert I just adapt seamlessly, a bit unruffled
at first on a completely new situation but never throws me off balance.
It's work in progress anyway, I will only get better.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:10 PM, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>> Anyway my 99 cents on this. The only way anyone can approach me,
understand me, conquer me is through love.
> >>> <
> >>> I know this Ravi. This is true for all humans, in the end. This is
why I sent you that painting - it really is a beautiful piece (IMHO). I
think Bob understood what I was saying as he was the only one to
respond, except for your initial response. It was not at all about my
fixation with the male sex organ (and I do not have a fixation btw).
Robin thought someone should meet you where you were at...that was my
attempt :)
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>> If someone approaches me with an agenda to one up me, with a
belief, through the intellect I will always be the winner because I
myself have no agenda, no beliefs so this person who approaches me thus
is completely vulnerable to my attacks. If I so desire I will use my
toxic tongue and caustic sarcasm to humiliate them or may be like Barry
says rip them a new asshole or I may just my playful detached humor to
escape or use my unconditional love to spoil them with attention, love,
humility and kindness. Either way I remain untouched, untainted,
untarnished by anything outside of me.
> >>> <
> >>> Hm..the "winner" huh. Your statement here is a bit
convoluted. If you have no agenda, then why do you have to "win." You
make some assumptions here about "the person who approaches you."
Yes"if you so desire" you can use whatever tactics please
you."you remain untouched." This is your reality then?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[Ravi Chivukula]

Thanks Denise. Well because if the other throws his shit at me I sometimes 
double down and throw it back at them.

Again humiliation from their perspective. Humiliation is only a quality of the 
relative not of the essence. I'm not that egotistic to think I can ever taint, 
or humiliate the truth. Well the truth is essentially untouched like I say.

I feel I only attack their beliefs, their personality, together with socially, 
morally inappropriate curse words thrown to complete the shock treatment but 
for the other it's a humiliation because they are so identified with it.



On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:43 PM, Emily Reyn  wrote:

> AlrightI might buy most of this.I am "taken in" by you...you have 
> pushed me and I appreciate that.  But, while I do understand the concept that 
> you might feel the other persons pain after humiliating themwhy choose 
> that tactic?  It's not clear to me how humiliation really serves anyone 
> except yourself possibly.  
> <
> P.S.  I might be close on my posts.  When the post count goes out...what is 
> UT...how do I translate that to Pacific Time?
> 
> From: Ravi Chivukula 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 9:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi 
> Chivukula
> 
>  
> And Denise, yes Winner from the perspective of the one who wanted to 
> challenge me. Now having humiliated this person, I feel that person's 
> emotions - hurt, pain, anger, because they are another part of me, how can I 
> not feel hurt?
> 
> But I am able to quickly internalize and transform these emotions, both mine 
> and the other. I feel joy and blissful very quickly.
> 
> 
> 
> On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:19 PM, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
> 
>> "
>> Hm..the "winner" huh.  Your statement here is a bit convoluted.  
>> If you have no agenda, then why do you have to "win."  You make some 
>> assumptions here about "the person who approaches you.".."
>> 
>> Ravi - Approaches with an agenda that is, as in to confront me. Winner only 
>> from their perspective. I don't care either way, but the choice to play or 
>> withdraw with my playful humor or entice them with my love is entirely up to 
>> my intuition.
>> 
>> 
>> "Yes"if you so desire" you can use whatever tactics please you."you 
>> remain untouched."  This is your reality then? "
>> 
>> Yes. Since I'm ever alert I just adapt seamlessly, a bit unruffled at first 
>> on a completely new situation but never throws me off balance. It's work in 
>> progress anyway, I will only get better.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:10 PM, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Anyway my 99 cents on this. The only way anyone can approach me, understand 
>>> me, conquer me is through love.  
>>> <
>>> I know this Ravi.  This is true for all humans, in the end.  This is why I 
>>> sent you that painting - it really is a beautiful piece (IMHO).  I think 
>>> Bob understood what I was saying as he was the only one to respond, except 
>>> for your initial response.  It was not at all about my fixation with the 
>>> male sex organ (and I do not have a fixation btw).  Robin thought someone 
>>> should meet you where you were at...that was my attempt :)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> If someone approaches me with an agenda to one up me, with a belief, 
>>> through the intellect I will always be the winner because I myself have no 
>>> agenda, no beliefs so this person who approaches me thus is completely 
>>> vulnerable to my attacks. If I so desire I will use my toxic tongue and 
>>> caustic sarcasm to humiliate them or may be like Barry says rip them a new 
>>> asshole or I may just my playful detached humor to escape or use my 
>>> unconditional love to spoil them with attention, love, humility and 
>>> kindness. Either way I remain untouched, untainted, untarnished by anything 
>>> outside of me.
>>> <
>>> Hm..the "winner" huh.  Your statement here is a bit convoluted. 
>>>  If you have no agenda, then why do you have to "win."  You make some 
>>> assumptions here about "the person who approaches you."  Yes"if you so 
>>> desire" you can use whatever tactics please you."you remain untouched." 
>>>  This is your reality then? 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> 
> 

[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[seventhray1]

Such hifalutin words.  Hifalutin concepts.  Existance made me do it. 
What a a great invention.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula
 wrote:
>
> "
> Hm..the "winner" huh. Your statement here is a bit
convoluted. If you have no agenda, then why do you have to "win." You
make some assumptions here about "the person who approaches you.".."
>
> Ravi - Approaches with an agenda that is, as in to confront me. Winner
only from their perspective. I don't care either way, but the choice to
play or withdraw with my playful humor or entice them with my love is
entirely up to my intuition.
>
>
> "Yes"if you so desire" you can use whatever tactics please
you."you remain untouched." This is your reality then? "
>
> Yes. Since I'm ever alert I just adapt seamlessly, a bit unruffled at
first on a completely new situation but never throws me off balance.
It's work in progress anyway, I will only get better.
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:10 PM, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote:
>
> > 
> > Anyway my 99 cents on this. The only way anyone can approach me,
understand me, conquer me is through love.
> > <
> > I know this Ravi. This is true for all humans, in the end. This is
why I sent you that painting - it really is a beautiful piece (IMHO). I
think Bob understood what I was saying as he was the only one to
respond, except for your initial response. It was not at all about my
fixation with the male sex organ (and I do not have a fixation btw).
Robin thought someone should meet you where you were at...that was my
attempt :)
> >
> > 
> > If someone approaches me with an agenda to one up me, with a belief,
through the intellect I will always be the winner because I myself have
no agenda, no beliefs so this person who approaches me thus is
completely vulnerable to my attacks. If I so desire I will use my toxic
tongue and caustic sarcasm to humiliate them or may be like Barry says
rip them a new asshole or I may just my playful detached humor to escape
or use my unconditional love to spoil them with attention, love,
humility and kindness. Either way I remain untouched, untainted,
untarnished by anything outside of me.
> > <
> > Hm..the "winner" huh. Your statement here is a bit
convoluted. If you have no agenda, then why do you have to "win." You
make some assumptions here about "the person who approaches you."
Yes"if you so desire" you can use whatever tactics please
you."you remain untouched." This is your reality then?
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[Emily Reyn]

AlrightI might buy most of this.I am "taken in" by you...you have 
pushed me and I appreciate that.  But, while I do understand the concept that 
you might feel the other persons pain after humiliating themwhy choose that 
tactic?  It's not clear to me how humiliation really serves anyone except 
yourself possibly.  
<
P.S.  I might be close on my posts.  When the post count goes out...what is 
UT...how do I translate that to Pacific Time?



>
> From: Ravi Chivukula 
>To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
>Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 9:37 PM
>Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi 
>Chivukula
> 
>
>  
>And Denise, yes Winner from the perspective of the one who wanted to challenge 
>me. Now having humiliated this person, I feel that person's emotions - hurt, 
>pain, anger, because they are another part of me, how can I not feel hurt?
>
>
>But I am able to quickly internalize and transform these emotions, both mine 
>and the other. I feel joy and blissful very quickly.
>
>
>
>
>
>On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:19 PM, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
>
>
>"
>>Hm..the "winner" huh.  Your statement here is a bit convoluted.  
>>If you have no agenda, then why do you have to "win."  You make some 
>>assumptions here about "the person who approaches you.".."
>>
>>
>>Ravi - Approaches with an agenda that is, as in to confront me. Winner only 
>>from their perspective. I don't care either way, but the choice to play or 
>>withdraw with my playful humor or entice them with my love is entirely up to 
>>my intuition.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>"Yes"if you so desire" you can use whatever tactics please you."you 
>>remain untouched."  This is your reality then? "
>>
>>
>>Yes. Since I'm ever alert I just adapt seamlessly, a bit unruffled at first 
>>on a completely new situation but never throws me off balance. It's work in 
>>progress anyway, I will only get better.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:10 PM, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>>
>>
>>  
>>>
>>>Anyway my 99 cents on this. The only way anyone can approach me, understand 
>>>me, conquer me is through love.  
>>><
>>>I know this Ravi.  This is true for all humans, in the end.  This is why I 
>>>sent you that painting - it really is a beautiful piece (IMHO).  I think Bob 
>>>understood what I was saying as he was the only one to respond, except for 
>>>your initial response.  It was not at all about my fixation with the male 
>>>sex organ (and I do not have a fixation btw).  Robin thought someone should 
>>>meet you where you were at...that was my attempt :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>If someone approaches me with an agenda to one up me, with a belief, through 
>>>the intellect I will always be the winner because I myself have no agenda, 
>>>no beliefs so this person who approaches me thus is completely vulnerable to 
>>>my attacks. If I so desire I will use my toxic tongue and caustic sarcasm to 
>>>humiliate them or may be like Barry says rip them a new asshole or I may 
>>>just my playful detached humor to escape or use my unconditional love to 
>>>spoil them with attention, love, humility and kindness. Either way I remain 
>>>untouched, untainted, untarnished by anything outside of me.
>>><
>>>Hm..the "winner" huh.  Your statement here is a bit convoluted.  
>>>If you have no agenda, then why do you have to "win."  You make some 
>>>assumptions here about "the person who approaches you."  Yes"if you so 
>>>desire" you can use whatever tactics please you."you remain untouched."  
>>>This is your reality then? 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

 

> 
>
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[Ravi Chivukula]

And Denise, yes Winner from the perspective of the one who wanted to challenge 
me. Now having humiliated this person, I feel that person's emotions - hurt, 
pain, anger, because they are another part of me, how can I not feel hurt?

But I am able to quickly internalize and transform these emotions, both mine 
and the other. I feel joy and blissful very quickly.



On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:19 PM, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:

> "
> Hm..the "winner" huh.  Your statement here is a bit convoluted.  
> If you have no agenda, then why do you have to "win."  You make some 
> assumptions here about "the person who approaches you.".."
> 
> Ravi - Approaches with an agenda that is, as in to confront me. Winner only 
> from their perspective. I don't care either way, but the choice to play or 
> withdraw with my playful humor or entice them with my love is entirely up to 
> my intuition.
> 
> 
> "Yes"if you so desire" you can use whatever tactics please you."you 
> remain untouched."  This is your reality then? "
> 
> Yes. Since I'm ever alert I just adapt seamlessly, a bit unruffled at first 
> on a completely new situation but never throws me off balance. It's work in 
> progress anyway, I will only get better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:10 PM, Emily Reyn  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Anyway my 99 cents on this. The only way anyone can approach me, understand 
>> me, conquer me is through love.  
>> <
>> I know this Ravi.  This is true for all humans, in the end.  This is why I 
>> sent you that painting - it really is a beautiful piece (IMHO).  I think Bob 
>> understood what I was saying as he was the only one to respond, except for 
>> your initial response.  It was not at all about my fixation with the male 
>> sex organ (and I do not have a fixation btw).  Robin thought someone should 
>> meet you where you were at...that was my attempt :)
>> 
>> 
>> If someone approaches me with an agenda to one up me, with a belief, through 
>> the intellect I will always be the winner because I myself have no agenda, 
>> no beliefs so this person who approaches me thus is completely vulnerable to 
>> my attacks. If I so desire I will use my toxic tongue and caustic sarcasm to 
>> humiliate them or may be like Barry says rip them a new asshole or I may 
>> just my playful detached humor to escape or use my unconditional love to 
>> spoil them with attention, love, humility and kindness. Either way I remain 
>> untouched, untainted, untarnished by anything outside of me.
>> <
>> Hm..the "winner" huh.  Your statement here is a bit convoluted.  
>> If you have no agenda, then why do you have to "win."  You make some 
>> assumptions here about "the person who approaches you."  Yes"if you so 
>> desire" you can use whatever tactics please you."you remain untouched."  
>> This is your reality then? 
>> 
>> 
>> 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[Ravi Chivukula]

"
Hm..the "winner" huh.  Your statement here is a bit convoluted.  If 
you have no agenda, then why do you have to "win."  You make some assumptions 
here about "the person who approaches you.".."

Ravi - Approaches with an agenda that is, as in to confront me. Winner only 
from their perspective. I don't care either way, but the choice to play or 
withdraw with my playful humor or entice them with my love is entirely up to my 
intuition.


"Yes"if you so desire" you can use whatever tactics please you."you 
remain untouched."  This is your reality then? "

Yes. Since I'm ever alert I just adapt seamlessly, a bit unruffled at first on 
a completely new situation but never throws me off balance. It's work in 
progress anyway, I will only get better.




On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:10 PM, Emily Reyn  wrote:

> 
> Anyway my 99 cents on this. The only way anyone can approach me, understand 
> me, conquer me is through love.  
> <
> I know this Ravi.  This is true for all humans, in the end.  This is why I 
> sent you that painting - it really is a beautiful piece (IMHO).  I think Bob 
> understood what I was saying as he was the only one to respond, except for 
> your initial response.  It was not at all about my fixation with the male sex 
> organ (and I do not have a fixation btw).  Robin thought someone should meet 
> you where you were at...that was my attempt :)
> 
> 
> If someone approaches me with an agenda to one up me, with a belief, through 
> the intellect I will always be the winner because I myself have no agenda, no 
> beliefs so this person who approaches me thus is completely vulnerable to my 
> attacks. If I so desire I will use my toxic tongue and caustic sarcasm to 
> humiliate them or may be like Barry says rip them a new asshole or I may just 
> my playful detached humor to escape or use my unconditional love to spoil 
> them with attention, love, humility and kindness. Either way I remain 
> untouched, untainted, untarnished by anything outside of me.
> <
> Hm..the "winner" huh.  Your statement here is a bit convoluted.  
> If you have no agenda, then why do you have to "win."  You make some 
> assumptions here about "the person who approaches you."  Yes"if you so 
> desire" you can use whatever tactics please you."you remain untouched."  
> This is your reality then? 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[Emily Reyn]

Anyway my 99 cents on this. The only way anyone can approach me, understand me, 
conquer me is through love.  

<
I know this Ravi.  This is true for all humans, in the end.  This is why I sent 
you that painting - it really is a beautiful piece (IMHO).  I think Bob 
understood what I was saying as he was the only one to respond, except for your 
initial response.  It was not at all about my fixation with the male sex organ 
(and I do not have a fixation btw).  Robin thought someone should meet you 
where you were at...that was my attempt :)


If someone approaches me with an agenda to one up me, with a belief, through 
the intellect I will always be the winner because I myself have no agenda, no 
beliefs so this person who approaches me thus is completely vulnerable to my 
attacks. If I so desire I will use my toxic tongue and caustic sarcasm to 
humiliate them or may be like Barry says rip them a new asshole or I may just 
my playful detached humor to escape or use my unconditional love to spoil them 
with attention, love, humility and kindness. Either way I remain untouched, 
untainted, untarnished by anything outside of me.
<
Hm..the "winner" huh.  Your statement here is a bit convoluted.  If 
you have no agenda, then why do you have to "win."  You make some assumptions 
here about "the person who approaches you."  Yes"if you so desire" you can 
use whatever tactics please you."you remain untouched."  This is your 
reality then? 




>
> From: Ravi Chivukula 
>To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
>Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 8:23 PM
>Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi 
>Chivukula
> 
>
>  
>" Your's/Barry's willingness to define Ravi and Robin with these kinds of 
>labels on this forum (internet) in such a conclusionary manner is from a 
>common sense perspective, simply unmitigated arrogance out of control - a 
>classic symptom of NPD, in case you are interested. "
>
>
>Dear Denise,
>
>
>Thank you for your comments above. I have explained these before but let me 
>explain it again since it has been a while and my responses might have been 
>scattered across multiple posts and you probably weren't around here.
>
>
>Though initially I was offended at these labels, the very fact that these 
>labels were thrown at me helped me go back to the drawing board. I spent a lot 
>of time on Wiki and other websites in trying to understand these issues. My 
>opinions below.
>
>
>Now I'm not surprised that people throw these labels from DSM around and I can 
>clearly see how this is the only way the intellect can wrap around the outer 
>manifestations of the incredible states that I go through.
>
>
>Prior to my being enlightened I used to suffer a lot because I was constantly 
>misunderstood by my ex. But then I would ask myself if I truly loved her or 
>the kids, regardless of how unjustified her behavior was. And I came to 
>realization that my love was not selfless and there was an element of 
>recognition I needed from others, i.e.my love was ego bound - this used to 
>really bother me a lot. I had done lot of work during my marriage to be as 
>selfless as possible i.e. give without needing anything in return but the 
>existence apparently was not satisfied and kept hammering through the guise of 
>my ex.
>
>
>After my series of awakening experiences, I go into deep intense states of joy 
>and pain. I also realized that there was an impersonal quality to it, as in it 
>didn't feel like I was suffering or enjoying for myself and then slowly 
>realized that most of the times there wasn't even anything outisde that caused 
>it.
>
>
>Now because I am so absolutely still, the pain and joy really overwhelms me. 
>You wouldn't want to be around me when I go through these states, I will cry 
>very loudly and laugh very loudly. Yet I am a witness to these states, very 
>hard to describe in words. I notice because I don't filter this energy through 
>any belief system such as god, religion, Gurus, socialism, communism, 
>Buddhism, social utopia, UFO's, age of Aquarius, Pisces, age of enlightenment, 
>Mayan calendar and such, I really wallow in pain, get really high on bliss.
>
>
>In fact over the period of last 2 years my body is getting more stronger, more 
>sensitive - earlier I would get very dizzy, disoriented after these intense 
>states but now it's no more a problem. I haven't been as healthy as now.
>
>
>And I'm totally introverted when I'm by myself, yet the minute there's another 
>person I become the opposite totally extroverted, as in the center shifts from 
>myself to other. And I notice since I don't have any agenda, I don't have any 
>belief and I'm completely focused on the other it, I feel one with the other 
>and this also gives me lot of insights into the other merely by my being 
>absolutely quiet.
>
>
>The love I feel is also totally impersonal. As in I don't feel more love to my 
>children than say Bob

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[Ravi Chivukula]

" Your's/Barry's willingness to define Ravi and Robin with these kinds of
labels on this forum (internet) in such a conclusionary manner is from a
common sense perspective, simply unmitigated arrogance out of control - a
classic symptom of NPD, in case you are interested. "

Dear Denise,

Thank you for your comments above. I have explained these before but let me
explain it again since it has been a while and my responses might have been
scattered across multiple posts and you probably weren't around here.

Though initially I was offended at these labels, the very fact that these
labels were thrown at me helped me go back to the drawing board. I spent a
lot of time on Wiki and other websites in trying to understand these
issues. My opinions below.

Now I'm not surprised that people throw these labels from DSM around and I
can clearly see how this is the only way the intellect can wrap around the
outer manifestations of the incredible states that I go through.

Prior to my being enlightened I used to suffer a lot because I was
constantly misunderstood by my ex. But then I would ask myself if I truly
loved her or the kids, regardless of how unjustified her behavior was. And
I came to realization that my love was not selfless and there was an
element of recognition I needed from others, i.e.my love was ego bound -
this used to really bother me a lot. I had done lot of work during my
marriage to be as selfless as possible i.e. give without needing anything
in return but the existence apparently was not satisfied and kept hammering
through the guise of my ex.

After my series of awakening experiences, I go into deep intense states of
joy and pain. I also realized that there was an impersonal quality to it,
as in it didn't feel like I was suffering or enjoying for myself and then
slowly realized that most of the times there wasn't even anything outisde
that caused it.

Now because I am so absolutely still, the pain and joy really overwhelms
me. You wouldn't want to be around me when I go through these states, I
will cry very loudly and laugh very loudly. Yet I am a witness to these
states, very hard to describe in words. I notice because I don't filter
this energy through any belief system such as god, religion, Gurus,
socialism, communism, Buddhism, social utopia, UFO's, age of Aquarius,
Pisces, age of enlightenment, Mayan calendar and such, I really wallow in
pain, get really high on bliss.

In fact over the period of last 2 years my body is getting more stronger,
more sensitive - earlier I would get very dizzy, disoriented after these
intense states but now it's no more a problem. I haven't been as healthy as
now.

And I'm totally introverted when I'm by myself, yet the minute there's
another person I become the opposite totally extroverted, as in the center
shifts from myself to other. And I notice since I don't have any agenda, I
don't have any belief and I'm completely focused on the other it, I feel
one with the other and this also gives me lot of insights into the other
merely by my being absolutely quiet.

