[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
Judy Stein wrote: Actually, as Willytex knows, Steve Perino (ColdBluIce) wrote this: Actually, Willytex knows that Judy Stein wrote this: Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental From: Judy Stein Date: 2000/07/26 Subject: Re: Avatar Buddh http://tinyurl.com/2c6eyl The reservation of this path for renunciates is exactly what Maharishi is objecting to, what he says is a misrepresentation of what Shankara taught. Swaroopanand teaches only Ishtadevata meditation to householders because he considers the other path too difficult. Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental From: Judy Stein Date: 2000/07/26 Subject: Soma Yog/Ayerved http://tinyurl.com/2c6eyl Swaroopanand teaches only Ishtadevata meditation to householders because he considers the other path too difficult.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I did a search on several different spellings of the name of the current Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math (Swaroopananda, Swarupananda, Swaroopanand, Swarupanand--there are probably others) and got about 500 hits. You might get some more with a 'v': svarupananda, etc.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
Judy Mental illness or personality disorders run a gambit (run the gamut) Me Excellent correction, thank you. Been saying that wrong all my life. Me I am saying that this is just my opinion about the guy. Any attempt to be more right about this topic than I am will not get any traction with me. Judy Well, I know that. My mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts. What I'm pointing out is that your conclusions just aren't logical. Me Claiming that someone is not being logical works better on people who didn't study logic. We have different premises so our conclusions are different. Logic has nothing to do with it. We are both expressing an opinion about the facts and looking at it from different perspectives. Your belief that your opinion is more factual is one of the important differences in how we view these discussions. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Yes, but you're starting from the assumption that he was a mentally ill homeless dude. My point is that to run a Shankaracharya outfit, he couldn't possibly have been. Shankaracharyas aren't chosen for their administrative and political competence, but they're under a tremendous amount of scrutiny, and if they foul up in those respects, you'll hear about it. Mental illness or personality disorders run a gambit (run the gamut) from non functional to very functional. snip The main thing is that leaving home at 9 is not normal But you don't think *anyone* with a religious calling is normal. As far as you're concerned, millions of highly productive people throughout history haven't been normal. Martin Luther King wasn't normal. and I don't see any reason to view it as a super normal quality in him. I never suggested he had a supernormal quality in the sense of anything supernatural. But he was clearly an overachiever; most people who become leaders are. I am just forming my opinion on the facts that we have, just like you. You are focusing on his achievement as Shankaracharya and I am looking at him more personally. There is something wrong with a guy leaving home at 9 and spending his life away from society. There's something *different* about such a person, no question. I don't know how you can categorically state that this difference is wrong. That just strikes me as incredibly arrogant, as well as ethnocentric. Even when he rejoined society he would not be in the presence of women. We are all drawing our own conclusions from these simple facts of his life. I am saying that this is just my opinion about the guy. Any attempt to be more right about this topic than I am will not get any traction with me. Well, I know that. My mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts. What I'm pointing out is that your conclusions just aren't logical. I think we are just both expressing different ways of looking at an interesting life.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy Mental illness or personality disorders run a gambit (run the gamut) Me Excellent correction, thank you. Been saying that wrong all my life. I just realized I had *no* idea what a gamut actually was, so I looked it up. It's from the Latin gamma, for the lowest note on a medieval scale; gamut originally meant the whole series of recognized musical notes, according to my dictionary. Hence the modern meaning of run the gamut: covering a range of one extreme to another. Me I am saying that this is just my opinion about the guy. Any attempt to be more right about this topic than I am will not get any traction with me. Judy Well, I know that. My mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts. What I'm pointing out is that your conclusions just aren't logical. Me Claiming that someone is not being logical works better on people who didn't study logic. We have different premises so our onclusions are different. I'm saying your *premises* aren't logical given the known facts. E.g., what kind of medical (i.e., psychiatric) attention is a family living in a village in Uttar Pradesh in 1879 going to be able to obtain for a 9-year-old bent on leaving home to seek God? Logic has nothing to do with it. We are both expressing an opinion about the facts and looking at it from different perspectives. Your belief that your opinion is more factual is one of the important differences in how we view these discussions. Uh-huh. See if you can address my question above, then explain why Guru Dev's parents should be considered psychopathic child abusers.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
On Mar 10, 2007, at 8:12 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Judy Mental illness or personality disorders run a gambit (run the gamut) Me Excellent correction, thank you. Been saying that wrong all my life. Dorothy Parker's famously biting comment on Katharine Hepburn: She runs the gamut of emotions, from A to B.:) Kind of brings to mind Julia Roberts, who looks sort of like a young Katharine Hepburn, except, of course, for the fact that KA could actually *act.* Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kind of brings to mind Julia Roberts, who looks sort of like a young Katharine Hepburn, except, of course, for the fact that KA could actually *act.* I've never understood the Julia Roberts phenomenon. IMO, she's an ordinary looking woman with acting skills that are mediocre, at best. It boggles my mind that the industry deems her worthy of tens of millions of dollars per film. I don't get it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