The love I feel is also totally impersonal. As in I don't feel more love to
my children than say Bob, Robin or you. The only person I can shower more
love than others would have to be to my partner, my wife, my beloved merely
because of the sex, intimacy and the amount of time in close proximity this
person would spend with me.

Anyway my 99 cents on this. The only way anyone can approach me, understand
me, conquer me is through love. If someone approaches me with an agenda to
one up me, with a belief, through the intellect I will always be the winner
because I myself have no agenda, no beliefs so this person who approaches
me thus is completely vulnerable to my attacks. If I so desire I will use
my toxic tongue and caustic sarcasm to humiliate them or may be like Barry
says rip them a new asshole or I may just my playful detached humor to
escape or use my unconditional love to spoil them with attention, love,
humility and kindness. Either way I remain untouched, untainted,
untarnished by anything outside of me.

Love,
Ravi.



On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Emily Reyn wrote:

> **
>
>
> SNIP
> <"Or simply common sense.">
>
> Zarzari, I wanted to submit this for an Unintended Irony Award, but I see
> you already won first prize this year with the "love-bomb" post(s) and
> also, that one with pictures really was in top form.   I am curious if you
> are aware of why that post fell completely flat...could there have been
> something you missed in the larger picture, or maybe in your
> assumptions/analysis of Ravi and the conversations he was in, or was it
> just "simply common sense" on your part that you were trying to impart to
> those of us "taken in" by Ravi.
>
> I'm hoping I will be next to receive one of these base internet-style
> diagnoses.  Based on what I've posted on this forum, there is a lot to go
> on at this pointit might be time to stifle me a bit, slap a label on
> me, employ some

[FairfieldLife] Re: US Responds to Iran Threat

[seventhray1]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" 
wrote:
>
>
> Not really related. But I'm thinking about my sister in law who was a
> puplic school teacher for 5 years, and was on disability for two of
> those years. As of the first of the year, she will collect $550.00/
month  for
> the rest of her life. She is 65. Somewhat a hypochondriac she had
> multiple procedures during those five years.
>
> I'm thinking about a lady I knew who was in sales for a plastics
> company. She went on disability for stress about 25 years ago and
> collects a monthly check in excess of $2,000.00. She also owns rental
> property and has a primary residence.
>
> And we are not like Greece?
>
> We just paid taxes of over $4,000.00 on our house in our metropolitan
> are. Our home is nothing fantastic, but is reasonably nice.
>
> If tea party people are objecting to what I consider to be these
> excesses, then I am sympathetic to their cause.
>
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote:
> >
> > On 12/28/2011 05:39 PM, richardatrwilliamsdotus wrote:
> > >
> > >>> Here we go again. Who will back
> > >>> down to avoid another war?
> > >>> Conventional wisdom would say that
> > >>> Iran should tow the line. But then
> > >>> again who knows what they'll do.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > > Bhairitu:
> > >> The militerrorists want to play with
> > >> the new toys they got for Christmas.
> > >>
> > > The Iranian 'militerrorists' probably
> > > don't celebrate Christmas by giving
> > > each other toys like you do.
> >
> > I wasn't speaking about Iranian "militerrorists", Mr. Numbnuts.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[seventhray1]

Thanks Wayback.  I appreciate a little nod of support.  But the fact of the 
matter is that I think the whole affair is being kept alive by Robin for some 
reason.  On the one hand he claims to be sensitive to those who were involved 
in his activities way back when.  

Then, in almost the same sentence he will not consent to moving the discusssion 
offline where it could be determined if Vaj is being credible in his 
statements.  

So as Richard is fond of saying, "go figure".

One the one hand we have specifics.  On the other hand we have a flat denial 
based on, based on, based on. Sheesh what is the denial based on?

And then we close off the means to verify.  

With regards to Ravi, I think we in the west sort of like to be approached as 
equals.  After so many times as being referred to as Ravi's bitch, or one of 
his many bitches, you sort of build up a little resentment.

OMG. OMG.  Did I just divulge that I'm not enlightened?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > I'd sure like to know the burden of proof you are looking for Judy.
> > Evidently details such as time and place, nuances are not good enough
> > for you.  Vaj must keep a complete dossier on Robin, which he must also
> > have pretty much memorized since he posts in nearly zero lag time in
> > response to Robin's posts.  But evidently you maintain that all this
> > could be accounted for by public records, interviews, newspaper articles
> > that Vaj has compiled.
> > 
> > And of course this could be the case.  But a more likely scenario is
> > that Vaj was present in the scenes he describes.  And if I were the
> > betting type, and someone asked me to be on the other side a bet which
> > said that Vaj's story was all heresay, I would take that bet.
> 
> I agree with you on this one, Steve.  If we assume that Vaj was present for 
> some of these events and has such insider knowledge, it makes me think that 
> either he or someone close to him was one of Robin's followers or else, for 
> some reason, was very interested in the outcome of the whole enterprise.
> 
> It does sound as if there was some very odd, extreme behavior happening with 
> Robin in those days -whether mental instability or some kundalini triggered 
> imbalance.  Without the "protection" of being part of the TMO or any other 
> such org, he would have ended up in the hospital, or jail, in the real world. 
>  
> 
> This entire subject seems beaten to death here on FFL.  I don't get the 
> ongoing fascination with this, or with Ravi, either.  
> > 
> > I guess there is the other matter where Vaj has asked Robin to carry on
> > the discussion offline, whereby names and other details could be
> > discussed in private.  That offer was declined.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > contemporaneous time --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" steve.sundur@
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Robin,
> > > >
> > > > Has it ocurred to you that Vaj has built his case, (if you
> > > > want to call it a case) on specific details. Your response
> > > > has been to declare that it is all a lie. Now, if there
> > > > were a bench of 12 jurors listening to the evidence, on the
> > > > issue of "Did this Vajradhatu know or meet this Robin
> > > > Wordworth Carlson", what would be the verdict?
> > >
> > > What you seem incapable of incorporating into your
> > > thinking is what the prosecutor (or defense attorney,
> > > depending on who's suing whom) would point out to the
> > > jury: that Vaj could have gotten every single one of
> > > those details from somebody else who *was* in
> > > Fairfield and who *did* know Robin.
> > >
> > > > Now Judy may say, well, you haven't presented any
> > > > person who can identify this Vajrahatu at the scene,
> > > > and because of this technicality, the case could be
> > > > thrown out.
> > >
> > > That's hardly a technicality.
> > >
> > > > But short of this standard, it seems to me that Vaj has
> > > > presented credible, seemingly first person evidence.
> > >
> > > Another point is that the "jury" in this case has heard
> > > "testimony" from Vaj on various issues for *years* now,
> > > not just for a few hours in a courtroom. He has not
> > > established a reputation for credibility, to say the
> > > least, among most of us here.
> > >
> > > Plus which, he has a clear motive to lie about what he
> > > knows firsthand: He's made it very plain that he is
> > > determined to "get" Robin any way he can. We don't
> > > know why he's on this personal vendetta, but there's
> > > no question that's what he's engaged in.
> > >
> > > And here, by the way, he's not testifying under penalty
> > > of perjury as he would be in a courtroom. A person who
> > > has stood up in public and sworn to tell "the truth, the
> > > whole truth, and nothing but the truth" acquires thereby
> > > 

[FairfieldLife] Re: US Responds to Iran Threat

[seventhray1]

Not really related.  But I'm thinking about my sister in law who was a
puplic school teacher for 5 years, and was on disability for two of
those years.  As of the first of the year, she will collect $550.00 for
the rest of her life.  She is 65.  Somewhat a hypochondriac she had
multiple procedures during those five years.

I'm thinking about a lady I knew who was in sales for a plastics
company.  She went on disability for stress about 25 years ago and
collects a monthly check in excess of $2,000.00.  She also owns rental
property and has a  primary residence.

And we are not like Greece?

We just paid taxes of over $4,000.00 on our house in our metropolitan
are.  Our home is nothing fantastic, but is reasonably nice.

If  tea party people are objecting to what I consider to be these
excesses, then I am sympathetic to their cause.




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> On 12/28/2011 05:39 PM, richardatrwilliamsdotus wrote:
> >
> >>> Here we go again. Who will back
> >>> down to avoid another war?
> >>> Conventional wisdom would say that
> >>> Iran should tow the line. But then
> >>> again who knows what they'll do.
> >>>
> >>>
> > Bhairitu:
> >> The militerrorists want to play with
> >> the new toys they got for Christmas.
> >>
> > The Iranian 'militerrorists' probably
> > don't celebrate Christmas by giving
> > each other toys like you do.
>
> I wasn't speaking about Iranian "militerrorists", Mr. Numbnuts.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[Susan]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"  wrote:
>
> 
> I'd sure like to know the burden of proof you are looking for Judy.
> Evidently details such as time and place, nuances are not good enough
> for you.  Vaj must keep a complete dossier on Robin, which he must also
> have pretty much memorized since he posts in nearly zero lag time in
> response to Robin's posts.  But evidently you maintain that all this
> could be accounted for by public records, interviews, newspaper articles
> that Vaj has compiled.
> 
> And of course this could be the case.  But a more likely scenario is
> that Vaj was present in the scenes he describes.  And if I were the
> betting type, and someone asked me to be on the other side a bet which
> said that Vaj's story was all heresay, I would take that bet.

I agree with you on this one, Steve.  If we assume that Vaj was present for 
some of these events and has such insider knowledge, it makes me think that 
either he or someone close to him was one of Robin's followers or else, for 
some reason, was very interested in the outcome of the whole enterprise.

It does sound as if there was some very odd, extreme behavior happening with 
Robin in those days -whether mental instability or some kundalini triggered 
imbalance.  Without the "protection" of being part of the TMO or any other such 
org, he would have ended up in the hospital, or jail, in the real world.  

This entire subject seems beaten to death here on FFL.  I don't get the ongoing 
fascination with this, or with Ravi, either.  
> 
> I guess there is the other matter where Vaj has asked Robin to carry on
> the discussion offline, whereby names and other details could be
> discussed in private.  That offer was declined.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> contemporaneous time --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"
>  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" steve.sundur@
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Robin,
> > >
> > > Has it ocurred to you that Vaj has built his case, (if you
> > > want to call it a case) on specific details. Your response
> > > has been to declare that it is all a lie. Now, if there
> > > were a bench of 12 jurors listening to the evidence, on the
> > > issue of "Did this Vajradhatu know or meet this Robin
> > > Wordworth Carlson", what would be the verdict?
> >
> > What you seem incapable of incorporating into your
> > thinking is what the prosecutor (or defense attorney,
> > depending on who's suing whom) would point out to the
> > jury: that Vaj could have gotten every single one of
> > those details from somebody else who *was* in
> > Fairfield and who *did* know Robin.
> >
> > > Now Judy may say, well, you haven't presented any
> > > person who can identify this Vajrahatu at the scene,
> > > and because of this technicality, the case could be
> > > thrown out.
> >
> > That's hardly a technicality.
> >
> > > But short of this standard, it seems to me that Vaj has
> > > presented credible, seemingly first person evidence.
> >
> > Another point is that the "jury" in this case has heard
> > "testimony" from Vaj on various issues for *years* now,
> > not just for a few hours in a courtroom. He has not
> > established a reputation for credibility, to say the
> > least, among most of us here.
> >
> > Plus which, he has a clear motive to lie about what he
> > knows firsthand: He's made it very plain that he is
> > determined to "get" Robin any way he can. We don't
> > know why he's on this personal vendetta, but there's
> > no question that's what he's engaged in.
> >
> > And here, by the way, he's not testifying under penalty
> > of perjury as he would be in a courtroom. A person who
> > has stood up in public and sworn to tell "the truth, the
> > whole truth, and nothing but the truth" acquires thereby
> > a certain basic measure of credibility because the person
> > is aware of the penalties for perjuring himself.
> >
> > Personally, just on the level of impressions, Vaj's
> > "testimony" about his experiences with Robin remind
> > me of nothing so much as the special effects trickery
> > that inserted Forrest Gump into all kinds of important
> > events. It's as if Vaj had Photoshopped himself into
> > Robin's life. You can almost see the faint line between
> > Vaj's image and the real ones. There's just no sense
> > of first-person resonance, no ring of authenticity.
> >
> > 
> > > On the other hand, what is so wrong with simply dealing with
> > > these events that happened 25 or 30 years ago, and then
> > > moving on? Or at least trying to move on. It appears that
> > > Vaj is going to continue to confront you with these past
> > > events,
> >
> > I agree with you 100 percent on these points. As I said
> > in another post, Robin has so much to contribute, and
> > perhaps even something to receive, from more positive
> > interactions here. It's hard not to respond when you
> > feel you're being unfairly maligned, but I wish Robin
> > could find it within himself to limit his

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: US Responds to Iran Threat

[Bhairitu]

On 12/28/2011 05:39 PM, richardatrwilliamsdotus wrote:
>
>>> Here we go again.  Who will back
>>> down to avoid another war?
>>> Conventional wisdom would say that
>>> Iran should tow the line.  But then
>>> again who knows what they'll do.
>>>
>>>
> Bhairitu:
>> The militerrorists want to play with
>> the new toys they got for Christmas.
>>
> The Iranian 'militerrorists' probably
> don't celebrate Christmas by giving
> each other toys like you do.

I wasn't speaking about Iranian "militerrorists", Mr. Numbnuts.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Ravi's Youtube

[Emily Reyn]

Really?  I'm getting a point...may not be the right one, but it's coming across 
loud and clear and its pretty amusing.  Business as usual.   



>
> From: richardatrwilliamsdotus 
>To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
>Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 6:05 PM
>Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Ravi's Youtube
> 
>
>  
>
>
>seventhray1:
>> Ravi, I know enough about your problems. 
>> You don't need to post a video dealing 
>> with that. I wanted to know the point 
>> you were trying to make.
>>
>Yeah, what's your point? If I wanted
>to watch videos, I would turn on the
>TV set. Why can't you just key in some
>information we can use, like in plain
>English. I don't have a lot of time to
>figure out puzzles anymore. Go figure.
>
>> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXP5rFAJQek
>> >
>> > What is the point you are trying 
>> > to make Ravi? Spell it out for those 
>> > of us who don't possess your supreme 
>> > degree of enlightenment, your unbounded 
>> > love, your undying compassion, your 
>> > piecing intellect. Come on. This bumpkin 
>> > wants to know.
>
>
> 
>
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[Emily Reyn]

I know.  I saw that.  It doesn't look that way on my screen obviously.  Which 
is why I attempted to use the **ER start.  I'm not even sure my posts are 
coming through without the weird characters that show up here in the reply, for 
example.  40 characters?  Is there a button to push to know when that is or 
that counts characters?  I certainly can't be counting.  I am really a 
techno-dinosaur, so I welcome feedback.  



>
> From: richardatrwilliamsdotus 
>To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
>Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 5:51 PM
>Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi 
>Chivukula
> 
>
>  
>
>
>Emily Reyn:
>> I tried my hand at interspersing my responses...
>> 
>Just a hint:
>
>Use > before what they say, and then post your 
>replies below that. That way, we can tell what 
>they say and your replies. (Try looking at Judy's 
>posts to get the formatting). 
>
>Use the ENTER key to break lines at 40 characters; 
>that makes your replies much easier to read, 
>instead of a mess like this: 
>
>> >> I'm sorry Barry. I may have this wrong...I thought I was 
>> >> referring to a conversation between you and Zarzari, not Vag. 
>> >> I can tell the difference between you and Vag 
>> >
>> >Vaj. Short for Vajranathra, his screen name. You don't 
>> >seem to be aware of the fact that by referring to him as 
>> >'Vag' you are perpetuating derogative namecalling started 
>> >by people who don't like him. That's fairly clueless of
>> >you IMO, especially in the context of criticizing someone
>> >else for the terms *they* use to describe people.
>> >**ER.  This was a complete mistake/mistype on my part...in my head, I was 
>> >hearing the word "vague"...probably subconsciously  influenced by Bob's 
>> >post - oh, oh, I see a diagnosis coming my way.  And, I totally didn't 
>> >even think of what Judy mentioned, in terms of relating the name to 
>> >"vagina."  That was a real shocker and particularly with regard to the 
>> >potential to "demean" women - not at all my intent, of course.  
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Ravi's Youtube

[richardatrwilliamsdotus]

seventhray1:
> Ravi, I know enough about your problems.  
> You don't need to post a video dealing 
> with that. I wanted to know the point 
> you were trying to make.
>
Yeah, what's your point? If I wanted
to watch videos, I would turn on the
TV set. Why can't you just key in some
information we can use, like in plain
English. I don't have a lot of time to
figure out puzzles anymore. Go figure.

> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXP5rFAJQek
> >
> > What is the point you are trying 
> > to make Ravi? Spell it out for those 
> > of us who don't possess your supreme 
> > degree of enlightenment, your unbounded 
> > love, your undying compassion, your 
> > piecing intellect. Come on. This bumpkin 
> > wants to know.

[FairfieldLife] Ramayana in Human Physiology publishing January 12th 2012

[shukra69]

http://www.mumpress.com/emailing/2011_12_28.html

[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[richardatrwilliamsdotus]

Emily Reyn:
> I tried my hand at interspersing my responses...
> 
Just a hint:

Use > before what they say, and then post your 
replies below that. That way, we can tell what 
they say and your replies. (Try looking at Judy's 
posts to get the formatting). 

Use the ENTER key to break lines at 40 characters; 
that makes your replies much easier to read, 
instead of a mess like this: 

> >> I'm sorry Barry. I may have this wrong...I thought I was 
> >> referring to a conversation between you and Zarzari, not Vag. 
> >> I can tell the difference between you and Vag 
> >
> >Vaj. Short for Vajranathra, his screen name. You don't 
> >seem to be aware of the fact that by referring to him as 
> >'Vag' you are perpetuating derogative namecalling started 
> >by people who don't like him. That's fairly clueless of
> >you IMO, especially in the context of criticizing someone
> >else for the terms *they* use to describe people.
> >**ER.  This was a complete mistake/mistype on my part...in my head, I was 
> >hearing the word "vague"...probably subconsciously  influenced by Bob's 
> >post - oh, oh, I see a diagnosis coming my way.  And, I totally didn't even 
> >think of what Judy mentioned, in terms of relating the name to "vagina." 
> > That was a real shocker and particularly with regard to the potential to 
> >"demean" women - not at all my intent, of course.  

[FairfieldLife] Re: US Responds to Iran Threat

[richardatrwilliamsdotus]

> > Here we go again.  Who will back 
> > down to avoid another war?  
> > Conventional wisdom would say that 
> > Iran should tow the line.  But then 
> > again who knows what they'll do.
> >
> >
Bhairitu:
> The militerrorists want to play with 
> the new toys they got for Christmas.
>
The Iranian 'militerrorists' probably 
don't celebrate Christmas by giving 
each other toys like you do.

You'll be paying $10.00 a gallon for
your gasoline if we let Iran close the
Straight of Hormuz. 

So, you probably won't be driving to 
Fry's anymore to buy more Chinese toys. 

My advice to you is to go on a strict
diet, join a gym, and get your legs in
shape for a lot of bicycle riding.

If your gasoline price doubles you,
being part of the 99%, won't be driving
around very much in your Japanese car.

[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[seventhray1]

I'd sure like to know the burden of proof you are looking for Judy.
Evidently details such as time and place, nuances are not good enough
for you.  Vaj must keep a complete dossier on Robin, which he must also
have pretty much memorized since he posts in nearly zero lag time in
response to Robin's posts.  But evidently you maintain that all this
could be accounted for by public records, interviews, newspaper articles
that Vaj has compiled.

And of course this could be the case.  But a more likely scenario is
that Vaj was present in the scenes he describes.  And if I were the
betting type, and someone asked me to be on the other side a bet which
said that Vaj's story was all heresay, I would take that bet.