On Mar 10, 2007, at 9:29 AM, Alex Stanley wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kind of brings to mind Julia Roberts, who looks sort of like a young Katharine Hepburn, except, of course, for the fact that KA could actually *act.* I've never understood the Julia Roberts phenomenon. IMO, she's an ordinary looking woman with acting skills that are mediocre, at best. Exactly. It boggles my mind that the industry deems her worthy of tens of millions of dollars per film. I don't get it. Neither do I. I think she's simply an excellent example of the blank-slate phenomenon--she's so mediocre and her acting so flat that people can project anything they want to. Apart from that I have never seen anything that I would call talent in her. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: Kind of brings to mind Julia Roberts, who looks sort of like a young Katharine Hepburn, except, of course, for the fact that KA could actually *act.* I've never understood the Julia Roberts phenomenon. IMO, she's an ordinary looking woman with acting skills that are mediocre, at best. It boggles my mind that the industry deems her worthy of tens of millions of dollars per film. I don't get it. Ok, just a pro-Julia word or two. She has a certain ability as an actress that I didn't fully understand until I remembered a quote by Tamasaburo Bando, the world's most famous Kabuki onagata. In the all-male Kabuki theater, onagatas are the men who play the women's roles. They are trained from the age of five or six to do this. Many are not gay, but are known for their ability to portray women better than women. I once saw Tamasaburo Bando perform in L.A., from the second row. He did three excerpts from famous Kabuki plays that night. In them he played a young girl, a middle-aged woman, and an old woman. It was amazing, because not only did the characters change *totally*, to the point that you had difficulty remembering that it was the same actor playing each role, but at no point during the evening was there any question in your mind that the person you were watching onstage was a woman. Anyway, on this tour he was interviewed and specfically asked about this ability of his to play women better than women. He said, Inside every woman there are places so deep, and so private, that they would never be able to show them. But I can. THAT is the thing that Julia Roberts does in some of her roles. Her forte is those moments of *vulerability*, in which she reveals those deep, private places that very few other actresses are capable of revealing or willing to reveal. It's exactly *why* directors cast her in roles that have one or more of those moments in the script. This doesn't mean that you have to like her, of course, but that's why I like her. I have encountered very few other actresses who are willing and able to reveal such depths. Isabelle Adjani springs to mind, of course, but very few others.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
On Mar 10, 2007, at 9:51 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: THAT is the thing that Julia Roberts does in some of her roles. Her forte is those moments of *vulerability*, in which she reveals those deep, private places that very few other actresses are capable of revealing or willing to reveal. It's exactly *why* directors cast her in roles that have one or more of those moments in the script. Well if you say so, Barry. Maybe I'm just deluding myself, but I'd like to think that I can recognize depth when I see it, and what I mostly see there is fairly obvious superficiality and virtually no recognizable talent. But maybe it takes a certain depth to be so shallow--anything's possible. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
Judy Stein wrote: You might get some more with a 'v': svarupananda, etc. Maybe so, but on Usenet it's Swaroopanand or Swaroopananda, and hardly ever with a 'v'. Apparently I'm the only respondent on Usenet who used a 'v' in Swaroopanand Saraswati, but only a few times, in my discussion concerning the current Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath, Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati. Shanakaracharya Swami Swaroopananda: http://tinyurl.com/ys7zq8 Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental From: Judy Stein Date: 2000/07/26 Subject: Soma Yog/Ayerved http://tinyurl.com/2c6eyl Swaroopanand teaches only Ishtadevata meditation to householders because he considers the other path too difficult.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 10, 2007, at 9:51 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: THAT is the thing that Julia Roberts does in some of her roles. Her forte is those moments of *vulerability*, in which she reveals those deep, private places that very few other actresses are capable of revealing or willing to reveal. It's exactly *why* directors cast her in roles that have one or more of those moments in the script. Well if you say so, Barry. Maybe I'm just deluding myself, but I'd like to think that I can recognize depth when I see it, and what I mostly see there is fairly obvious superficiality and virtually no recognizable talent. But maybe it takes a certain depth to be so shallow-- anything's possible. I'm not saying that she's as good an actress as Isabelle Adjani (who is?), only that they share that ability to be completely vulnerable onstage. I find those moments the best part of her work. As for superficiality, well, I think it's good to remember that she is playing *roles*, the vast majority of which are written by men, and that portray women who...uh...