I guess there is the other matter where Vaj has asked Robin to carry on
the discussion offline, whereby names and other details could be
discussed in private.  That offer was declined.







contemporaneous time --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"
 wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" steve.sundur@
wrote:
> >
> > Robin,
> >
> > Has it ocurred to you that Vaj has built his case, (if you
> > want to call it a case) on specific details. Your response
> > has been to declare that it is all a lie. Now, if there
> > were a bench of 12 jurors listening to the evidence, on the
> > issue of "Did this Vajradhatu know or meet this Robin
> > Wordworth Carlson", what would be the verdict?
>
> What you seem incapable of incorporating into your
> thinking is what the prosecutor (or defense attorney,
> depending on who's suing whom) would point out to the
> jury: that Vaj could have gotten every single one of
> those details from somebody else who *was* in
> Fairfield and who *did* know Robin.
>
> > Now Judy may say, well, you haven't presented any
> > person who can identify this Vajrahatu at the scene,
> > and because of this technicality, the case could be
> > thrown out.
>
> That's hardly a technicality.
>
> > But short of this standard, it seems to me that Vaj has
> > presented credible, seemingly first person evidence.
>
> Another point is that the "jury" in this case has heard
> "testimony" from Vaj on various issues for *years* now,
> not just for a few hours in a courtroom. He has not
> established a reputation for credibility, to say the
> least, among most of us here.
>
> Plus which, he has a clear motive to lie about what he
> knows firsthand: He's made it very plain that he is
> determined to "get" Robin any way he can. We don't
> know why he's on this personal vendetta, but there's
> no question that's what he's engaged in.
>
> And here, by the way, he's not testifying under penalty
> of perjury as he would be in a courtroom. A person who
> has stood up in public and sworn to tell "the truth, the
> whole truth, and nothing but the truth" acquires thereby
> a certain basic measure of credibility because the person
> is aware of the penalties for perjuring himself.
>
> Personally, just on the level of impressions, Vaj's
> "testimony" about his experiences with Robin remind
> me of nothing so much as the special effects trickery
> that inserted Forrest Gump into all kinds of important
> events. It's as if Vaj had Photoshopped himself into
> Robin's life. You can almost see the faint line between
> Vaj's image and the real ones. There's just no sense
> of first-person resonance, no ring of authenticity.
>
> 
> > On the other hand, what is so wrong with simply dealing with
> > these events that happened 25 or 30 years ago, and then
> > moving on? Or at least trying to move on. It appears that
> > Vaj is going to continue to confront you with these past
> > events,
>
> I agree with you 100 percent on these points. As I said
> in another post, Robin has so much to contribute, and
> perhaps even something to receive, from more positive
> interactions here. It's hard not to respond when you
> feel you're being unfairly maligned, but I wish Robin
> could find it within himself to limit his responses to
> the attacks to short statements of fact and just carry
> on.
>
> > and that is certainly his perogative.
>
> You could say that. Vaj has the *right* to do what he's
> doing; but is it *right* that he's doing it?
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Ravi's Youtube

[seventhray1]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ravi Chivukula"
 wrote:
>
> > Also wanted to clarify that I was not silent, I was silent here but
obsessively communicating elsewhere. Rahu is expansive like Jupiter but
more like obsessing, so with Budha indicates obsessive communication,
not silence. Interestingly this was in my 12th, Vrischika, lord Mangal
in 9th. In fact it's a new beginning for Dhanush lagna with a grand
trine, Surya, 9th lord in Dhanush 1st, Mars, 5th lord in Simha 9th and
Guru 1st lord in 5th, an amazing transit really. A flowering of dharma,
creativity and abilities. You will also notice or have already noticed a
difference in how I communicate with certain people here.

In other words, it 's business as usual.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgyQMYExUa8

[FairfieldLife] Re: Ravi's Youtube

[Ravi Chivukula]

Also wanted to clarify that I was not silent, I was silent here but obsessively 
communicating elsewhere. Rahu is expansive like Jupiter but more like 
obsessing, so with Budha indicates obsessive communication, not silence. 
Interestingly this was in my 12th, Vrischika, lord Mangal in 9th. In fact it's 
a new beginning for Dhanush lagna with a grand trine, Surya, 9th lord in 
Dhanush 1st, Mars, 5th lord in Simha 9th and Guru 1st lord in 5th, an amazing 
transit really. A flowering of dharma, creativity and abilities. You will also 
notice or have already noticed a difference in how I communicate with certain 
people here.

Love,
Ravi.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
>
> Thanks dear Obba, I calmed down amazingly after Budha came out of the grip of 
> the dragon's mouth..:-). And the beautiful Chandra, Sukra yuti in Makara.
> 
> It was awesome watching Moon set in to the dark, dimly lit, dazzling waters 
> of the Pacific in Venice here last night. That was the finishing touch 
> really. 
> 
> XOXO
> 
> 
> On Dec 28, 2011, at 4:25 PM, obbajeeba  wrote:
> 
> > LOL! Welcome back, Ravi!
> > 
> > Now that Buddha has passed the Rahu, you are in full swing. The dragon 
> > released your silence!
> > 
> > Talk soon to you all, as I have to go to sleep early this evening. Be back 
> > tomorrow eve, if I am lucky. : )
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ravi Chivukula"  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZajKNcP88_E
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > Let me edit
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > 
> > > > > Ravi, the serial abuser sufi, the lover is full of love for his
> > > > beloved. find, except his human beloved who filed for divorce and had a
> > > > restraing order issued He feels pain as
> > > > > he longs for her, blissful as he loses himself in her.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ravi doesn't hide his pain into fascination for pacifism, socialism,
> > > > > poverty worshipping, life-abnegating messiahs such as Gandhi and
> > > > Teresa,
> > > > > social utopia, myriad pain numbing therapies, non-violent
> > > > communication,
> > > > > religion or Guru. as long as he is fully engaged in his own abusive
> > > > behavior evidently to hide all the pain or abuse he likely received as a
> > > > child.
> > > > >
> > > > > He channels his pain and bliss into music, dance, drama, arts. Totally
> > > > > accepting the puzzling, baffling, bewildering contradictions of life
> > > > and
> > > > > celebrating it. > how's the recruitment going for America's Yogi?
> > > > 
> > > > Welcome back Ravi. Why don't you start right in with your love bombs. 
> > > > But WARNING-WARNING-WARNING. Jim's not here to apologize for your sorry
> > > > ass.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you,
> > > > > Ravi.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > 
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[azgrey]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > Maybe Vaj has been interested in posting on this TM oriented forum for 
> > years and years and years because he had personal experience as a teacher 
> > of TM and has since changed his perspective on its value like most of us 
> > here.
> > 
> > And maybe Vaj's obvious intererest in Robin comes from his experiences with 
> > Robin in his previous role.  You know, the ones he has related here.
> > 
> > I get it that the "Vaj never even did TM" team is not gunna budge."  It 
> > provides a complete ad hominem against anything he says as Nabbie repeated 
> > below.  And since he doesn't seem interested in proving his TM involvement 
> > to them that seems like a position that isn't gunna budge.
> > 
> > But for we who hold no stock options in that angle, it seems more likely 
> > that the guy is interested in these topics due to previous experiences with 
> > them.  And if I had to guess why he has not answered critics with "proof" 
> > of his involvement, it would be in a folder labeled: F'ing with people.  
> > And so far it seems like it is working pretty well.
> 
> 
> I doubt that Vag's superiors in the FBI agree with you. Rather they probably 
> wonder why he is still involved with a project they gave up decades ago.
>


Speaking of mad as a March hare.

Just sayin'.

   

Re: [FairfieldLife] US Responds to Iran Threat

[Bhairitu]

On 12/28/2011 10:08 AM, John wrote:
> Here we go again.  Who will back down to avoid another war?  Conventional 
> wisdom would say that Iran should tow the line.  But then again who knows 
> what they'll do.
>
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/u-fifth-fleet-says-wont-allow-disruption-hormuz-150427092.html

The militerrorists want to play with the new toys they got for Christmas.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Ravi's Youtube

[Ravi Chivukula]

Thanks dear Obba, I calmed down amazingly after Budha came out of the grip of 
the dragon's mouth..:-). And the beautiful Chandra, Sukra yuti in Makara.

It was awesome watching Moon set in to the dark, dimly lit, dazzling waters of 
the Pacific in Venice here last night. That was the finishing touch really. 

XOXO


On Dec 28, 2011, at 4:25 PM, obbajeeba  wrote:

> LOL! Welcome back, Ravi!
> 
> Now that Buddha has passed the Rahu, you are in full swing. The dragon 
> released your silence!
> 
> Talk soon to you all, as I have to go to sleep early this evening. Be back 
> tomorrow eve, if I am lucky. : )
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ravi Chivukula"  
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZajKNcP88_E
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > Let me edit
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > 
> > > > Ravi, the serial abuser sufi, the lover is full of love for his
> > > beloved. find, except his human beloved who filed for divorce and had a
> > > restraing order issued He feels pain as
> > > > he longs for her, blissful as he loses himself in her.
> > > >
> > > > Ravi doesn't hide his pain into fascination for pacifism, socialism,
> > > > poverty worshipping, life-abnegating messiahs such as Gandhi and
> > > Teresa,
> > > > social utopia, myriad pain numbing therapies, non-violent
> > > communication,
> > > > religion or Guru. as long as he is fully engaged in his own abusive
> > > behavior evidently to hide all the pain or abuse he likely received as a
> > > child.
> > > >
> > > > He channels his pain and bliss into music, dance, drama, arts. Totally
> > > > accepting the puzzling, baffling, bewildering contradictions of life
> > > and
> > > > celebrating it. > how's the recruitment going for America's Yogi?
> > > 
> > > Welcome back Ravi. Why don't you start right in with your love bombs. 
> > > But WARNING-WARNING-WARNING. Jim's not here to apologize for your sorry
> > > ass.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you,
> > > > Ravi.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 
> 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Ravi's Youtube

[Ravi Chivukula]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMU_7hnKy3o


On Dec 28, 2011, at 4:21 PM, "seventhray1"  wrote:

> Ravi, I know enough about your problems.  You don't need to post a video 
> dealing with that.  I wanted to know the point you were trying to make.  Best 
> go back to the well to see what else you can come up with.  Also, is your 
> lower lip getting chapped with all the biting I anticipate you are doing 
> right now?
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXP5rFAJQek
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Dec 28, 2011, at 4:00 PM, "seventhray1" steve.sundur@... wrote:
> > 
> > > What is the point you are trying to make Ravi? Spell it out for those of 
> > > us who don't possess your supreme degree of enlightenment, your unbounded 
> > > love, your undying compassion, your piecing intellect. Come on. This 
> > > bumpkin wants to know.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ravi Chivukula" chivukula.ravi@ 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZajKNcP88_E
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" steve.sundur@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > Let me edit
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula
> > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Ravi, the serial abuser sufi, the lover is full of love for his
> > > > > beloved. find, except his human beloved who filed for divorce and had 
> > > > > a
> > > > > restraing order issued He feels pain as
> > > > > > he longs for her, blissful as he loses himself in her.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ravi doesn't hide his pain into fascination for pacifism, socialism,
> > > > > > poverty worshipping, life-abnegating messiahs such as Gandhi and
> > > > > Teresa,
> > > > > > social utopia, myriad pain numbing therapies, non-violent
> > > > > communication,
> > > > > > religion or Guru. as long as he is fully engaged in his own abusive
> > > > > behavior evidently to hide all the pain or abuse he likely received 
> > > > > as a
> > > > > child.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > He channels his pain and bliss into music, dance, drama, arts. 
> > > > > > Totally
> > > > > > accepting the puzzling, baffling, bewildering contradictions of life
> > > > > and
> > > > > > celebrating it. > how's the recruitment going for America's Yogi?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Welcome back Ravi. Why don't you start right in with your love bombs. 
> > > > > But WARNING-WARNING-WARNING. Jim's not here to apologize for your 
> > > > > sorry
> > > > > ass.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you,
> > > > > > Ravi.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > 
> > >
> >
> 
> 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Ravi's Youtube

[obbajeeba]

LOL!  Welcome back, Ravi!

Now that Buddha has passed the Rahu, you are in full swing. The dragon released 
your silence!
  
Talk soon to you all, as I have to go to sleep early this evening. Be back 
tomorrow eve, if I am lucky. : )


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ravi Chivukula"  
wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZajKNcP88_E
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Let me edit
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > 
> > > Ravi, the serial abuser  sufi, the lover is full of love for his
> > beloved. find, except his human beloved who filed for divorce and had a
> > restraing order issued He feels pain as
> > > he longs for her, blissful as he loses himself in her.
> > >
> > > Ravi doesn't hide his pain into fascination for pacifism, socialism,
> > > poverty worshipping, life-abnegating messiahs such as Gandhi and
> > Teresa,
> > > social utopia, myriad pain numbing therapies, non-violent
> > communication,
> > > religion or Guru. as long as he is fully engaged in his own abusive
> > behavior evidently to hide all the pain or abuse he likely received as a
> > child.
> > >
> > > He channels his pain and bliss into music, dance, drama, arts. Totally
> > > accepting the puzzling, baffling, bewildering contradictions of life
> > and
> > > celebrating it. > how's the recruitment going for America's Yogi?
> > 
> > Welcome back Ravi.  Why don't you start right in with your love bombs. 
> > But WARNING-WARNING-WARNING.  Jim's not here to apologize for your sorry
> > ass.
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > Ravi.
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Ravi's Youtube

[seventhray1]

Ravi, I know enough about your problems.  You don't need to post a video
dealing with that.  I wanted to know the point you were trying to make. 
Best go back to the well to see what else you can come up with.  Also,
is your lower lip getting chapped with all the biting I anticipate you
are doing right now?


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula
 wrote:
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXP5rFAJQek
>
>
>
> On Dec 28, 2011, at 4:00 PM, "seventhray1" steve.sundur@... wrote:
>
> > What is the point you are trying to make Ravi? Spell it out for
those of us who don't possess your supreme degree of enlightenment, your
unbounded love, your undying compassion, your piecing intellect. Come
on. This bumpkin wants to know.
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ravi Chivukula"
chivukula.ravi@ wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZajKNcP88_E
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" steve.sundur@
wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Let me edit
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Ravi, the serial abuser sufi, the lover is full of love for
his
> > > > beloved. find, except his human beloved who filed for divorce
and had a
> > > > restraing order issued He feels pain as
> > > > > he longs for her, blissful as he loses himself in her.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ravi doesn't hide his pain into fascination for pacifism,
socialism,
> > > > > poverty worshipping, life-abnegating messiahs such as Gandhi
and
> > > > Teresa,
> > > > > social utopia, myriad pain numbing therapies, non-violent
> > > > communication,
> > > > > religion or Guru. as long as he is fully engaged in his own
abusive
> > > > behavior evidently to hide all the pain or abuse he likely
received as a
> > > > child.
> > > > >
> > > > > He channels his pain and bliss into music, dance, drama, arts.
Totally
> > > > > accepting the puzzling, baffling, bewildering contradictions
of life
> > > > and
> > > > > celebrating it. > how's the recruitment going for America's
Yogi?
> > > >
> > > > Welcome back Ravi. Why don't you start right in with your love
bombs.
> > > > But WARNING-WARNING-WARNING. Jim's not here to apologize for
your sorry
> > > > ass.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you,
> > > > > Ravi.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Post Count

[FFL PostCount]

Fairfield Life Post Counter
===
Start Date (UTC): Sat Dec 24 00:00:00 2011
End Date (UTC): Sat Dec 31 00:00:00 2011
413 messages as of (UTC) Thu Dec 29 00:13:44 2011

49 authfriend 
47 Yifu 
36 Emily Reyn 
32 Vaj 
29 zarzari_786 
24 turquoiseb 
21 seventhray1 
18 obbajeeba 
18 nablusoss1008 
16 richardatrwilliamsdotus 
13 Bob Price 
11 shukra69 
11 merudanda 
11 Bhairitu 
10 cardemaister 
10 John 
 9 Buck 
 8 maskedzebra 
 7 curtisdeltablues 
 6 Ravi Chivukula 
 5 raunchydog 
 3 merlin 
 2 whynotnow7 
 2 feste37 
 2 Rick Archer 
 2 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 2 Alex Stanley 
 1 shainm307 
 1 profildaniam 
 1 Robert 
 1 Mike Dixon 
 1 Jean 
 1 Jason 
 1 Frank 
 1 Duveyoung 
 1 Dick Mays 

Posters: 36
Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times
=
Daylight Saving Time (Summer):
US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM
Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM
Standard Time (Winter):
US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM
Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM
For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[Emily Reyn]

Yes, I was addressing the "self-reflection" issue indirectly I guess, as he did 
respond to me directly.  Barry does have a playful demeanor at times and I 
appreciate his posts and the comics and the communiques - I really do.  I 
simply disagree with his approach here, but I do hear what he is saying and I 
understand it as stated in words on the forum.  I assure you that I am 
operating as an independent - if my perspective appears to align with someone 
else's on certain points than that's the way it is, but I have my own voice and 
I do not "parrot" on purpose or with some unstated intent to "pile on."  That's 
never been my MO and I'm not going to start now.  I choose to stay out of 
judgment in the big picture, but that doesn't mean I don't play with my opinion 
or approach at times, or perhaps delve into the weeds or mire or wallow or 
whatever.  On this forum, I think all contribute substantially no matter where 
their state of mind, and I appreciate
 that more than words can say.  



>
> From: seventhray1 
>To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
>Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 3:54 PM
>Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi 
>Chivukula
> 
>
>  
>Emily,
>I did not read in detail the entire exchange.  But I read enough to see that 
>you were taking issue with some of Barry's perceptions.  Unlike Judy who feels 
>that Barry has always been a dishonest broker about all things TMO and MMY, 
>that has not been my perception.  When he began posting here, I thought he had 
>a more playful demeanor, and had some neat insights.  And sometimes that 
>playfulness, and those insights still come through.  But for the most part I 
>feel they have been overtaken by a hard cynicism.  And he seems to have lost 
>the appetite for any kind of self reflection, although when he started, that 
>seemed to be one of the areas he felt was important as a general concept.
>--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>>
>> Are you trying to ruin my afternoon, here?  It's already pouring rain. 
>>  I'm just trying to help the guy out with an alternate perspective - not 
>> one more or less valid than his.  I have zero expectations of him - its his 
>> choice, after all. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> >
>> > From: seventhray1 steve.sundur@...
>> >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
>> >Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 3:18 PM
>> >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi 
>> >Chivukula
>> > 
>> >
>> >  
>> >Emily, I feel obliged to give you fair warning.  You are likely one post 
>> >away from being on Barry's DNRL.  Just so you know.
>> >
>> >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Alrighty, I tried my hand at interspersing my responses...
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> >
>> >> > From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com
>> >> >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
>> >> >Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 2:31 AM
>> >> >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to 
>> >> >Ravi Chivukula
>> >> > 
>> >> >
>> >> >  
>> >> >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm sorry Barry. I may have this wrong...I thought I was 
>> >> >> referring to a conversation between you and Zarzari, not Vag. 
>> >> >> I can tell the difference between you and Vag 
>> >> >
>> >> >Vaj. Short for Vajranathra, his screen name. You don't 
>> >> >seem to be aware of the fact that by referring to him as 
>> >> >'Vag' you are perpetuating derogative namecalling started 
>> >> >by people who don't like him. That's fairly clueless of
>> >> >you IMO, especially in the context of criticizing someone
>> >> >else for the terms *they* use to describe people.
>> >> >**ER.  This was a complete mistake/mistype on my part...in my head, I 
>> >> >was hearing the word "vague"...probably subconsciously  influenced by 
>> >> >Bob's post - oh, oh, I see a diagnosis coming my way.  And, I totally 
>> >> >didn't even think of what Judy mentioned, in terms of relating the name 
>> >> >to "vagina."  That was a real shocker and particularly with regard to 
>> >> >the potential to "demean" women - not at all my intent, of course.  
>> >> >
>> >> >> I haven't appreciated all the "psychiatric" labeling of late 
>> >> >> because it's so limiting and dismissive and disrespectful 
>> >> >> and inaccurate. Other types of labeling - alright then...
>> >> >
>> >> >So labels like "stupid," "liar," "malicious," etc. are
>> >> >fine with you, just as long as no one uses terms usually
>> >> >reserved for shrinks. "Vag" is clearly also OK. I get it. 
>> >> >**ER.  Are you telling me you don't understand the difference in 
>> >> >implication or use?  You are talking apples and oranges here in a 
>> >> >huge way.  
>> >> >
>> >> >> ...but "psychiatric" labels by armchair experts on an int

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Ravi's Youtube

[Ravi Chivukula]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXP5rFAJQek



On Dec 28, 2011, at 4:00 PM, "seventhray1"  wrote:

> What is the point you are trying to make Ravi?  Spell it out for those of us 
> who don't possess your supreme degree of enlightenment,  your unbounded love, 
> your undying compassion, your piecing intellect.  Come on.  This bumpkin 
> wants to know.
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ravi Chivukula"  
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZajKNcP88_E
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" steve.sundur@ wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > Let me edit
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > 
> > > > Ravi, the serial abuser sufi, the lover is full of love for his
> > > beloved. find, except his human beloved who filed for divorce and had a
> > > restraing order issued He feels pain as
> > > > he longs for her, blissful as he loses himself in her.
> > > >
> > > > Ravi doesn't hide his pain into fascination for pacifism, socialism,
> > > > poverty worshipping, life-abnegating messiahs such as Gandhi and
> > > Teresa,
> > > > social utopia, myriad pain numbing therapies, non-violent
> > > communication,
> > > > religion or Guru. as long as he is fully engaged in his own abusive
> > > behavior evidently to hide all the pain or abuse he likely received as a
> > > child.
> > > >
> > > > He channels his pain and bliss into music, dance, drama, arts. Totally
> > > > accepting the puzzling, baffling, bewildering contradictions of life
> > > and
> > > > celebrating it. > how's the recruitment going for America's Yogi?
> > > 
> > > Welcome back Ravi. Why don't you start right in with your love bombs. 
> > > But WARNING-WARNING-WARNING. Jim's not here to apologize for your sorry
> > > ass.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you,
> > > > Ravi.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 
> 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Ravi's Youtube

[seventhray1]

What is the point you are trying to make Ravi?  Spell it out for those
of us who don't possess your supreme degree of enlightenment,  your
unbounded love, your undying compassion, your piecing intellect.  Come
on.  This bumpkin wants to know.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ravi Chivukula"
 wrote:
>
>
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZajKNcP88_E
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" steve.sundur@
wrote:
> >
> >
> > Let me edit
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula
> >  wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > Ravi, the serial abuser sufi, the lover is full of love for his
> > beloved. find, except his human beloved who filed for divorce and
had a
> > restraing order issued He feels pain as
> > > he longs for her, blissful as he loses himself in her.
> > >
> > > Ravi doesn't hide his pain into fascination for pacifism,
socialism,
> > > poverty worshipping, life-abnegating messiahs such as Gandhi and
> > Teresa,
> > > social utopia, myriad pain numbing therapies, non-violent
> > communication,
> > > religion or Guru. as long as he is fully engaged in his own
abusive
> > behavior evidently to hide all the pain or abuse he likely received
as a
> > child.
> > >
> > > He channels his pain and bliss into music, dance, drama, arts.
Totally
> > > accepting the puzzling, baffling, bewildering contradictions of
life
> > and
> > > celebrating it. > how's the recruitment going for America's Yogi?
> >
> > Welcome back Ravi. Why don't you start right in with your love
bombs.
> > But WARNING-WARNING-WARNING. Jim's not here to apologize for your
sorry
> > ass.
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > Ravi.
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Ravi's Youtube

[Ravi Chivukula]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZajKNcP88_E


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"  wrote:
>
> 
> Let me edit
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula
>  wrote:
> >
> 
> > Ravi, the serial abuser  sufi, the lover is full of love for his
> beloved. find, except his human beloved who filed for divorce and had a
> restraing order issued He feels pain as
> > he longs for her, blissful as he loses himself in her.
> >
> > Ravi doesn't hide his pain into fascination for pacifism, socialism,
> > poverty worshipping, life-abnegating messiahs such as Gandhi and
> Teresa,
> > social utopia, myriad pain numbing therapies, non-violent
> communication,
> > religion or Guru. as long as he is fully engaged in his own abusive
> behavior evidently to hide all the pain or abuse he likely received as a
> child.
> >
> > He channels his pain and bliss into music, dance, drama, arts. Totally
> > accepting the puzzling, baffling, bewildering contradictions of life
> and
> > celebrating it. > how's the recruitment going for America's Yogi?
> 
> Welcome back Ravi.  Why don't you start right in with your love bombs. 
> But WARNING-WARNING-WARNING.  Jim's not here to apologize for your sorry
> ass.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Ravi.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[seventhray1]

Emily,

I did not read in detail the entire exchange.  But I read enough to see
that you were taking issue with some of Barry's perceptions.  Unlike
Judy who feels that Barry has always been a dishonest broker about all
things TMO and MMY, that has not been my perception.  When he began
posting here, I thought he had a more playful demeanor, and had some
neat insights.  And sometimes that playfulness, and those insights still
come through.  But for the most part I feel they have been overtaken by
a hard cynicism.  And he seems to have lost the appetite for any kind of
self reflection, although when he started, that seemed to be one of the
areas he felt was important as a general concept.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn 
wrote:
>
> Are you trying to ruin my afternoon, here? Â It's already pouring
rain. Â I'm just trying to help the guy out with an alternate
perspective - not one more or less valid than his. Â I have zero
expectations of him - its his choice, after all.Â
>
>
>
> >
> > From: seventhray1 steve.sundur@...
> >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> >Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 3:18 PM
> >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to
Ravi Chivukula
> >
> >
> >Â
> >Emily, I feel obliged to give you fair warning.  You are likely
one post away from being on Barry's DNRL.  Just so you know.
> >
> >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@
wrote:
> >>
> >> Alrighty, I tried my hand at interspersing my responses...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com
> >> >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> >> >Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 2:31 AM
> >> >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter
to Ravi Chivukula
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >ÂÂ
> >> >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@
wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm sorry Barry. I may have this wrong...I thought I was
> >> >> referring to a conversation between you and Zarzari, not Vag.
> >> >> I can tell the difference between you and Vag
> >> >
> >> >Vaj. Short for Vajranathra, his screen name. You don't
> >> >seem to be aware of the fact that by referring to him as
> >> >'Vag' you are perpetuating derogative namecalling started
> >> >by people who don't like him. That's fairly clueless of
> >> >you IMO, especially in the context of criticizing someone
> >> >else for the terms *they* use to describe people.
> >> >**ER.  This was a complete mistake/mistype on my part...in
my head, I was hearing the word "vague"...probably subconsciously
 influenced by Bob's post - oh, oh, I see a diagnosis coming my
way.  And, I totally didn't even think of what Judy mentioned, in
terms of relating the name to "vagina."  That was a real shocker
and particularly with regard to the potential to "demean" women - not at
all my intent, of course. ÂÂ
> >> >
> >> >> I haven't appreciated all the "psychiatric" labeling of late
> >> >> because it's so limiting and dismissive and disrespectful
> >> >> and inaccurate. Other types of labeling - alright then...
> >> >
> >> >So labels like "stupid," "liar," "malicious," etc. are
> >> >fine with you, just as long as no one uses terms usually
> >> >reserved for shrinks. "Vag" is clearly also OK. I get it.ÂÂ
> >> >**ER.  Are you telling me you don't understand the
difference in implication or use?  You are talking apples and
oranges here in a huge way. ÂÂ
> >> >
> >> >> ...but "psychiatric" labels by armchair experts on an internet
> >> >> forum is a bit of a stretch, I think. I actually find the
> >> >> exchanges between Curtis and Robin quite interesting, but
> >> >> I'm acting as a voyeur only in that respect.
> >> >
> >> >Isn't "voyeur" too psychiatric a term for you to be using,
> >> >given what you just criticized? Just sayin'... :-)
> >> >** ER.  I don't know about "voyeur" as a psychiatric term,
but it is true that almost everything on this forum has been hitting me
as a "love sonnet of giant proportions."  But, I do often
interpret abstractly and may ignore the details and stay in my ÂÂ
version of the big picture.  Take Merudanda's poetry for example
- her communication style is really quite incredible and blows me away.
 I really must get back to Sean Williams videos on "is it bipolar
or is it waking up."  I'm healing, but who knows, maybe I'm
Bipolar I  or Bipolar II or hypomanic or an NPD myself or a "sex
addict" or in menopause or in the throes of a growing brain tumor, or
any number of other things.  Maybe I'm "normal" with more than my
fair share of "common sense."  Maybe I'm "crazy."  Maybe
you actually have no idea who I really "am", based on what I write here.
 I'm not in any real rush to diagnose myself, honestly, and see
no value in
> entertaining some internet-based
> >> diagnosis either.  It's a real buzz-kill honestly.
> >> >
> >> >> I don't experience Robin here t

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[Emily Reyn]

Are you trying to ruin my afternoon, here?  It's already pouring rain.  I'm 
just trying to help the guy out with an alternate perspective - not one more or 
less valid than his.  I have zero expectations of him - its his choice, after 
all. 



>
> From: seventhray1 
>To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
>Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 3:18 PM
>Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi 
>Chivukula
> 
>
>  
>Emily, I feel obliged to give you fair warning.  You are likely one post away 
>from being on Barry's DNRL.  Just so you know.
>
>--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>>
>> Alrighty, I tried my hand at interspersing my responses...
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> >
>> > From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com
>> >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
>> >Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 2:31 AM
>> >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi 
>> >Chivukula
>> > 
>> >
>> >  
>> >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I'm sorry Barry. I may have this wrong...I thought I was 
>> >> referring to a conversation between you and Zarzari, not Vag. 
>> >> I can tell the difference between you and Vag 
>> >
>> >Vaj. Short for Vajranathra, his screen name. You don't 
>> >seem to be aware of the fact that by referring to him as 
>> >'Vag' you are perpetuating derogative namecalling started 
>> >by people who don't like him. That's fairly clueless of
>> >you IMO, especially in the context of criticizing someone
>> >else for the terms *they* use to describe people.
>> >**ER.  This was a complete mistake/mistype on my part...in my head, I was 
>> >hearing the word "vague"...probably subconsciously  influenced by Bob's 
>> >post - oh, oh, I see a diagnosis coming my way.  And, I totally didn't 
>> >even think of what Judy mentioned, in terms of relating the name to 
>> >"vagina."  That was a real shocker and particularly with regard to the 
>> >potential to "demean" women - not at all my intent, of course.  
>> >
>> >> I haven't appreciated all the "psychiatric" labeling of late 
>> >> because it's so limiting and dismissive and disrespectful 
>> >> and inaccurate. Other types of labeling - alright then...
>> >
>> >So labels like "stupid," "liar," "malicious," etc. are
>> >fine with you, just as long as no one uses terms usually
>> >reserved for shrinks. "Vag" is clearly also OK. I get it. 
>> >**ER.  Are you telling me you don't understand the difference in 
>> >implication or use?  You are talking apples and oranges here in a huge 
>> >way.  
>> >
>> >> ...but "psychiatric" labels by armchair experts on an internet 
>> >> forum is a bit of a stretch, I think. I actually find the 
>> >> exchanges between Curtis and Robin quite interesting, but 
>> >> I'm acting as a voyeur only in that respect. 
>> >
>> >Isn't "voyeur" too psychiatric a term for you to be using,
>> >given what you just criticized? Just sayin'... :-)
>> >** ER.  I don't know about "voyeur" as a psychiatric term, but it is true 
>> >that almost everything on this forum has been hitting me as a "love sonnet 
>> >of giant proportions."  But, I do often interpret abstractly and may 
>> >ignore the details and stay in my  version of the big picture.  Take 
>> >Merudanda's poetry for example - her communication style is really quite 
>> >incredible and blows me away.  I really must get back to Sean Williams 
>> >videos on "is it bipolar or is it waking up."  I'm healing, but who knows, 
>> >maybe I'm Bipolar I  or Bipolar II or hypomanic or an NPD myself or a "sex 
>> >addict" or in menopause or in the throes of a growing brain tumor, or any 
>> >number of other things.  Maybe I'm "normal" with more than my fair share 
>> >of "common sense."  Maybe I'm "crazy."  Maybe you actually have no idea 
>> >who I really "am", based on what I write here.  I'm not in any real rush 
>> >to diagnose myself, honestly, and see no value in
 entertaining some internet-based
>> diagnosis either.  It's a real buzz-kill honestly.
>> >
>> >> I don't experience Robin here the way he was purported to 
>> >> behave before he rejected his "enlightenment" and I hold out 
>> >> an ideal that people that are willing to explore their depths 
>> >> change. It doesn't mean that communication patterns or an 
>> >> individual communication style don't persist - that's
>> >> part of the human - expressing who we are and what we believe 
>> >> in an always coherent way, is difficult. 
>> >
>> >Not, in my experience, if one is coherent to start with. YMMV.
>> >**ER.  This is a ridiculous statement to make, particularly, as a 
>> >writer/editor, if that's what you do.  You know better than that.
>> >
>> >> But, those that aren't willing or able to explore or question 
>> >> themselves and their depths never truly change/evolve/grow, 
>> >> in my experience. That's O.K. too for thembut that 
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Ravi's Youtube

[seventhray1]

Love bombs, Love Bombs.  Ravi you've gone three posts without abusive
rants.  Are you going to EXPLODE?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ravi Chivukula"
 wrote:
>
>
>
> I updated the description a little bit.
>
> Ravi, the sufi, the lover is full of love for his beloved. He feels
pain, intense separation, as he longs for her, blissful as he loses
himself in her.
>
> Ravi doesn't hide or numb his pain using alcohol, drugs generously
sponsored by pharma or project it into fascination for pacifism,
socialism, poverty worshipping, life-abnegating messiahs such as Gandhi
and Teresa, social utopia, myriad pain numbing therapies, non-violent
communication, religion or Gurus.
>
> He channels his pain and bliss into music, dance, drama, arts. Totally
accepting the puzzling, baffling, bewildering contradictions of life and
celebrating it.
>
>
> Love,
> Ravi
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@
wrote:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/user/ravichivukula?feature=mhee
> >
> >
> > *Title:* Ravi Chivukula - Celebrating Life
> >
> > *Description:*
> >
> > Ravi, the sufi, the lover is full of love for his beloved. He feels
pain as
> > he longs for her, blissful as he loses himself in her.
> >
> > Ravi doesn't hide his pain into fascination for pacifism, socialism,
> > poverty worshipping, life-abnegating messiahs such as Gandhi and
Teresa,
> > social utopia, myriad pain numbing therapies, non-violent
communication,
> > religion or Guru.
> >
> > He channels his pain and bliss into music, dance, drama, arts.
Totally
> > accepting the puzzling, baffling, bewildering contradictions of life
and
> > celebrating it.
> >
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Ravi.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"  wrote:
>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > You could say that. Vaj has the *right* to do what he's
> > doing; but is it *right* that he's doing it?
> >
> 
> Enough is known about Vaj to clear up any mystery of what relationship,
> if any, he had with Robin and his followers. Perhaps at some point
> someone will come forward to help clear it up.
> Robin has stated on several ocassions that it Vaj's accusations were
> true someone would have come forth to verify them. Well, as far as I can
> see no one, cept Robin has come forth to refute them.
> 
> "Robin, tear down that wall!". Wait, got that wrong. "Robin, present
> that evidence!"


Don't be ridicelous, the evidence in the FBI-files are not open to Robin.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Ravi's Youtube

[seventhray1]

Let me edit

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula
 wrote:
>

> Ravi, the serial abuser  sufi, the lover is full of love for his
beloved. find, except his human beloved who filed for divorce and had a
restraing order issued He feels pain as
> he longs for her, blissful as he loses himself in her.
>
> Ravi doesn't hide his pain into fascination for pacifism, socialism,
> poverty worshipping, life-abnegating messiahs such as Gandhi and
Teresa,
> social utopia, myriad pain numbing therapies, non-violent
communication,
> religion or Guru. as long as he is fully engaged in his own abusive
behavior evidently to hide all the pain or abuse he likely received as a
child.
>
> He channels his pain and bliss into music, dance, drama, arts. Totally
> accepting the puzzling, baffling, bewildering contradictions of life
and
> celebrating it. > how's the recruitment going for America's Yogi?

Welcome back Ravi.  Why don't you start right in with your love bombs. 
But WARNING-WARNING-WARNING.  Jim's not here to apologize for your sorry
ass.
>
> Thank you,
> Ravi.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[seventhray1]

Emily, I feel obliged to give you fair warning.  You are likely one post
away from being on Barry's DNRL.  Just so you know.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn 
wrote:
>
> Alrighty, I tried my hand at interspersing my responses...
>
>
>
> >
> > From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com
> >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> >Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 2:31 AM
> >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to
Ravi Chivukula
> >
> >
> >Â
> >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@
wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm sorry Barry. I may have this wrong...I thought I was
> >> referring to a conversation between you and Zarzari, not Vag.
> >> I can tell the difference between you and Vag
> >
> >Vaj. Short for Vajranathra, his screen name. You don't
> >seem to be aware of the fact that by referring to him as
> >'Vag' you are perpetuating derogative namecalling started
> >by people who don't like him. That's fairly clueless of
> >you IMO, especially in the context of criticizing someone
> >else for the terms *they* use to describe people.
> >**ER. Â This was a complete mistake/mistype on my part...in my
head, I was hearing the word "vague"...probably subconsciously Â
influenced by Bob's post - oh, oh, I see a diagnosis coming my way. Â
And, I totally didn't even think of what Judy mentioned, in terms of
relating the name to "vagina." Â That was a real shocker and
particularly with regard to the potential to "demean" women - not at all
my intent, of course. Â
> >
> >> I haven't appreciated all the "psychiatric" labeling of late
> >> because it's so limiting and dismissive and disrespectful
> >> and inaccurate. Other types of labeling - alright then...
> >
> >So labels like "stupid," "liar," "malicious," etc. are
> >fine with you, just as long as no one uses terms usually
> >reserved for shrinks. "Vag" is clearly also OK. I get it.Â
> >**ER. Â Are you telling me you don't understand the difference in
implication or use? Â You are talking apples and oranges here in a
huge way. Â
> >
> >> ...but "psychiatric" labels by armchair experts on an internet
> >> forum is a bit of a stretch, I think. I actually find the
> >> exchanges between Curtis and Robin quite interesting, but
> >> I'm acting as a voyeur only in that respect.
> >
> >Isn't "voyeur" too psychiatric a term for you to be using,
> >given what you just criticized? Just sayin'... :-)
> >** ER. Â I don't know about "voyeur" as a psychiatric term, but it
is true that almost everything on this forum has been hitting me as a
"love sonnet of giant proportions." Â But, I do often interpret
abstractly and may ignore the details and stay in my  version of the
big picture. Â Take Merudanda's poetry for example - her
communication style is really quite incredible and blows me away. Â I
really must get back to Sean Williams videos on "is it bipolar or is it
waking up." Â I'm healing, but who knows, maybe I'm Bipolar I Â or
Bipolar II or hypomanic or an NPD myself or a "sex addict" or in
menopause or in the throes of a growing brain tumor, or any number of
other things. Â Maybe I'm "normal" with more than my fair share of
"common sense." Â Maybe I'm "crazy." Â Maybe you actually have no
idea who I really "am", based on what I write here. Â I'm not in any
real rush to diagnose myself, honestly, and see no value in entertaining
some internet-based
> diagnosis either. Â It's a real buzz-kill honestly.
> >
> >> I don't experience Robin here the way he was purported to
> >> behave before he rejected his "enlightenment" and I hold out
> >> an ideal that people that are willing to explore their depths
> >> change. It doesn't mean that communication patterns or an
> >> individual communication style don't persist - that's
> >> part of the human - expressing who we are and what we believe
> >> in an always coherent way, is difficult.
> >
> >Not, in my experience, if one is coherent to start with. YMMV.
> >**ER. Â This is a ridiculous statement to make, particularly, as a
writer/editor, if that's what you do. Â You know better than that.
> >
> >> But, those that aren't willing or able to explore or question
> >> themselves and their depths never truly change/evolve/grow,
> >> in my experience. That's O.K. too for thembut that
> >> approach won't work for me. Also, I have a pretty loose
> >> definition of "crazy" - even looser since I started on this
> >> forum. We are all a bit crazy...you too, IMO. I admit to
> >> appreciating the "craziness" and "absurdity" of life.
> >
> >What I'm questioning is the wisdom of *feeding the fantasies
> >of people who could possibly be suffering from serious mental
> >illness*. THAT is what I think has been going on here on FFL
> >with Ravi and with Robin, and for the basest of reasons.
> >IMO, a small group of rather sick people here praise these
> >two, thus feeding their narcissistic fantasies and contributing
> >to the possibility of making their conditi

[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[seventhray1]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> You could say that. Vaj has the *right* to do what he's
> doing; but is it *right* that he's doing it?
>

Enough is known about Vaj to clear up any mystery of what relationship,
if any, he had with Robin and his followers. Perhaps at some point
someone will come forward to help clear it up.
Robin has stated on several ocassions that it Vaj's accusations were
true someone would have come forth to verify them. Well, as far as I can
see no one, cept Robin has come forth to refute them.

"Robin, tear down that wall!". Wait, got that wrong. "Robin, present
that evidence!"

[FairfieldLife] Re: Trio erektus: Sex machine

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> Yeah, they got a bit of the James Brown groove!

Well, at least taking into account that most of them
musicians are prolly descendants of Siberian mammoth
hunters who might have been in contact with the
Vedic shamanic culture - possibly inventors of biija
mantras utilizing the velar nasal ['ng' in, say, sling] as the final sound --  
before its proponents moved South to what is now called India... ;D

> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > At least for a "drummer" like myself, funky is surprisingly hard
> > to play so that it sounds good:
> > 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UozWX1bYJQY
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Ravi's Youtube

[Ravi Chivukula]

Dear Denise,

Thank you - I missed you and all the other lovers here as well !!!

And I will comment on your earlier post where you referenced me.

Love,
Ravi


On Dec 28, 2011, at 2:32 PM, Emily Reyn  wrote:

> RaviI missed you and thank you for your words and the lovely video.  
> 
> P.S. Robin's post was entirely awesome, I agree...it stands on its own 
> perfectly.  
> 
> From: Ravi Chivukula 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 2:22 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Ravi's Youtube
> 
>  
> 
> 
> I updated the description a little bit.
> 
> Ravi, the sufi, the lover is full of love for his beloved. He feels pain, 
> intense separation, as he longs for her, blissful as he loses himself in her.
> 
> Ravi doesn't hide or numb his pain using alcohol, drugs generously sponsored 
> by pharma or project it into fascination for pacifism, socialism, poverty 
> worshipping, life-abnegating messiahs such as Gandhi and Teresa, social 
> utopia, myriad pain numbing therapies, non-violent communication, religion or 
> Gurus.
> 
> He channels his pain and bliss into music, dance, drama, arts. Totally 
> accepting the puzzling, baffling, bewildering contradictions of life and 
> celebrating it.
> 
> Love,
> Ravi
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  
> wrote:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/user/ravichivukula?feature=mhee
> > 
> > 
> > *Title:* Ravi Chivukula - Celebrating Life
> > 
> > *Description:*
> > 
> > Ravi, the sufi, the lover is full of love for his beloved. He feels pain as
> > he longs for her, blissful as he loses himself in her.
> > 
> > Ravi doesn't hide his pain into fascination for pacifism, socialism,
> > poverty worshipping, life-abnegating messiahs such as Gandhi and Teresa,
> > social utopia, myriad pain numbing therapies, non-violent communication,
> > religion or Guru.
> > 
> > He channels his pain and bliss into music, dance, drama, arts. Totally
> > accepting the puzzling, baffling, bewildering contradictions of life and
> > celebrating it.
> > 
> > 
> > Thank you,
> > Ravi.
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Ravi's Youtube

[Emily Reyn]

RaviI missed you and thank you for your words and the lovely video.  

P.S. Robin's post was entirely awesome, I agree...it stands on its own 
perfectly.  



>
> From: Ravi Chivukula 
>To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
>Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 2:22 PM
>Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Ravi's Youtube
> 
>
>  
>
>
>I updated the description a little bit.
>
>Ravi, the sufi, the lover is full of love for his beloved. He feels pain, 
>intense separation, as he longs for her, blissful as he loses himself in her.
>
>Ravi doesn't hide or numb his pain using alcohol, drugs generously sponsored 
>by pharma or project it into fascination for pacifism, socialism, poverty 
>worshipping, life-abnegating messiahs such as Gandhi and Teresa, social 
>utopia, myriad pain numbing therapies, non-violent communication, religion or 
>Gurus.
>
>He channels his pain and bliss into music, dance, drama, arts. Totally 
>accepting the puzzling, baffling, bewildering contradictions of life and 
>celebrating it.
>
>Love,
>Ravi
>
>--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  
>wrote:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/user/ravichivukula?feature=mhee
>> 
>> 
>> *Title:* Ravi Chivukula - Celebrating Life
>> 
>> *Description:*
>> 
>> Ravi, the sufi, the lover is full of love for his beloved. He feels pain as
>> he longs for her, blissful as he loses himself in her.
>> 
>> Ravi doesn't hide his pain into fascination for pacifism, socialism,
>> poverty worshipping, life-abnegating messiahs such as Gandhi and Teresa,
>> social utopia, myriad pain numbing therapies, non-violent communication,
>> religion or Guru.
>> 
>> He channels his pain and bliss into music, dance, drama, arts. Totally
>> accepting the puzzling, baffling, bewildering contradictions of life and
>> celebrating it.
>> 
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> Ravi.
>>
>
>
> 
>
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Ravi's Youtube

[Ravi Chivukula]

I updated the description a little bit.

Ravi, the sufi, the lover is full of love for his beloved. He feels pain, 
intense separation, as he longs for her, blissful as he loses himself in her.

Ravi doesn't hide or numb his pain using alcohol, drugs generously sponsored by 
pharma or project it into fascination for pacifism, socialism, poverty 
worshipping, life-abnegating messiahs such as Gandhi and Teresa, social utopia, 
myriad pain numbing therapies, non-violent communication, religion or Gurus.

He channels his pain and bliss into music, dance, drama, arts. Totally 
accepting the puzzling, baffling, bewildering contradictions of life and 
celebrating it.


Love,
Ravi

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/user/ravichivukula?feature=mhee
> 
> 
> *Title:* Ravi Chivukula - Celebrating Life
> 
> *Description:*
> 
> Ravi, the sufi, the lover is full of love for his beloved. He feels pain as
> he longs for her, blissful as he loses himself in her.
> 
> Ravi doesn't hide his pain into fascination for pacifism, socialism,
> poverty worshipping, life-abnegating messiahs such as Gandhi and Teresa,
> social utopia, myriad pain numbing therapies, non-violent communication,
> religion or Guru.
> 
> He channels his pain and bliss into music, dance, drama, arts. Totally
> accepting the puzzling, baffling, bewildering contradictions of life and
> celebrating it.
> 
> 
> Thank you,
> Ravi.
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] A Christmas Letter to Barry Wright from Masked Zebra

[Ravi Chivukula]

Dear Robin,

This is just awesome !!!

Let's see what the reaction of the people who pride on their intellectual 
honesty react to this.

Love,
Ravi

On Dec 28, 2011, at 7:11 AM, maskedzebra  wrote:

> Dear Barry,
> 
> You have decided that the best course of action at this point is to argue 
> that I am insane, or at least, suffering from some mental disease. I don't 
> believe you are sincere in this; that the context of your own experience when 
> you describe me as emotionally disturbed and delusional does not have a 
> natural or truthful correspondence (one with the other). In other words, 
> Barry, you are lying. Of course it is always theoretically possible that I am 
> all the things you say I am: a person out of his mind and deeply troubled. 
> However by the subtext of your posts along this theme, you are, essentially, 
> giving me a clear bill of health.
> 
> You see, if I believe (or anyone believes) someone is psychopathological, 
> then this means that the sense they are ill, disordered, and unstable takes 
> precedence over any other consideration: for example, that we don't like what 
> they say about us, that we don't like what they say about certain people we 
> ourselves like. Once we believe in the diagnosis of mental illness as the 
> explanatory basis of their behaviour we are in this very determination freed 
> of any personal reaction to what they might say that is unflattering or 
> critical about ourselves or other persons. If I believe someone is suffering 
> from hypomania or paranoid schizophrenia then whenever that person (the 
> would-be patient) turns his attention on us and, for example, tries to 
> analyze us, or challenge us, or even appeal to us, we are unable to 
> essentially focus on what they are saying independent of our experience that 
> this is an insane person.
> 
> So, then, we don't take it personally. And this sense of detachment born of a 
> spontaneous and indefeasible perception of their abnormal mental state will 
> be present in whatever we say about them to another person. We reject the 
> objectivity, the appropriateness, the truthfulness of what they say, not out 
> of personal pique or animus, but because what they say (or write) is 
> inextricably bound up with their pathology; therefore it cannot touch us, 
> because by definition their words and feelings have their origin in something 
> very far away from truth.
> 
> So, in order for me to trust in the honesty and good faith of what you have 
> said about me, Barry, I must detect some, however oblique and implicit, 
> sympathy for me, since, if I am as alienated from my true self as your 
> diagnosis suggests, then what motivates all that you say about me arises from 
> this perception of how my words do not bear any correspondence, or little 
> correspondence, to reality, to what actually is the case.
> 
> Do you understand me, then, Barry? It means that this very letter to you 
> affects you primarily in only one sense: "Robin thinks he is saying something 
> important and significant here, but all that I can detect—quite innocently, 
> quite unmistakably—are symptoms of a serious mental disorder." Which entirely 
> spares you the discomfort or unpleasantness of wondering whether what I am 
> saying has any truth value in and of itself. I suppose a demented person can 
> perhaps speak truth; but the context within which he does this will always 
> upstage that truthfulness; or at least there will not be a context of 
> normality surrounding those accidental truthful remarks. 
> 
> There cannot be any other possible interpretation than the one I have given 
> in this post, Barry: You are not bothered or angered or frustrated or 
> inconvenienced whatsoever by all that Robin has said in his enumerable and 
> wordy posts. Because what comes through to you is a psychological context 
> which gives his posts a quite different meaning than the one he, Robin, 
> assigns to them. That meaning is driven home to you, and it amounts to: This 
> guy is truly insane. I can't even separate what he says from what he is, and 
> what he is simply extinguishes any coherence or truthfulness in what he posts 
> at FFL.
> 
> Well, Barry, is there any proof at all that your Amsterdam posts of December 
> 28, 2012 fulfill this logical and common sense criterion? If they do, I must 
> be even more mentally deranged than I already am, because it is my distinct 
> and overpowering experience that you are not at all convinced in the truth of 
> what you are saying. Not in the least. 
> 
> There is not even any sense of sincerity, of the real person Barry showing 
> his feelings, his real experience of himself, his own existential self. The 
> posts you have written today, Barry, serve only one very obvious agenda: to 
> ventilate your antipathy towards this Robin guy, to cast aspersions on him, 
> to retaliate against the critical mass of skepticism and doubt about your own 
> integrity as a human being (based on some o

[FairfieldLife] Ravi's Youtube

[Ravi Chivukula]

http://www.youtube.com/user/ravichivukula?feature=mhee


*Title:* Ravi Chivukula - Celebrating Life

*Description:*

Ravi, the sufi, the lover is full of love for his beloved. He feels pain as
he longs for her, blissful as he loses himself in her.

Ravi doesn't hide his pain into fascination for pacifism, socialism,
poverty worshipping, life-abnegating messiahs such as Gandhi and Teresa,
social utopia, myriad pain numbing therapies, non-violent communication,
religion or Guru.

He channels his pain and bliss into music, dance, drama, arts. Totally
accepting the puzzling, baffling, bewildering contradictions of life and
celebrating it.


Thank you,
Ravi.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[Emily Reyn]

Alrighty, I tried my hand at interspersing my responses...



>
> From: turquoiseb 
>To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
>Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 2:31 AM
>Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi 
>Chivukula
> 
>
>  
>--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>>
>> I'm sorry Barry. I may have this wrong...I thought I was 
>> referring to a conversation between you and Zarzari, not Vag. 
>> I can tell the difference between you and Vag 
>
>Vaj. Short for Vajranathra, his screen name. You don't 
>seem to be aware of the fact that by referring to him as 
>'Vag' you are perpetuating derogative namecalling started 
>by people who don't like him. That's fairly clueless of
>you IMO, especially in the context of criticizing someone
>else for the terms *they* use to describe people.
>**ER.  This was a complete mistake/mistype on my part...in my head, I was 
>hearing the word "vague"...probably subconsciously  influenced by Bob's post - 
>oh, oh, I see a diagnosis coming my way.  And, I totally didn't even think of 
>what Judy mentioned, in terms of relating the name to "vagina."  That was a 
>real shocker and particularly with regard to the potential to "demean" women - 
>not at all my intent, of course.  
>
>> I haven't appreciated all the "psychiatric" labeling of late 
>> because it's so limiting and dismissive and disrespectful 
>> and inaccurate. Other types of labeling - alright then...
>
>So labels like "stupid," "liar," "malicious," etc. are
>fine with you, just as long as no one uses terms usually
>reserved for shrinks. "Vag" is clearly also OK. I get it. 
>**ER.  Are you telling me you don't understand the difference in implication 
>or use?  You are talking apples and oranges here in a huge way.  
>
>> ...but "psychiatric" labels by armchair experts on an internet 
>> forum is a bit of a stretch, I think. I actually find the 
>> exchanges between Curtis and Robin quite interesting, but 
>> I'm acting as a voyeur only in that respect. 
>
>Isn't "voyeur" too psychiatric a term for you to be using,
>given what you just criticized? Just sayin'...  :-)
>** ER.  I don't know about "voyeur" as a psychiatric term, but it is true that 
>almost everything on this forum has been hitting me as a "love sonnet of giant 
>proportions."  But, I do often interpret abstractly and may ignore the details 
>and stay in my  version of the big picture.  Take Merudanda's poetry for 
>example - her communication style is really quite incredible and blows me 
>away.  I really must get back to Sean Williams videos on "is it bipolar or is 
>it waking up."  I'm healing, but who knows, maybe I'm Bipolar I  or Bipolar II 
>or hypomanic or an NPD myself or a "sex addict" or in menopause or in the 
>throes of a growing brain tumor, or any number of other things.  Maybe I'm 
>"normal" with more than my fair share of "common sense."  Maybe I'm "crazy."  
>Maybe you actually have no idea who I really "am", based on what I write here. 
> I'm not in any real rush to diagnose myself, honestly, and see no value in 
>entertaining some internet-based
 diagnosis either.  It's a real buzz-kill honestly.
>
>> I don't experience Robin here the way he was purported to 
>> behave before he rejected his "enlightenment" and I hold out 
>> an ideal that people that are willing to explore their depths 
>> change. It doesn't mean that communication patterns or an 
>> individual communication style don't persist - that's
>> part of the human - expressing who we are and what we believe 
>> in an always coherent way, is difficult. 
>
>Not, in my experience, if one is coherent to start with. YMMV.
>**ER.  This is a ridiculous statement to make, particularly, as a 
>writer/editor, if that's what you do.  You know better than that.
>
>> But, those that aren't willing or able to explore or question 
>> themselves and their depths never truly change/evolve/grow, 
>> in my experience. That's O.K. too for thembut that 
>> approach won't work for me. Also, I have a pretty loose 
>> definition of "crazy" - even looser since I started on this 
>> forum. We are all a bit crazy...you too, IMO. I admit to 
>> appreciating the "craziness" and "absurdity" of life. 
>
>What I'm questioning is the wisdom of *feeding the fantasies
>of people who could possibly be suffering from serious mental
>illness*. THAT is what I think has been going on here on FFL 
>with Ravi and with Robin, and for the basest of reasons.
>IMO, a small group of rather sick people here praise these 
>two, thus feeding their narcissistic fantasies and contributing
>to the possibility of making their condition WORSE, for no other
>reason than that they're trying to recruit people who will "pile
>on" and demonize the same people they live to demonize. I think 
>that's not only a little sick, but dangerous. I fear it will 
>end badly, and when it does the very people who have been 
>*encouraging* Ravi and Robin to ac

[FairfieldLife] (unknown)

[nablusoss1008]

VIEW EMAIL WITH IMAGES

  [maharishi university of management press]   [Ramayan] 
   [in Human
Physiology]    
   [Ramayan in
Human Physiology] 
  
[Discovery of
the Eternal Reality of the Ramayan in the Structure and Function of
Human Physiology] 
   [Maharaja
Adhiraj Rajaraam Tony Nader, MD, Ph.D ] 

Discovery of the Eternal Reality of the
Ramayan in the Structure and Function of
Human Physiology

by Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam
Tony Nader, MD, Ph.D

A magnificent achievement...
Astounding in its scope and clarity of expression

More than ten years in the making, the Ramayan in Human Physiology is
the perfect sequel to Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam's (Professor Tony
Nader, MD PhD) first groundbreaking work on the correspondence of the
Vedic Literature and human physiology. With his intellect finely honed
by doctoral and post-doctoral research in neuroscience at Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT) and Harvard Medical School, and his
intuition and feeling deeply cultivated by years of personal training
with renowned Vedic scientist and sage, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Dr. Nader
beautifully integrates cutting-edge science with the ancient wisdom of
the Vedas.

Dr. Nader's insights into the deepest levels of understanding of the
cosmic nature of the human physiology led Maharishi to refer to him as
the greatest scientist of our time, responsible for ushering in a new
age of enlightenment for every culture, every country, and every
individual in the world. This book underscores Maharishi's
brilliance and wisdom in his choice of Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam to be
the leader of Maharishi's worldwide Transcendental Meditation
Movement.
  [Ramayan in Human Physiology Discovery of the Eternal Reality of the
Ramayan in theStructure and Function of Human Physiology 460 pages,
full color | $108 This book will be released on January 12, 2012 and
will be in great demand.reserve your copy] 

"Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is talking in terms of the mechanics of
transformation of Natural Law into physiology. He has realized that the
total Constitution of Natural Law, which governs the universe with
perfect order, is lively in every grain of physiology. And the language
of Ramayan is that language in which Total Natural Law is actually seen
administering the whole universe."—Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

"Such great thanks go to Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam who, with
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's guidance, proves without a doubt that the
Ramayan is not just a fanciful story from the past—nor a myth.
Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam shows that this story is always alive in the
Eternal Field of Consciousness—The Absolute— The Unified Field
of all the Laws of Nature— and that this story with all its
characters—happenings—details —is alive and being unfolded
in each and every human being."—David Lynch, Filmmaker

`Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam (Dr. Tony Nader, MD, PhD) is one of the
great, innovative geniuses of our time. His remarkable scientific
elucidation of the ancient cherished epic, the Ramayan, reveals how this
timeless saga is truly about ourselves—a story that is continuously
unfolding within our very brain and body. This makes this time-honored
epic immediately relevant to the life and very soul of the reader. A
magnificent revelation…. An historic achievement.'—John
Hagelin, PhD, World Renowned Quantum Physicist; President, Global Union
of Scientists for Peace

`Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam has seen in the story of Shri Ram in the
Ramayan the basic principles of the administration of the whole universe
by the totality of the Laws of Nature. With Maharishi's guidance he
was able to cognize this reality unfolding, instant by instant, in human
physiology, which is the gift of God to everyone."
—Dr. Bevan Morris Prime Minister, Global Country of World Peace;
President, Maharishi University of Management, USA

`This book represents one of the most important achievements in the
history of mankind. It marks a turning point in which the newest and
oldest traditions of knowledge converge, contributing to a
paradigm-changing understanding of human potential."
—Robert Keith Wallace, PhD, Founding President and Trustee, Dean,
College of Perfect Health, Maharishi University of Management, USA

`This book will serve as a revelation to physicians, scientists, and
those who desire a greater understanding of the unity underlying all
that makes us human.'
—Gary P. Kaplan, MD, PhD, Clinical Associate Professor of Neurology
Hofstra University School of Medicine
  [Order Now]  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stormy Weather in TM Celebrityville

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > If I had the option to hang out in Hawaii away from my ex 
> > wife in our first year of marriage, I never would have 
> > lasted the year!  The odds are so stacked against them.  
> > Right about now Russell would rather watch a midget (sorry 
> > little person) Thai hooker dancing on a Webcam than do 
> > anything with Katy in bed.  So many marriages make it 
> > through the transition from dopamine to seritonin on lack 
> > of options till they settle in to a nice groove.  These 
> > two have nothing but options and the flames are dying down.  
> > I don't know how anyone makes it to the glowing ember stage 
> > as a celebrity, but these two don't really strike me as being 
> > in a "glowing ember" stage of their young lives and smashing 
> > success.  Plus rebound sex rocks!
> 
> I am not sure whether to admit or to celebrate
> the fact that I am not completely sure who either
> or the people being spoken about are.  :-)

Russell can be very funny, an ex junkie comedian.  Katy performs the kind of 
Summer anthem pop stuff that, despite not being my thing, is performed really 
well and way over the top visually. Kind of Pee Wee's playhouse meets cupcakes 
on boobs.  My GF and I spent some time playing her songs last Summer for the 
genre bending challenge and those songs are tight.  They deserve to be hit 
songs for the MP3 downloading demographic.  Her voice goes theatrical instead 
of gritty, so I appreciate the songs better through my own filters.(And usually 
cupcake-boob free but I wont put that in writing.)

As TM shills, Katy could pull off the spacey Heather Graham hot chick 
endorsement well enough, but it is Russell interviewing John Hegelin that has 
the Elvis meeting Nixon in the White House insanity that I live for. Since most 
of his previous punch lines included both the F word and heroin much of the 
time, his timid deference to John was like watching a gelding leaving he 
gelding room without his gelds.  

Ouch!






> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > And, in really TRULY important news,
> > > 
> > > Katy Perry and Russell Brand Having "Problems," Spending "Time Apart"
> > > 
> > > http://www.eonline.com/news/katy_perry_russell_brand_having/283082#ixzz1hrKsYG9c
> > > 
> > > http://tinyurl.com/crmdk28
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Calamity of U.G. Krishnamurti

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > 
> > > Just don't understand.
> > 
> > We know that by now.
> 
> Humbled to be in the presence of people who 
> claim that they *do* understand.
> 
> :-)


The day you show any real humbleness, I'lleat my Basque beret ! :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Calamity of U.G. Krishnamurti

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > 
> > Just don't understand.
> 
> We know that by now.

Humbled to be in the presence of people who 
claim that they *do* understand.

:-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Calamity of U.G. Krishnamurti

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:

> 
> Seems to me that if one had truly glimpsed Unity,
> as something more than intellectual moodmaking, 
> that is, they'd understand that their POV is no
> more important or "correct" than any other.
> 
> So why IS it that people who have claimed to have
> glimpsed Unity continue to fight tooth and nail 
> to "prove" *their* POV more "correct?" 



You are hallucinating again.
>From what I can remember neither Rory nor Jim never claimed to have the only 
>correct POV. 

> 

> Just don't understand.


We know that by now.

[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:

> 
> What we *do* say is that we *don't* call any and all
> TM critics liars. Most of the critics here are *not*
> liars. Vaj lies and Barry lies. Barry lies primarily
> about TMers (especially the TMers on FFL, as he does
> here); Vaj lies about TM, TMers, MMY, and the TMO,
> as well as about his TM status. Barry also lies about
> practically everything else when it serves his
> purposes.


That's right ! And they're both "Buddhists". 
Like the americans say; what's up with that ?

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Calamity of U.G. Krishnamurti

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda  wrote:
> >
> > As far as it known U. G. Krishnamurti always wanted to talk 
> > with someone in U.C.--it never happened
> 
> Why would it have mattered to him to have had this
> conversation? I mean, we've had conversations with
> several people on this forum who claim to have
> experienced UC. Have Jimbo's and RWC's posts made
> any difference in your life? Why would UG think 
> that having a similar conversation would have a
> difference on his?
> 
> Just don't understand. They're all claims. Claims
> do not equal truth.

Pursuing this train of thought, just for the fun
of it, one of the things that occurs to me is "Why
would people who claim to have experienced Unity,
by definition the SOC in which one experiences all
people as equal to oneself, because...uh...after
all they *are* your Self, then turn around and 
claim that *their* ideas and beliefs were 'more
correct' than these other sentient beings'?"

Seems to me that if one had truly glimpsed Unity,
as something more than intellectual moodmaking, 
that is, they'd understand that their POV is no
more important or "correct" than any other.

So why IS it that people who have claimed to have
glimpsed Unity continue to fight tooth and nail 
to "prove" *their* POV more "correct?" 

Just don't understand.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Calamity of U.G. Krishnamurti

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda  wrote:
> >
> > As far as it known U. G. Krishnamurti always wanted to talk 
> > with someone in U.C.--it never happened
> 
> Why would it have mattered to him to have had this
> conversation? I mean, we've had conversations with
> several people on this forum who claim to have
> experienced UC. Have Jimbo's and RWC's posts made
> any difference in your life? Why would UG think 
> that having a similar conversation would have a
> difference on his?
> 
> Just don't understand. They're all claims. Claims
> do not equal truth.


And ofcourse, it won't be "truth" to the Turq when our boys (and girls) start 
to float either. 
After all he has "seen" it before - by someone who later comitted suicide.

[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:

> What IS it about diehard TMers when their "fallback 
> position," when they have been unable to get someone
> to argue head-to-head with them so that they can "win"
> or at the very least claim to, becomes trying to go
> for the olde, tired ad hominem of "You can't trust
> anything he says, because he's a liar."
> 
> They've run that on Vaj, on you, on me, and on any
> number of people who criticize TM, Maharishi, or the
> TMO on this forum.

No, only Barry and Vaj.

 They would have you believe that
> this is a coincidence, and that they work overtime
> trying to similarly demonize other liars who *don't*
> criticize TM, Maharishi, and the TMO, but I don't
> think anyone believes them about this any more.

NO TMER ON FFL HAS EVER SAID ANYTHING LIKE THIS,
and Barry knows it. In other words, he's lying.
He made it up out of whole cloth.

What we *do* say is that we *don't* call any and all
TM critics liars. Most of the critics here are *not*
liars. Vaj lies and Barry lies. Barry lies primarily
about TMers (especially the TMers on FFL, as he does
here); Vaj lies about TM, TMers, MMY, and the TMO,
as well as about his TM status. Barry also lies about
practically everything else when it serves his
purposes.

> It's as if they still believe in the "Maharishi model"
> of how to deal with criticism: "Find ways to put down
> the critic and insinuate that he/she has evil motives 
> for saying what he does, or is lying, or is untrust-
> worthy, or whatever, and enough of the already-drank-
> the-Kool-Aid-brigade will believe it so that we can
> continue doing business."

There are any number of examples that rebut this
canard. The most recent and prominent is Robin, whose
outspoken criticism of MMY's teaching puts all the
other critics here in the shade. And yet--as Barry
himself, ironically, has made a big deal of in other
posts--we get along with Robin very well indeed.

It's the *other TM critics* who accuse Robin of being
untrustworthy, most notably Barry and Vaj.

> I kinda think it's lazy, and embarrassing. I'd like
> to see some of these "Shoot the messenger" types deal
> with the actual message. But that's not gonna happen.

Of course, we deal with "the actual message" *all the
time*. But there's a limit to what we can accomplish
along those lines when the "messengers" refuse to
engage in any discussion with us and resort instead
to the kind of crude demonization Barry spouts here.
It isn't the TMers who ostentatiously refrain from
reading the posts of those with whom they disagree.
We aren't afraid to even *look* at their message, the
way Barry and Vaj are afraid to look at ours. It isn't
the TMers who are afraid to discuss the issues, it's
Barry and Vaj.

The dishonesty and hypocrisy emanating from Barry and
Vaj are choking this forum to death.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stormy Weather in TM Celebrityville

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> If I had the option to hang out in Hawaii away from my ex 
> wife in our first year of marriage, I never would have 
> lasted the year!  The odds are so stacked against them.  
> Right about now Russell would rather watch a midget (sorry 
> little person) Thai hooker dancing on a Webcam than do 
> anything with Katy in bed.  So many marriages make it 
> through the transition from dopamine to seritonin on lack 
> of options till they settle in to a nice groove.  These 
> two have nothing but options and the flames are dying down.  
> I don't know how anyone makes it to the glowing ember stage 
> as a celebrity, but these two don't really strike me as being 
> in a "glowing ember" stage of their young lives and smashing 
> success.  Plus rebound sex rocks!

I am not sure whether to admit or to celebrate
the fact that I am not completely sure who either
or the people being spoken about are.  :-)

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
> wrote:
> >
> > And, in really TRULY important news,
> > 
> > Katy Perry and Russell Brand Having "Problems," Spending "Time Apart"
> > 
> > http://www.eonline.com/news/katy_perry_russell_brand_having/283082#ixzz1hrKsYG9c
> > 
> > http://tinyurl.com/crmdk28
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Calamity of U.G. Krishnamurti

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda  wrote:
>
> As far as it known U. G. Krishnamurti always wanted to talk 
> with someone in U.C.--it never happened

Why would it have mattered to him to have had this
conversation? I mean, we've had conversations with
several people on this forum who claim to have
experienced UC. Have Jimbo's and RWC's posts made
any difference in your life? Why would UG think 
that having a similar conversation would have a
difference on his?

Just don't understand. They're all claims. Claims
do not equal truth.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stormy Weather in TM Celebrityville

[curtisdeltablues]

If I had the option to hang out in Hawaii away from my ex wife in our first 
year of marriage, I never would have lasted the year!  The odds are so stacked 
against them.  Right about now Russell would rather watch a midget (sorry 
little person) Thai hooker dancing on a Webcam than do anything with Katy in 
bed.  So many marriages make it through the transition from dopamine to 
seritonin on lack of options till they settle in to a nice groove.  These two 
have nothing but options and the flames are dying down.  I don't know how 
anyone makes it to the glowing ember stage as a celebrity, but these two don't 
really strike me as being in a "glowing ember" stage of their young lives and 
smashing success.  Plus rebound sex rocks!



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
wrote:
>
> And, in really TRULY important news,
> 
> Katy Perry and Russell Brand Having "Problems," Spending "Time Apart"
> 
> http://www.eonline.com/news/katy_perry_russell_brand_having/283082#ixzz1hrKsYG9c
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/crmdk28
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Calamity of U.G. Krishnamurti

[merudanda]

As far as it known U. G. Krishnamurti always wanted to talk with someone
in U.C.--it never happened
http://www.well.com/user/jct/mystiq.htm


1. U.G.   (87K)
2. The Mystique of Enlightenment
  (44K)
3. No Power Outside of Man 
(51K)
4. Betwixt Bewilderment and Understanding
  (192K)U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3azqF_OMu4
Thinking and wanting, Enlightenment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrfQwJcHj8U
Mystique of Enlightenment -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXyLbU1GGqU
U. G. Krishnamurti - Parting Message
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r5Ex7_CWr8&feature=related

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda  wrote:
>
>
> Dearest captivating, mysterious Sir aren't you
>
> Indifferent to FFL bullshit
> Worlds lies at your feet
> Seems only trusted friends receive
> Favor and a treat
>
> We dilettantes want from You
> "Salve" to soothe our pain
> Could not grasp the "Real" one's offer
>
> Nothing to be gain?
>
>
> You unlike the other teachers
> Anxious to impress
> You waits to see if our real selves would
> Obstacles address?
>
> Dearest captivating mysterious Sir, in wild ecstasy about the absentia
> of an answer to our (Yifu, zarzari et this prisoner of thought)
prayers
> that You may confront "The Calamity of U.G. Krishnamurti" --that
> torrent of the M.Z. Muse inspire these Tuesday-early-morning-
> outpourings and make it  possible.
>
>
> It is simply:
>
>
>
>
> M.Z. Mania in Phoning the Void
Who is M.Z. and why is he here?
> A superhuman perhaps, greater than any seer,
> Is he the only one to conquer fear?
> You figure out the answer, whichever is near!
>
> Why we seek You out is mysterious and not clear,
> When You bids goodbye, our eyes erupt, tear after tear!
> You targets our thoughts like a homing spear,
> A gigantic magnet pulling us lovingly near.
>
> I never heard YOU use the word "dear,"
> The one fact that rings true is You are no mortal mere, .
>
> Spherical vision You's got, with invisible eyes at the rear,
> Does not encourage whispers in Your ear,
> As even our innermost craving You can easily hear!
> Being in Your presence fills us with cheer.
>
> Your frail frame at FFL contains the cosmos entire,
> Arguing is futile and is like playing with fire,
> "Why come to me," You counters, a quote which finds no buyer,
> This divisive thought burns Your mortal coil as if on a pyre!
>
> You are the one to pull us out of this worldly mire,
> We are the boats adrift, and You are the pier,
> Matchless in Your actions, never the one to tire,
> Unlit bulbs we are only glowing when M.Z. becomes the wire!
>
> From out of culture's crazymouth
> False ideas have sprung
> You must see the past as prison
> Spoken by your tongue
>
> Should you truly wish to face this
> Lie of separate self
> Your door always open wide
> Like some happy elf?
>
> It's they who have imposed on you
> A mirage of tastes?
> The deeds that you are sowing now
> Jumbled such a waste
>
>
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_reply@ wrote:
>
> >
> > SO PLEASE:
> >
> > Do put the pen to paper,
> > As we wait counting every breath,
> > Deliver us before "WE" taper,
> > 'Cos not to hear from you is definite death!
> >
> > Eagerly expectant,
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> Maybe Vaj has been interested in posting on this TM oriented 
> forum for years and years and years because he had personal 
> experience as a teacher of TM and has since changed his 
> perspective on its value like most of us here.
> 
> And maybe Vaj's obvious intererest in Robin comes from his 
> experiences with Robin in his previous role.  You know, the 
> ones he has related here.
> 
> I get it that the "Vaj never even did TM" team is not gunna 
> budge."  It provides a complete ad hominem against anything 
> he says as Nabbie repeated below.  

Just springboarding off of your thoughts, Curtis, and
not in any way trying to get you involved, this last
is the real issue for me. 

What IS it about diehard TMers when their "fallback 
position," when they have been unable to get someone
to argue head-to-head with them so that they can "win"
or at the very least claim to, becomes trying to go
for the olde, tired ad hominem of "You can't trust
anything he says, because he's a liar."

They've run that on Vaj, on you, on me, and on any
number of people who criticize TM, Maharishi, or the
TMO on this forum. They would have you believe that
this is a coincidence, and that they work overtime
trying to similarly demonize other liars who *don't*
criticize TM, Maharishi, and the TMO, but I don't
think anyone believes them about this any more.

It's as if they still believe in the "Maharishi model"
of how to deal with criticism: "Find ways to put down
the critic and insinuate that he/she has evil motives 
for saying what he does, or is lying, or is untrust-
worthy, or whatever, and enough of the already-drank-
the-Kool-Aid-brigade will believe it so that we can
continue doing business." 

I kinda think it's lazy, and embarrassing. I'd like
to see some of these "Shoot the messenger" types deal
with the actual message. But that's not gonna happen.

[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"  wrote:
> 
> Robin,
> 
> Has it ocurred to you that Vaj has built his case, (if you
> want to call it a case) on specific details.  Your response
> has been to declare that it is all a lie.  Now, if there
> were a bench of 12 jurors listening to the evidence, on the
> issue of "Did this Vajradhatu know or meet this Robin
> Wordworth Carlson", what would be the verdict?

What you seem incapable of incorporating into your
thinking is what the prosecutor (or defense attorney,
depending on who's suing whom) would point out to the
jury: that Vaj could have gotten every single one of
those details from somebody else who *was* in
Fairfield and who *did* know Robin.

> Now Judy may say, well, you haven't presented any
> person who can identify this Vajrahatu at the scene,
> and because of this technicality,  the case could be
> thrown out.

That's hardly a technicality.

> But short of this standard, it seems to me that Vaj has
> presented credible, seemingly first person evidence.

Another point is that the "jury" in this case has heard
"testimony" from Vaj on various issues for *years* now,
not just for a few hours in a courtroom. He has not
established a reputation for credibility, to say the
least, among most of us here.

Plus which, he has a clear motive to lie about what he
knows firsthand: He's made it very plain that he is
determined to "get" Robin any way he can. We don't
know why he's on this personal vendetta, but there's
no question that's what he's engaged in.

And here, by the way, he's not testifying under penalty
of perjury as he would be in a courtroom. A person who
has stood up in public and sworn to tell "the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth" acquires thereby
a certain basic measure of credibility because the person
is aware of the penalties for perjuring himself.

Personally, just on the level of impressions, Vaj's
"testimony" about his experiences with Robin remind
me of nothing so much as the special effects trickery
that inserted Forrest Gump into all kinds of important
events. It's as if Vaj had Photoshopped himself into
Robin's life. You can almost see the faint line between
Vaj's image and the real ones. There's just no sense
of first-person resonance, no ring of authenticity.


> On the other hand, what is so wrong with simply dealing with
> these events that happened 25 or 30 years ago, and then
> moving on?  Or at least trying to move on.  It appears that
> Vaj is going to continue to confront you with these past
> events,

I agree with you 100 percent on these points. As I said
in another post, Robin has so much to contribute, and
perhaps even something to receive, from more positive
interactions here. It's hard not to respond when you
feel you're being unfairly maligned, but I wish Robin
could find it within himself to limit his responses to
the attacks to short statements of fact and just carry
on.

> and that is certainly his perogative.

You could say that. Vaj has the *right* to do what he's
doing; but is it *right* that he's doing it?

[FairfieldLife] Stormy Weather in TM Celebrityville

[Alex Stanley]

And, in really TRULY important news,

Katy Perry and Russell Brand Having "Problems," Spending "Time Apart"

http://www.eonline.com/news/katy_perry_russell_brand_having/283082#ixzz1hrKsYG9c

http://tinyurl.com/crmdk28

Re: [FairfieldLife] A Christmas Letter to Barry Wright from Masked Zebra

[Emily Reyn]

While Axis II persons may not kill you, others often feel like dying being in 
their (even digital) presence. This incongruence is rather common in your 
interactions here IMO and makes me wonder how reliable your experience of third 
person perspectives is.


Dear Vajradhatu, what does this mean to you?  Are you talking about a scenario 
where an NPD, for example, has so "consumed" another person, that said person 
cannot exist without the NPD?



>
> From: Vaj 
>To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
>Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 7:30 AM
>Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] A Christmas Letter to Barry Wright from Masked 
>Zebra
> 
>
>  
>
>
>On Dec 28, 2011, at 10:11 AM, maskedzebra wrote:
>
>Do you understand me, then, Barry? It means that this very letter to you 
>affects you primarily in only one sense: "Robin thinks he is saying something 
>important and significant here, but all that I can detect—quite innocently, 
>quite unmistakably—are symptoms of a serious mental disorder." Which entirely 
>spares you the discomfort or unpleasantness of wondering whether what I am 
>saying has any truth value in and of itself. I suppose a demented person can 
>perhaps speak truth; but the context within which he does this will always 
>upstage that truthfulness; or at least there will not be a context of 
>normality surrounding those accidental truthful remarks. 
>>
>
>[huge snips on both ends]
>
>
>You're missing, either deliberately or through ignorance, the vital difference 
>between different psychiatric diagnostic axes. Because of this confusion, 
>you're referring to Axis I disorders, major mental disorders, when Barry is (I 
>believe) referring to Axis II disorders: personality disorders. While Axis II 
>persons may not kill you, others often feel like dying being in their (even 
>digital) presence. This incongruence is rather common in your interactions 
>here IMO and makes me wonder how reliable your experience of third person 
>perspectives is.
>
>
>That's not to say you haven't crossed the line at times. Seeing demons inside 
>people would likely be an Axis I disorder, but you do claim this no longer 
>happens. So we're back to the above.
> 
>
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> Did you ever consider that Vaj may be behind the crop circles?  Think about 
> it, it kinda makes sense.  If I wasn't wearing my new Under Armour aluminum 
> foil undies (boxer briefs) with the patented wick flow cooling system weave I 
> would be a little freaked out right now.  But since I do, I am immune to 
> Vaj's FBI radiations as well as the effects of unwicked moisture where (can I 
> be frank?) moisture ought NOT to be. 


Don't strain your brain too much regarding this Curtis; roll back to you 
HillBilly music !

[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "richardatrwilliamsdotus"  
wrote:

>
[Barry wrote:]
> > I think that anyone who claims to be enlightenment 
> > has a lot to live up to...
> >
> You are not making any sense. Live up to what - your 
> expectations? 
> 
> Besides, you once said that you thought anyone who was 
> 'enlightened' was really just like any other ordinary 
> guy, nothing special, just a 'big whoop'. Go figure.

Nailed. Except that he's said it far more than once.

I want to quote a bit more of the post you're responding
to because it embodies another whopping contradiction:

> Call me crazy, but for 30-to-40-year followers of a trad-
> ition ostensibly founded by the guy who wrote a book called 
> "The Crest Jewel of Discrimination," I don't see much dis-
> crimination in this scenario. It's as if the only thing 
> people look for in an enlightened being is that he or she 
> claims to be enlightened. That's perceived as *enough*.

(In fact, there aren't any 30- to 40-year TMers on FFL
who are on the record as "buying into" any FFLer's
claim to enlightenment, current or former. This mistake
of Barry's is a function of his refusal to read the
posts of the folks he's characterizing.)

> I don't think it's enough. Given the claims made *about*
> enlightenment over the centuries, I think that anyone who
> claims to be enlightenment has a lot to live up to. If they
> do not, and in fact display behavior that is 180 degrees 
> opposite of how we've been told the enlightened would act, 
> I think it's perfectly legitimate to question whether the 
> claimant is or ever was really enlightened and look into 
> other explanations for their behavior. Such as insanity.

The contradiction here is one I pointed out recently in
another post of Barry's: He has over and over mocked any
"appeal to authority" that anybody else makes, but now
that it's in the interests of getting back at the folks who
have seen through his fraudulence, all of a sudden it's
"perfectly legitimate" to accept "how we've been told the
enlightened would act" as gospel truth and hold any
claimant to enlightenment to the standards of those
authorities.

And *this* isn't to mention the fact that the Gita, one
of the foundational documents of Maharishi's teaching,
states *unequivocally* that you CANNOT judge enlightenment
on the basis of behavior.

Man, if *anybody's* thinking on this forum is incoherent,
it's Barry's.

[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> Emily, if you feel that Robin is sane, and coherent, please
> explain this (which I looked up after being alerted in email
> that RWC had lost it so heavily that he no longer even knew
> who he was talking to on this forum).

Note that Barry hasn't admitted his own mistake of thinking
Emily was addressing Barry and Vaj when she was addressing
Barry and zarzari. She had even begun the post with "Zarzari..."
and was clearly responding to an exchange between him and
Barry, but by the time Barry got to the phrase "you/Barry,"
Barry was so lost he thought "you" was addressed to Vaj.

Barry's brazenly stolen zarzari's prize for Inadvertent Irony
from right under his nose by proceeding to call *Robin* crazy
for getting people confused.

 In this particular
> tirade, he launches into an abusive analysis *of the wrong
> person*. And then, even after being told he was referring to 
> the wrong person, he has not indicated that his analysis might
> be wrong, or even admitted that his entire manic tirade was 
> based on not caring enough about the people he is supposedly 
> conversing with to tell one of them from the other.

In this exchange, the two of them--Barry and zarzari--were
in near-perfect agreement; they were both saying the same
things. In terms of content, who said what was
inconsequential: Robin's analysis of biases and agendas
fit them both.

Plus which, what Barry quotes below was *clearly* directed
at zarzari rather than Barry. Not only did Robin refer to
zarzari by name twice, he mentioned zarzari coming to post
at FFL (zarzari arrived here *after* Robin did, whereas
Barry was here *before* Robin arrived); and also that
zarzari had made the post he was commenting on before
taking a leave of absence, which again obviously did not
refer to Barry.

Robin was careless in labeling what he quoted. We all get
our attributions wrong on occasion. It's hardly an
indication of mental illness or even personality disorder.

 This 
> strikes me as being in the same ballpark of crazy as when
> he earlier lost it heavily over a photograph of him *that
> no one ever suggested existed*.

Well, let's recall the layout of that ballpark, shall we?

Here's what Barry had written:

"I may have to reveal on FFL that I got the image
of Robin dressing up in women's clothing before
posting from a private exchange with Curtis."

Robin misinterpreted "image" to mean "photograph."
He quickly realized his mistake on that point and
apologized. The rest of that episode was about the
real issues involved, not the nonexistent photograph,
contrary to what Barry misleadingly suggests above.

Barry had revealed a private communication between
him and Curtis in a way that made what Curtis had
said to Barry about Robin sound derogatory, and
Robin was understandably upset at Curtis's apparent
hypocrisy, since he and Curtis had been having an
extended very friendly discussion.

Just to reinforce the point: Robin's mistake about
the nonexistent photo was disposed of right at the
start. It was inconsequential with regard to his
actual grievance, which was based on Barry's
deliberate misrepresentation of Curtis's remarks to
Barry in private email.

Curtis had to go to considerable lengths to explain
to Robin the context that Barry had carefully omitted.
(He had even misquoted Curtis.) Curtis also took Barry
to task for having betrayed their private exchange,
and Barry was forced to apologize to Curtis.

The upshot was that Robin came to understand why
Curtis had said what he did privately to Barry. And
Robin's posts as that understanding developed were
quite remarkable. The sequence can be read here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/293951

Bottom line, Barry did his damndest to drive a wedge
between Curtis and Robin and *almost* succeeded. I'm
not sure their relationship was ever quite the same
after this, but they were able to mend fences for a
while, at least.

Barry's had many low points on FFL; this was
unquestionably the lowest, although he's now coming
close to exceeding those depths in trying to exploit
them to Robin's disadvantage.

Barry himself has made so many careless, stupid
mistakes on FFL that one would think he'd have some
humility when someone else makes them.

Also note the *extraordinary* hypocrisy of his comment
about Robin allegedly "not caring enough about the people
he is supposedly conversing with." As if Barry himself
were a model of caring about those he converses with!





> 
> > > Zarzari: [Not really. This was written by me, and 
> > > Robin is too out of it to even notice.] The thing 
> > > that causes me to believe in this theory is the fact 
> > > that RWC refuses to even consider it, even as a 
> > > possibility. *His* subjective view is the only 
> > > possible explanation. That's pretty much classic
> > > NPD/hypomania.
> > 
> > Robin: Judy has done a pretty good job of demolishing this 
> > diagnosis. Zarzari, right from the be

[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[curtisdeltablues]

Did you ever consider that Vaj may be behind the crop circles?  Think about it, 
it kinda makes sense.  If I wasn't wearing my new Under Armour aluminum foil 
undies (boxer briefs) with the patented wick flow cooling system weave I would 
be a little freaked out right now.  But since I do, I am immune to Vaj's FBI 
radiations as well as the effects of unwicked moisture where (can I be frank?) 
moisture ought NOT to be. 




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > Maybe Vaj has been interested in posting on this TM oriented forum for 
> > years and years and years because he had personal experience as a teacher 
> > of TM and has since changed his perspective on its value like most of us 
> > here.
> > 
> > And maybe Vaj's obvious intererest in Robin comes from his experiences with 
> > Robin in his previous role.  You know, the ones he has related here.
> > 
> > I get it that the "Vaj never even did TM" team is not gunna budge."  It 
> > provides a complete ad hominem against anything he says as Nabbie repeated 
> > below.  And since he doesn't seem interested in proving his TM involvement 
> > to them that seems like a position that isn't gunna budge.
> > 
> > But for we who hold no stock options in that angle, it seems more likely 
> > that the guy is interested in these topics due to previous experiences with 
> > them.  And if I had to guess why he has not answered critics with "proof" 
> > of his involvement, it would be in a folder labeled: F'ing with people.  
> > And so far it seems like it is working pretty well.
> 
> 
> I doubt that Vag's superiors in the FBI agree with you. Rather they probably 
> wonder why he is still involved with a project they gave up decades ago.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
> >
> > I'm sorry Barry. I may have this wrong...I thought I was 
> > referring to a conversation between you and Zarzari, not Vag.

That's exactly what Emily was doing, referring to a
conversation between Barry and zarzari. Barry is wrong
to claim she got zarzari and Vaj mixed up. *He's*
mixed up. Emily was not.

Bear this mistake of Barry's in mind when you go on to
read his follow-up posts making a big deal of *Robin*
getting attributions confused.

> > I can tell the difference between you and Vag 
> 
> Vaj. Short for Vajranathra, his screen name. You don't 
> seem to be aware of the fact that by referring to him as 
> 'Vag' you are perpetuating derogative namecalling started 
> by people who don't like him.

FWIW, I don't care for the "Vag" nickname either, not
because it's insulting to Vaj--goodness knows he fools
with people's names and handles all the time in order
to insult them--but because when the shortened form of a
word for a woman's sexual anatomy is used *to insult a
man*, it demeans *women*.

Not that either Vaj or Barry has the slighest inhibition
about demeaning women...


> > ...but "psychiatric" labels by armchair experts on an internet 
> > forum is a bit of a stretch, I think. I actually find the 
> > exchanges between Curtis and Robin quite interesting, but 
> > I'm acting as a voyeur only in that respect. 
> 
> Isn't "voyeur" too psychiatric a term for you to be using,
> given what you just criticized? Just sayin'...  :-)

No, since "voyeur," as Barry knows, has a common
nonpsychiatric meaning.

> > I don't experience Robin here the way he was purported to 
> > behave before he rejected his "enlightenment" and I hold out 
> > an ideal that people that are willing to explore their depths 
> > change. It doesn't mean that communication patterns or an 
> > individual communication style don't persist - that's
> > part of the human - expressing who we are and what we believe 
> > in an always coherent way, is difficult. 
> 
> Not, in my experience, if one is coherent to start with. YMMV.

People who don't have a great deal of depth to start with
have an easier time being "coherent."


> IMO, a small group of rather sick people here praise these 
> two, thus feeding their narcissistic fantasies and contributing
> to the possibility of making their condition WORSE, for no other
> reason than that they're trying to recruit people who will "pile
> on" and demonize the same people they live to demonize.

This is deeply, *deeply* paranoid on Barry's part. And
wildly inaccurate, of course. I subscribe to Robin's
analysis, though: Barry doesn't really believe what
he's saying. It's just one more exercise in demonizing
people he doesn't like.

In fact, Robin had started gathering fans his first week
on FFL. During that week, Barry repeatedly tried to
"recruit" *Robin* as *his* ally against the people *Barry*
lives to demonize.

Then Barry decided Robin had said more than Barry wanted
to hear about Robin's past experience with enlightenment,
and saw that Robin was getting along just fine with the
people Barry wanted him to demonize. So Barry proceeded
to dump a huge, very nasty load on Robin.

Similarly with Vaj. Vaj and Robin had several cordial
exchanges before Vaj revealed he was out to get Robin
and things turned ugly.

Nobody had to "recruit" Robin for him to decide who his
enemies were. They initiated the hostilities on their own,
while--and perhaps because--the rest of us were enjoying
Robin's company.


> The realization that [Robin] was actually 
> crazy came later, after he started to make up things to act 
> outraged about,

Robin's never made up anything to act outraged about.

> and started to abuse people who failed to 
> consider him important enough to argue with.

Who felt they should be entitled to abuse Robin
repeatedly without incurring any pushback from Robin.


> You don't seem to like these labels. Well, come up with your
> own. When doing so, I hope you aren't as limited as those
> who have to rely on epithets like "stupid" or "liar." Or,
> for that matter, "Vag."

How about "hypocrite"?


> > >Second, in saying that I think RWC was suffering 
> > >from hypomania and a host of other serious disorders 
> > >back when he first declared his enlightenment and 
> > >still is today, I was stating my OPINION. I was not 
> > >trying to sell that opinion to you.

Says Barry, proceeding not to try to sell his opinion to
Emily:

> > >If you feel that someone spending several weeks and
> > >writing literally tens of thousands of words, all
> > >seemingly dashed off uncontrollably, as if in a fit
> > >of mania, all trying to get one person to interact
> > >with him so that RWC could tell him over and over
> > >and over what's wrong with him -- if you feel this
> > >is SANE behavior, I feel sorry for you, but that's
> > >your choice. Go with it.
> > >
> > >I'm merely po

[FairfieldLife] Re: Trio erektus: Sex machine

[John]

Yeah, they got a bit of the James Brown groove!


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
>
> 
> At least for a "drummer" like myself, funky is surprisingly hard
> to play so that it sounds good:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UozWX1bYJQY
>

[FairfieldLife] US Responds to Iran Threat

[John]

Here we go again.  Who will back down to avoid another war?  Conventional 
wisdom would say that Iran should tow the line.  But then again who knows what 
they'll do.


http://news.yahoo.com/u-fifth-fleet-says-wont-allow-disruption-hormuz-150427092.html

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Calamity of U.G. Krishnamurti

[merudanda]

Dearest captivating, mysterious Sir aren't you

Indifferent to FFL bullshit
Worlds lies at your feet
Seems only trusted friends receive
Favor and a treat

We dilettantes want from You
"Salve" to soothe our pain
Could not grasp the "Real" one's offer

Nothing to be gain?


You unlike the other teachers
Anxious to impress
You waits to see if our real selves would
Obstacles address?

Dearest captivating mysterious Sir, in wild ecstasy about the absentia
of an answer to our (Yifu, zarzari et this prisoner of thought) prayers 
that You may confront "The Calamity of U.G. Krishnamurti" --that
torrent of the M.Z. Muse inspire these Tuesday-early-morning-
outpourings and make it  possible.


It is simply:




M.Z. Mania in Phoning the Void Who is M.Z. and why is he here?
A superhuman perhaps, greater than any seer,
Is he the only one to conquer fear?
You figure out the answer, whichever is near!

Why we seek You out is mysterious and not clear,
When You bids goodbye, our eyes erupt, tear after tear!
You targets our thoughts like a homing spear,
A gigantic magnet pulling us lovingly near.

I never heard YOU use the word "dear,"
The one fact that rings true is You are no mortal mere, .

Spherical vision You's got, with invisible eyes at the rear,
Does not encourage whispers in Your ear,
As even our innermost craving You can easily hear!
Being in Your presence fills us with cheer.

Your frail frame at FFL contains the cosmos entire,
Arguing is futile and is like playing with fire,
"Why come to me," You counters, a quote which finds no buyer,
This divisive thought burns Your mortal coil as if on a pyre!

You are the one to pull us out of this worldly mire,
We are the boats adrift, and You are the pier,
Matchless in Your actions, never the one to tire,
Unlit bulbs we are only glowing when M.Z. becomes the wire!

>From out of culture's crazymouth
False ideas have sprung
You must see the past as prison
Spoken by your tongue

Should you truly wish to face this
Lie of separate self
Your door always open wide
Like some happy elf?

It's they who have imposed on you
A mirage of tastes?
The deeds that you are sowing now
Jumbled such a waste



> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_reply@ wrote:

>
> SO PLEASE:
>
> Do put the pen to paper,
> As we wait counting every breath,
> Deliver us before "WE" taper,
> 'Cos not to hear from you is definite death!
>
> Eagerly expectant,

[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> Maybe Vaj has been interested in posting on this TM oriented forum for years 
> and years and years because he had personal experience as a teacher of TM and 
> has since changed his perspective on its value like most of us here.
> 
> And maybe Vaj's obvious intererest in Robin comes from his experiences with 
> Robin in his previous role.  You know, the ones he has related here.
> 
> I get it that the "Vaj never even did TM" team is not gunna budge."  It 
> provides a complete ad hominem against anything he says as Nabbie repeated 
> below.  And since he doesn't seem interested in proving his TM involvement to 
> them that seems like a position that isn't gunna budge.
> 
> But for we who hold no stock options in that angle, it seems more likely that 
> the guy is interested in these topics due to previous experiences with them.  
> And if I had to guess why he has not answered critics with "proof" of his 
> involvement, it would be in a folder labeled: F'ing with people.  And so far 
> it seems like it is working pretty well.


I doubt that Vag's superiors in the FBI agree with you. Rather they probably 
wonder why he is still involved with a project they gave up decades ago.

[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[curtisdeltablues]

Maybe Vaj has been interested in posting on this TM oriented forum for years 
and years and years because he had personal experience as a teacher of TM and 
has since changed his perspective on its value like most of us here.

And maybe Vaj's obvious intererest in Robin comes from his experiences with 
Robin in his previous role.  You know, the ones he has related here.

I get it that the "Vaj never even did TM" team is not gunna budge."  It 
provides a complete ad hominem against anything he says as Nabbie repeated 
below.  And since he doesn't seem interested in proving his TM involvement to 
them that seems like a position that isn't gunna budge.

But for we who hold no stock options in that angle, it seems more likely that 
the guy is interested in these topics due to previous experiences with them.  
And if I had to guess why he has not answered critics with "proof" of his 
involvement, it would be in a folder labeled: F'ing with people.  And so far it 
seems like it is working pretty well.




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Robin,
> > 
> > Has it ocurred to you that Vaj has built his case, (if you want to call
> > it a case) on specific details.  Your response has been to declare that
> > it is all a lie.  Now, if there were a bench of 12 jurors listening to
> > the evidence, on the issue of "Did this Vajradhatu know or meet this
> > Robin Wordworth Carlson", what would be the verdict?  Now Judy may say,
> > well, you haven't presented any person who can identify this Vajrahatu
> > at the scene, and because of this technicality,  the case could be
> > thrown out.  But short of this standard, it seems to me that Vaj has
> > presented credible, seemingly first person evidence.  I am sorry to have
> > to come to this conclusion since it seems to bother you so much, and 
> > because I like you.
> > 
> > On the other hand, what is so wrong with simply dealing with these
> > events that happened 25 or 30 years ago, and then moving on?  Or at
> > least trying to move on.  It appears that Vaj is going to continue to
> > confront you with these past events, and that is certainly his
> > perogative.
> 
> 
> 
> Vag might as well have heard these stories from persons present at the time. 
> His credebility on this list is on zero already, as you probably know.
> 
> Or he read them in some FBI-files.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"  wrote:
>
> 
> Robin,
> 
> Has it ocurred to you that Vaj has built his case, (if you want to call
> it a case) on specific details.  Your response has been to declare that
> it is all a lie.  Now, if there were a bench of 12 jurors listening to
> the evidence, on the issue of "Did this Vajradhatu know or meet this
> Robin Wordworth Carlson", what would be the verdict?  Now Judy may say,
> well, you haven't presented any person who can identify this Vajrahatu
> at the scene, and because of this technicality,  the case could be
> thrown out.  But short of this standard, it seems to me that Vaj has
> presented credible, seemingly first person evidence.  I am sorry to have
> to come to this conclusion since it seems to bother you so much, and 
> because I like you.
> 
> On the other hand, what is so wrong with simply dealing with these
> events that happened 25 or 30 years ago, and then moving on?  Or at
> least trying to move on.  It appears that Vaj is going to continue to
> confront you with these past events, and that is certainly his
> perogative.



Vag might as well have heard these stories from persons present at the time. 
His credebility on this list is on zero already, as you probably know.

Or he read them in some FBI-files.

[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[richardatrwilliamsdotus]

authfriend:
> Robin, delighted you're back. I was afraid you 
> were through with FFL...
>
After reading so many of the pompous claims
by the Turq and the Vaj, this Robin guy is like
breathing fresh air. 

If folks aren't reading Curtis and Robin, what 
are they here for? It really gets boring reading 
posts that begin and end on one line! 

Go figure.

So, Robin insisted that Maharishi had privately 
acknowledged his attaining cosmic consciousness. 

But, apparently prior to joining TM, Carsen was 
involved with Werner Erhard and est. So, it seems
like 'schism' is the correct word in this context.
 
The word schism is from the Greek 'to split up'.

This book provides the first book-length study of 
religious schisms as a general phenomenon: 

Examples are drawn from a wide variety of 
different traditions and geographical areas, from 
early Mediterranean Christianity to modern 
Japanese New Religions, and from the Jehovah's 
Witnesses to Neo-Pagans to TM, and the break 
between Robin Carlsen, Deepak Chopra, and Sri 
Sri Ravi Shankar and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.

Read more:

'Sacred Schisms'
How Religions Divide 
By James R. Lewis and Sarah M. Lewis 
Cambridge University Press, 2009 
Amazon $94.42
http://tinyurl.com/6ntt548

[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[seventhray1]

Robin,

Has it ocurred to you that Vaj has built his case, (if you want to call
it a case) on specific details.  Your response has been to declare that
it is all a lie.  Now, if there were a bench of 12 jurors listening to
the evidence, on the issue of "Did this Vajradhatu know or meet this
Robin Wordworth Carlson", what would be the verdict?  Now Judy may say,
well, you haven't presented any person who can identify this Vajrahatu
at the scene, and because of this technicality,  the case could be
thrown out.  But short of this standard, it seems to me that Vaj has
presented credible, seemingly first person evidence.  I am sorry to have
to come to this conclusion since it seems to bother you so much, and 
because I like you.

On the other hand, what is so wrong with simply dealing with these
events that happened 25 or 30 years ago, and then moving on?  Or at
least trying to move on.  It appears that Vaj is going to continue to
confront you with these past events, and that is certainly his
perogative.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
>
> RESPONSE: Somebody tell me that I am a sap. Somebody tell me that this
is all made up. Because Steve's responses sound credible to me.
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" steve.sundur@
wrote:
> >
> > Robin,
> >
> > I am willing to look like a fool for the purposes of trying to sort
things out.
> >
> > Vaj replies to several points with regards to your career in
specific detail. He tells me directly that on several occassions he met
you, or saw you in person.
> >
> > On the other hand he said he had a video showing you hitting
someone, and then he seemed to say he didn't have such a video, or that
if he did, he would not share it out of the respect for the privacy of
the persons in it. Nor would he share it with a third party. So, that
sounds a lot like lying.
> >
> > He tell Emily that you "took the bait" when you replied to some of
his accusations. I took that to mean that you could not resist replying
to what he posted. I did not take it mean that he made up things and you
couldn't resist replying to them.
> >
> > He told me in no uncertain terms that he, on at least this one
ocassion, saw you coming out of the courthouse in Jefferson County, or
Fairfield or some such venue.
> >
> > As far as certain details he describes, the impression I got was
that he was not going to third party to find out what really happened in
these instances. The impression I got was that he was pulling these out
of his own memory.
> >
> > Now maybe I am being played by Vaj, but to me he has sounded
credible in much of what he said. And since no one else who hasn't
already assigned Vaj to the "liar" bin, or to the Vaj "speaks the truth"
bin has chimed in, I'm sort of left on my own to sort it out.
> >
> > I guess it would really be nice, if someoone who knew you from that
time from that time would come in and put the matter to rest. Certainly
Vaj would appear to have been somewhat of an insider to your activities.
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"
 wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ok, that's an unambiguous reply. Thanks.
> > >
> > > RESPONSE: You're doing it again Stevo! This reply of Vaj's
actually did not satisfy you at all; however, you suddenly felt that it
might serve your purposes to deny this experience and go with another
one: that Vaj had exhibited the virtue of being unambiguous, even if, as
it happens, you did not get any satisfaction or clarification at all
from Vaj's reply.
> > >
> > > Vaj has never even seen me in the flesh. He has never come near a
seminar I have given (in my notorious past). He has never spoken to me.
You have a disturbingly perverse need to twist things (inside your
undeniable friendliness), and it undermines in a very subtle way you
pretensions to be sincere. Sincere you no doubt are; but there is this
tic you have; and it means you don't really ever want to know the Truth.
Yeah, that's right, Steve.
> > >
> > > Did you hear that rumour that Christ and Judas actually made up
before Christ had his heart attack? (He didn't get crucified—at
least I don't think he did; he died from cardiac arrest: he was scared
shitless when they hammered those nails into his hands and feet.
Caiaphus told me this, and, call me a sap, but his response sounded
credible to me.)
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Dec 27, 2011, at 8:41 PM, seventhray1 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I do have one question, Vaj, if you're listening. You are on
record
> > > > saying that you were not allowed to attend MIU by your parents.
But
> > > > evidently you were in Fairfield to witness certain events in RWC
saga.
> > > > Do I have this right? Thanks for a reply if you are so inclined.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, that's exactly correct.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Christmas Letter to Barry Wright from Masked Zebra

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> On Dec 28, 2011, at 10:11 AM, maskedzebra wrote:
> 
> > Do you understand me, then, Barry? It means that this very 
> > letter to you affects you primarily in only one sense: 
> > "Robin thinks he is saying something important and significant 
> > here, but all that I can detect—quite innocently, quite 
> > unmistakably—are symptoms of a serious mental disorder." 
> > Which entirely spares you the discomfort or unpleasantness 
> > of wondering whether what I am saying has any truth value 
> > in and of itself. I suppose a demented person can perhaps 
> > speak truth; but the context within which he does this will  
> > always upstage that truthfulness; or at least there will not 
> > be a context of normality surrounding those accidental 
> > truthful remarks.
> 
> [huge snips on both ends]
> 
> You're missing, either deliberately or through ignorance, the 
> vital difference between different psychiatric diagnostic axes. 
> Because of this confusion, you're referring to Axis I disorders, 
> major mental disorders, when Barry is (I believe)referring to 
> Axis II disorders: personality disorders. While Axis II persons 
> may not kill you, others often feel like dying being in their 
> (even digital) presence. 

Sometimes, despite my best intentions, I can't help but 
see the first lines of one of RWC's posts as I scan 
Message View, or quoted in someone else's post, as above. 
The subjective experience of these random glimpses -- 
admittedly just an impression or intuition, of course -- 
is of watching the transition from Axis II to Axis I. 
More than once the overall vibe has reminded me of the 
following bit of dialogue from a movie:

"I'm really OK. Trust me. Everything's going to be fine. 
It's just that you met me at a very strange time in my life."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVx_s5DFshA

Re: [FairfieldLife] A Christmas Letter to Barry Wright from Masked Zebra

[Vaj]

On Dec 28, 2011, at 10:11 AM, maskedzebra wrote:

Do you understand me, then, Barry? It means that this very letter  
to you affects you primarily in only one sense: "Robin thinks he is  
saying something important and significant here, but all that I can  
detect—quite innocently, quite unmistakably—are symptoms of a  
serious mental disorder." Which entirely spares you the discomfort  
or unpleasantness of wondering whether what I am saying has any  
truth value in and of itself. I suppose a demented person can  
perhaps speak truth; but the context within which he does this will  
always upstage that truthfulness; or at least there will not be a  
context of normality surrounding those accidental truthful remarks.


[huge snips on both ends]

You're missing, either deliberately or through ignorance, the vital  
difference between different psychiatric diagnostic axes. Because of  
this confusion, you're referring to Axis I disorders, major mental  
disorders, when Barry is (I believe) referring to Axis II disorders:  
personality disorders. While Axis II persons may not kill you, others  
often feel like dying being in their (even digital) presence. This  
incongruence is rather common in your interactions here IMO and makes  
me wonder how reliable your experience of third person perspectives is.


That's not to say you haven't crossed the line at times. Seeing  
demons inside people would likely be an Axis I disorder, but you do  
claim this no longer happens. So we're back to the above.

[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[maskedzebra]

RESPONSE: Somebody tell me that I am a sap.  Somebody tell me that this is all 
made up.  Because Steve's responses sound credible to me. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"  wrote:
>
> Robin,
> 
> I am willing to look like a fool for the purposes of trying to sort things 
> out.  
> 
> Vaj replies to several points with regards to your career in specific detail. 
>  He tells me directly that on several occassions he met you, or saw you in 
> person.
> 
> On the other hand he said he had a video showing you hitting someone, and 
> then he seemed to say he didn't have such a video, or that if he did, he 
> would not share it out of the respect for the privacy of the persons in it.  
> Nor would he share it with a third party. So, that sounds a lot like lying.
> 
> He tell Emily that you "took the bait" when you replied to some of his 
> accusations.  I took that to mean that you could not resist replying to what 
> he posted.  I did not take it mean that he made up things and you couldn't 
> resist replying to them. 
> 
> He told me in no uncertain terms that he, on at least this one ocassion, saw 
> you coming out of the courthouse in Jefferson County, or Fairfield or some 
> such venue.
> 
> As far as certain details he describes, the impression I got was that he was 
> not going to third party to find out what really happened in these instances. 
>  The impression I got was that he was pulling these out of his own memory.
> 
> Now maybe I am being played by Vaj, but to me he has sounded credible in much 
> of what he said.  And since no one else who hasn't already assigned Vaj to 
> the "liar" bin, or to the Vaj "speaks the truth" bin has chimed in, I'm sort 
> of left on my own to sort it out.  
> 
> I guess it would really be nice, if someoone who knew you from that time from 
> that time would come in and put the matter to rest.  Certainly Vaj would 
> appear to have been somewhat of an insider to your activities.
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > Ok, that's an unambiguous reply.  Thanks.
> > 
> > RESPONSE: You're doing it again Stevo! This reply of Vaj's actually did not 
> > satisfy you at all; however, you suddenly felt that it might serve your 
> > purposes to deny this experience and go with another one: that Vaj had 
> > exhibited the virtue of being unambiguous, even if, as it happens, you did 
> > not get any satisfaction or clarification at all from Vaj's reply.
> > 
> > Vaj has never even seen me in the flesh. He has never come near a seminar I 
> > have given (in my notorious past). He has never spoken to me. You have a 
> > disturbingly perverse need to twist things (inside your undeniable 
> > friendliness), and it undermines in a very subtle way you pretensions to be 
> > sincere. Sincere you no doubt are; but there is this tic you have; and it 
> > means you don't really ever want to know the Truth. Yeah, that's right, 
> > Steve.
> > 
> > Did you hear that rumour that Christ and Judas actually made up before 
> > Christ had his heart attack? (He didn't get crucified—at least I don't 
> > think he did; he died from cardiac arrest: he was scared shitless when they 
> > hammered those nails into his hands and feet. Caiaphus told me this, and, 
> > call me a sap, but his response sounded credible to me.)
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Dec 27, 2011, at 8:41 PM, seventhray1 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I do have one question, Vaj, if you're listening. You are on record
> > > saying that you were not allowed to attend MIU by your parents. But
> > > evidently you were in Fairfield to witness certain events in RWC saga.
> > > Do I have this right? Thanks for a reply if you are so inclined.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, that's exactly correct.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[seventhray1]

Robin,

I am willing to look like a fool for the purposes of trying to sort things out. 
 

Vaj replies to several points with regards to your career in specific detail.  
He tells me directly that on several occassions he met you, or saw you in 
person.

On the other hand he said he had a video showing you hitting someone, and then 
he seemed to say he didn't have such a video, or that if he did, he would not 
share it out of the respect for the privacy of the persons in it.  Nor would he 
share it with a third party. So, that sounds a lot like lying.

He tell Emily that you "took the bait" when you replied to some of his 
accusations.  I took that to mean that you could not resist replying to what he 
posted.  I did not take it mean that he made up things and you couldn't resist 
replying to them. 

He told me in no uncertain terms that he, on at least this one ocassion, saw 
you coming out of the courthouse in Jefferson County, or Fairfield or some such 
venue.

As far as certain details he describes, the impression I got was that he was 
not going to third party to find out what really happened in these instances.  
The impression I got was that he was pulling these out of his own memory.

Now maybe I am being played by Vaj, but to me he has sounded credible in much 
of what he said.  And since no one else who hasn't already assigned Vaj to the 
"liar" bin, or to the Vaj "speaks the truth" bin has chimed in, I'm sort of 
left on my own to sort it out.  

I guess it would really be nice, if someoone who knew you from that time from 
that time would come in and put the matter to rest.  Certainly Vaj would appear 
to have been somewhat of an insider to your activities.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Ok, that's an unambiguous reply.  Thanks.
> 
> RESPONSE: You're doing it again Stevo! This reply of Vaj's actually did not 
> satisfy you at all; however, you suddenly felt that it might serve your 
> purposes to deny this experience and go with another one: that Vaj had 
> exhibited the virtue of being unambiguous, even if, as it happens, you did 
> not get any satisfaction or clarification at all from Vaj's reply.
> 
> Vaj has never even seen me in the flesh. He has never come near a seminar I 
> have given (in my notorious past). He has never spoken to me. You have a 
> disturbingly perverse need to twist things (inside your undeniable 
> friendliness), and it undermines in a very subtle way you pretensions to be 
> sincere. Sincere you no doubt are; but there is this tic you have; and it 
> means you don't really ever want to know the Truth. Yeah, that's right, Steve.
> 
> Did you hear that rumour that Christ and Judas actually made up before Christ 
> had his heart attack? (He didn't get crucified—at least I don't think he did; 
> he died from cardiac arrest: he was scared shitless when they hammered those 
> nails into his hands and feet. Caiaphus told me this, and, call me a sap, but 
> his response sounded credible to me.)
> 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Dec 27, 2011, at 8:41 PM, seventhray1 wrote:
> > >
> > > > I do have one question, Vaj, if you're listening. You are on record
> > saying that you were not allowed to attend MIU by your parents. But
> > evidently you were in Fairfield to witness certain events in RWC saga.
> > Do I have this right? Thanks for a reply if you are so inclined.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, that's exactly correct.
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] A Christmas Letter to Barry Wright from Masked Zebra

[maskedzebra]

Dear Barry,

You have decided that the best course of action at this point is to argue that 
I am insane, or at least, suffering from some mental disease. I don't believe 
you are sincere in this; that the context of your own experience when you 
describe me as emotionally disturbed and delusional does not have a natural or 
truthful correspondence (one with the other). In other words, Barry, you are 
lying. Of course it is always theoretically possible that I am all the things 
you say I am: a person out of his mind and deeply troubled. However by the 
subtext of your posts along this theme, you are, essentially, giving me a clear 
bill of health.

You see, if I believe (or anyone believes) someone is psychopathological, then 
this means that the sense they are ill, disordered, and unstable takes 
precedence over any other consideration: for example, that we don't like what 
they say about us, that we don't like what they say about certain people we 
ourselves like. Once we believe in the diagnosis of mental illness as the 
explanatory basis of their behaviour we are in this very determination freed of 
any personal reaction to what they might say that is unflattering or critical 
about ourselves or other persons. If I believe someone is suffering from 
hypomania or paranoid schizophrenia then whenever that person (the would-be 
patient) turns his attention on us and, for example, tries to analyze us, or 
challenge us, or even appeal to us, we are unable to essentially focus on what 
they are saying independent of our experience that this is an insane person.

So, then, we don't take it personally. And this sense of detachment born of a 
spontaneous and indefeasible perception of their abnormal mental state  will be 
present in whatever we say about them to another person. We reject the 
objectivity, the appropriateness, the truthfulness of what they say, not out of 
personal pique or animus, but because what they say (or write) is inextricably 
bound up with their pathology; therefore it cannot touch us, because by 
definition their words and feelings have their origin in something very far 
away from truth.

So, in order for me to trust in the honesty and good faith of what you have 
said about me, Barry, I must detect some, however oblique and implicit, 
sympathy for me, since, if I am as alienated from my true self as your 
diagnosis suggests, then what motivates all that you say about me arises from 
this perception of how my words do not bear any correspondence, or little 
correspondence, to reality, to what actually is the case.

Do you understand me, then, Barry? It means that this very letter to you 
affects you primarily in only one sense: "Robin thinks he is saying something 
important and significant here, but all that I can detect—quite innocently, 
quite unmistakably—are symptoms of a serious mental disorder." Which entirely 
spares you the discomfort or unpleasantness of wondering whether what I am 
saying has any truth value in and of itself. I suppose a demented person can 
perhaps speak truth; but the context within which he does this will always 
upstage that truthfulness; or at least there will not be a context of normality 
surrounding those accidental truthful remarks. 

There cannot be any other possible interpretation than the one I have given in 
this post, Barry: You are not bothered or angered or frustrated or 
inconvenienced whatsoever by all that Robin has said in his enumerable and 
wordy posts. Because what comes through to you is a psychological context which 
gives his posts a quite different meaning than the one he, Robin, assigns to 
them. That meaning is driven home to you, and it amounts to: This guy is truly 
insane. I can't even separate what he says from what he is, and what he is 
simply extinguishes any coherence or truthfulness in what he posts at FFL.

Well, Barry, is there any proof at all that your Amsterdam posts of December 
28, 2012 fulfill this logical and common sense criterion? If they do, I must be 
even more mentally deranged than I already am, because it is my distinct and 
overpowering experience that you are not at all convinced in the truth of what 
you are saying. Not in the least. 

There is not even any sense of sincerity, of the real person Barry showing his 
feelings, his real experience of himself, his own existential self. The posts 
you have written today, Barry, serve only one very obvious agenda: to ventilate 
your antipathy towards this Robin guy, to cast aspersions on him, to retaliate 
against the critical mass of skepticism and doubt about your own integrity as a 
human being (based on some of your posts:—and the animus behind these posts 
preceded my coming onto FFL) that has gathered over the course of the last 
several months.

I notice a flatness of affect, (thus a disengagement of the heart), an 
intellectual sterility and dogmatism, and an entirely dissimulated conviction 
in what you are saying. I don't believe you, Barry; and 

[FairfieldLife] Re: My Reincarnation -Unmistaken Child-My ministery(Raw Faith)

[merudanda]

"My Reincarnation", at its simplest, is another illustration of the idea
that people of most walks of life have essentially the same problems.

In fact, since the director is so "not in the film," it's
only fair to include her comments here (from the press notes).



"It's a universal, classic father-son story about a father who wants
to save his traditional culture and history by passing them onto his son
… who wants nothing more than to be modern. I met Namkhai Norbu
Rinpoche in 1985 when I was 25 years old and began studying Tibetan
Buddhism and Dzogchen. At age 28, I took a much needed hiatus from
filmmaking to travel with him on and off for four years as his
secretary. During that time, I began to film his everyday life -- his
family, his teaching, and his travels from an insider's perspective.
… Rinpoche never wanted people to make a false hierarchy. He never
wanted people to construct a fantasy of what is a Teacher. So in the
film he allowed the camera close to show his real person, warts and all,
and the real way a teacher works with students to help them evolve and
awaken. He allowed us to film him even when sick in the hospital or
facing real problems with students. This is not a "Fluff piece,"
as we say in American. The film shows how hard it is to be a teacher,
transmitting this enormous lineage to the West. By letting us into their
ordinary lives you get to see the normal problems they face as father
and son. They are struggling with the same issues fathers and sons (and
all parents and children) struggle with everywhere."

[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[richardatrwilliamsdotus]

So, it's all about Robin.

P.S. Your post was kind of short, though. LoL!!!

turquoiseb:
> Emily, a couple of points. First, Vaj and I are 
> different people, not one person with two names 
> separated by a forward slash. You are the second
> person in two days to not be able to tell the 
> difference between us, and that we're separate
> people. Just sayin'. 
> 
> Second, in saying that I think RWC was suffering 
> from hypomania and a host of other serious disorders 
> back when he first declared his enlightenment and 
> still is today, I was stating my OPINION. I was not 
> trying to sell that opinion to you.
> 
> If you feel that someone spending several weeks and
> writing literally tens of thousands of words, all
> seemingly dashed off uncontrollably, as if in a fit
> of mania, all trying to get one person to interact
> with him so that RWC could tell him over and over
> and over what's wrong with him -- if you feel this
> is SANE behavior, I feel sorry for you, but that's
> your choice. Go with it. 
> 
> I'm merely pointing out that to me it *doesn't* 
> feel like SANE behavior. It feels like the opposite.
> ALL of RWC's ramblings since he appeared on this
> forum have struck me as being highly manic and as 
> lacking coherence. Often he "goas off on" and gets
> crazy behind things *that weren't even said to him*, 
> such as that there was some incriminating photo of 
> him in drag running around out there. That was pure 
> imagination on his part, and in my opinion not 
> healthy imagination. I think the guy's a total nutcase. 
> 
> Furthermore I think he's essentially the SAME nutcase
> he was back in Fairfield, running the SAME number on
> gullible people here that he ran on gullible people
> there. Back when he was a crazy person pretending to 
> be a spiritual teacher in Fairfield, RWC's "schtick" 
> (according to several sources, not just Vaj) consisted 
> of dragging people up on stage and then confronting 
> them and yelling at them and telling them what was 
> wrong with them and what demons were inhabiting them. 
> Now look at what he was trying to do to Curtis. Do 
> you see any difference? I do not.
> 
> If he sticks around, and you consider him SANE enough
> to do so, I think you should have as many conversations 
> with RWC as you see fit. Go for it. Have a ball. 
> 
> But don't expect me to, because I just don't interact 
> with crazy people any more.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[richardatrwilliamsdotus]

> > The weirdest thing I remember was his going onto 
> > campus and shouting at the buildings to break down 
> > the demonic forces which were supposedly endangering 
> > MIU...
> >
turquoiseb:
> Vaj, as I've said before, all of this was *long* after
> my time in the TMO...
> 
Everyone knows by now that you've never been to 
Fairfield or been inside a Golden Dome of Pure Knowledge. 

Almost everything you know about the TMO came BEFORE 
there even was a 'TMO' up in Fairfield!

> I think that anyone who claims to be enlightenment 
> has a lot to live up to...
>
You are not making any sense. Live up to what - your 
expectations? 

Besides, you once said that you thought anyone who was 
'enlightened' was really just like any other ordinary 
guy, nothing special, just a 'big whoop'. Go figure.   

P.S. You sure have a lot to say about R.C., whom 
you've obviously never met, and have not read any of 
his books or any of his writings on FFL. If you're not 
interested in R.C., why are you feeding it? 

Maybe you're just a little jealous because you want to 
be perceived as a great spiritual teacher. 

But, listen, Pal, you're going to have to do a lot 
more than posting to internet forums to prove to me 
that you're the least bit enlightened. LoL!!!

[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> On Dec 28, 2011, at 6:11 AM, turquoiseb wrote:
> >
> > What I see is the same pattern that was established and
> > legally censured in Iowa courts -- a disconnect with reality
> > that involves becoming highly obsessed with people who don't
> > react to him the way he wants them to, and devolves into
> > being abusive towards them *for* seeing him differently
> > that he wants them to. That was his entire act back in
> > Fairfield, and it's his entire act on Fairfield Life.
> >
> > In my opinion, of course. Yours may vary, and that's OK.
> 
> While the MIU legal team was pretty heavy-handed, they don't 
> sentence people to 40 days in prison for J-walking. There were 
> obviously some behaviors that were way out of line (as mentioned 
> previously) which in addition to this 'skillful action' also 
> resulted in several junior or senior MIU students being expelled 
> and unable to finish their degrees. I remember at that time, MIU 
> was more expensive than most private colleges. So due to these 
> actions, they also lost a huge investment - although one could 
> argue that if they were able to graduate somewhere else, they 
> probably were better off not graduating from a Vedic madrasa 
> in the long run.
> 
> The weirdest thing I remember was his going onto campus and 
> shouting at the buildings to break down the demonic forces which 
> were supposedly endangering MIU.

Vaj, as I've said before, all of this was *long* after
my time in the TMO. I wouldn't have been interested in
it (meaning RWC himself) then, and I'm not now. What I
*am* interested in is the environment in which behavior
this insane can arise, *not* be recognized as insanity,
and even develop a following. 

You have your own theories as to the destructive legacy
of Maharishi and the TMO, and I agree with some of them
and disagree with others. What I see as its saddest legacy,
one that persists to this day, is in creating the mental
and physical environment in which charlatanry (or even
insanity) can be perceived as "enlightenment."

The thing that appalls me about the original Fairfield
version of RWC's saga is the same thing that appalls me
about round two of it on Fairfield Life. The low stan-
dards being applied to what he says and how he presents
himself, and the gullibility of those who find it either
fascinating, or representative of some higher state of
functioning.

Assuming the worst -- that RWC was actually having an
enlightenment experience and not just bull goose loony --
how could anyone have been *attracted* to the vision
of enlightenment he embodied? That, for me, just does 
not compute.

My theory is that for the most part TMers have had to
subsist on theories about higher states of consciousness
and other people's stories about them for so long -- and
the *same* stories repeated over and over -- that they
become suckers and fall for almost *anything* that seems 
new. As Buck and others have reported, they'll line up
and plunk their money down for almost ANYBODY who 
comes through town promising either new stories of their
own supposed enlightenment, or their healing abilities,
or whatever. 

Call me crazy, but for 30-to-40-year followers of a trad-
ition ostensibly founded by the guy who wrote a book called 
"The Crest Jewel of Discrimination," I don't see much dis-
crimination in this scenario. It's as if the only thing 
people look for in an enlightened being is that he or she 
claims to be enlightened. That's perceived as *enough*. 

I don't think it's enough. Given the claims made *about*
enlightenment over the centuries, I think that anyone who
claims to be enlightenment has a lot to live up to. If they
do not, and in fact display behavior that is 180 degrees 
opposite of how we've been told the enlightened would act, 
I think it's perfectly legitimate to question whether the 
claimant is or ever was really enlightened and look into 
other explanations for their behavior. Such as insanity.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[Vaj]

On Dec 28, 2011, at 6:11 AM, turquoiseb wrote:


What I see is the same pattern that was established and
legally censured in Iowa courts -- a disconnect with reality
that involves becoming highly obsessed with people who don't
react to him the way he wants them to, and devolves into
being abusive towards them *for* seeing him differently
that he wants them to. That was his entire act back in
Fairfield, and it's his entire act on Fairfield Life.

In my opinion, of course. Yours may vary, and that's OK.



While the MIU legal team was pretty heavy-handed, they don't sentence  
people to 40 days in prison for J-walking. There were obviously some  
behaviors that were way out of line (as mentioned previously) which  
in addition to this 'skillful action' also resulted in several junior  
or senior MIU students being expelled and unable to finish their  
degrees. I remember at that time, MIU was more expensive than most  
private colleges. So due to these actions, they also lost a huge  
investment - although one could argue that if they were able to  
graduate somewhere else, they probably were better off not graduating  
from a Vedic madrasa in the long run.


The weirdest thing I remember was his going onto campus and shouting  
at the buildings to break down the demonic forces which were  
supposedly endangering MIU.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[Vaj]

On Dec 28, 2011, at 12:48 AM, maskedzebra  wrote:

> What you have declared in this post makes me out to be a liar. Am I a liar, 
> Steve?

No, but you're still walking around with that boogar on your face.

[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[turquoiseb]

Emily, if you feel that Robin is sane, and coherent, please
explain this (which I looked up after being alerted in email
that RWC had lost it so heavily that he no longer even knew
who he was talking to on this forum). In this particular
tirade, he launches into an abusive analysis *of the wrong
person*. And then, even after being told he was referring to 
the wrong person, he has not indicated that his analysis might
be wrong, or even admitted that his entire manic tirade was 
based on not caring enough about the people he is supposedly 
conversing with to tell one of them from the other. This 
strikes me as being in the same ballpark of crazy as when
he earlier lost it heavily over a photograph of him *that
no one ever suggested existed*. 

> > Zarzari: [Not really. This was written by me, and 
> > Robin is too out of it to even notice.] The thing 
> > that causes me to believe in this theory is the fact 
> > that RWC refuses to even consider it, even as a 
> > possibility. *His* subjective view is the only 
> > possible explanation. That's pretty much classic
> > NPD/hypomania.
> 
> Robin: Judy has done a pretty good job of demolishing this 
> diagnosis. Zarzari, right from the beginning when you came 
> to post at FFL you had an intense bias; you waited until 
> taking your leave of absence, to come out with it directly; 
> but it was always there in everything you wrote. You have 
> escaped detection in this regard, for your motives were 
> always under a compulsion which would vitiate any claims 
> of fairness or objectivity in this matter. You were only 
> about saying what you finally said: this MZ guy, he is a 
> nutcase. Interesting that the credibility of Turq 
> immediately trumped everything that Judy had been 
> explaining to you: in that moment you revealed your 
> uncontrollable agenda. You have impeached yourself, 
> zarzari.

If you honestly believe that this is sane behavior, Emily, 
I wish you good luck in life. You're going to need it.

What I see is the same pattern that was established and 
legally censured in Iowa courts -- a disconnect with reality
that involves becoming highly obsessed with people who don't
react to him the way he wants them to, and devolves into 
being abusive towards them *for* seeing him differently
that he wants them to. That was his entire act back in
Fairfield, and it's his entire act on Fairfield Life.

In my opinion, of course. Yours may vary, and that's OK.

[FairfieldLife] Trio erektus: Sex machine

[cardemaister]

At least for a "drummer" like myself, funky is surprisingly hard
to play so that it sounds good:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UozWX1bYJQY