*are* superficial. So if you bought her as superficial, she was doing her job. I have never met her, but I had friends in Santa Fe who knew her well, because Julia has a ranch next to theirs near Taos. They describe her as anything *but* superficial off camera, especially when the subject turns to literature or poetry. They were the ones who turned me onto the soundtrack CD of The Postman, on which she recites some of the poetry of her favorite poet, Pablo Neruda. Great stuff. She's far from my favorite actress, but I have enjoyed moments in her work. I'd like to see her play someone really BAD, the way Helen Mirren got to as Morgana in Excalibur. I'd be willing to bet that she's always wanted to play a heavy villain, too, but that as with Robert Redford, no one ever allowed her to.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy Stein wrote: Actually, as Willytex knows, cardemeister wrote this: You might get some more with a 'v': svarupananda, etc. Maybe so, but on Usenet it's Swaroopanand or Swaroopananda, and hardly ever with a 'v'. Apparently I'm the only respondent on Usenet who used a 'v' in Swaroopanand Saraswati, but only a few times, in my discussion concerning the current Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath, Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati. Shanakaracharya Swami Swaroopananda: http://tinyurl.com/ys7zq8 Actually, as Willytex knows, Steve Perino (ColdBluIce) wrote this: Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental From: Judy Stein Date: 2000/07/26 Subject: Soma Yog/Ayerved http://tinyurl.com/2c6eyl Swaroopanand teaches only Ishtadevata meditation to householders because he considers the other path too difficult.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: I did a search on several different spellings of the name of the current Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math (Swaroopananda, Swarupananda, Swaroopanand, Swarupanand--there are probably others) and got about 500 hits. You might get some more with a 'v': svarupananda, etc. Thanks, but I tried the v, got only a few additional hits. (Incidentally, I mistyped above; I got about *600* hits, not 500.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: THAT is the thing that Julia Roberts does in some of her roles. Her forte is those moments of *vulerability*, in which she reveals those deep, private places that very few other actresses are capable of revealing or willing to reveal. It's exactly *why* directors cast her in roles that have one or more of those moments in the script. This doesn't mean that you have to like her, of course, but that's why I like her. Me too- I thought she was really good in 'Notting Hill', though the show was solidly stolen by Hugh Grant's room-mate, Rhys Ifans, as Spike: William [Hugh Grant]: [Spike is wearing Will's wetsuit] Can I ask you why you are wearing that? Spike: Combination of factors. No clean clothes. William: There never will be unless you actually *clean* your clothes. Spike: Vicious circle. And I was rooting around in your things and found this and thought groovy. Kind of... spacy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Mar 10, 2007, at 9:51 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: THAT is the thing that Julia Roberts does in some of her roles. Her forte is those moments of *vulerability*, in which she reveals those deep, private places that very few other actresses are capable of revealing or willing to reveal. It's exactly *why* directors cast her in roles that have one or more of those moments in the script. Well if you say so, Barry. Maybe I'm just deluding myself, but I'd like to think that I can recognize depth when I see it, and what I mostly see there is fairly obvious superficiality and virtually no recognizable talent. But maybe it takes a certain depth to be so shallow-- anything's possible. I'm not saying that she's as good an actress as Isabelle Adjani (who is?), only that they share that ability to be completely vulnerable onstage. I find those moments the best part of her work. I agree about Roberts. She's what I think of as a *generous* actor. Same with the late Christopher Reeve. Not much subtlety or nuance, not very deep, but very, very *open*. What you see onscreen with these two aren't carefully crafted characters, but the human beings saying the characters' lines and reacting as if they--the human beings, the actors--were experiencing what the characters experience *as themselves*, and sharing every bit of that experience with the audience, with great emotional honesty. When the creep hits Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman, you see Julia Roberts reacting to being struck in the face by a creep. With the appropriate script--one that doesn't stray too far from the personalities of the actors--and a director savvy enough to encourage and provide safety for that openness without trying to impose layers of nuance over it, it can work very nicely. The personalities of both Roberts and Reeve are inherently quite charming, so they tend to immediately enlist the audience's sympathy. If you can just relax into it and take what they give you, it can be a very enjoyable experience. Natlie Wood had those same qualities, as did Rock Hudson.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
sparaig wrote: There are alternate spellings of Jyotirmath, you know. There is Joshimutt, and Jyotirmath, and Jyotishpeeth as well. However, in a Google searche of Shankaracharya there are very few mentions of the Maharishi or the TMO. FYI for interested readers: There is a wealth of information about Maharishi's relationship to the Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath on Usenet. Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental From: Richard Williams Date: 7 Jun 2005 22:20:39 Subject: THE Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath http://tinyurl.com/38z92g William Cenkner, the author of the scholarly work, 'Shankara and the Jagadgurus Today', makes the point that the successor of Swami Brahmanada is Swami Shantanand and he describes the the Dasanami tradition in some detail. Shankaracharya: http://tinyurl.com/2agcuz The latest news about the current Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath, Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati: 'Sects take place of religion: Shankaracharya' Central Chronicle, Thursday March 1, 2007 http://www.centralchronicle.com/20070301/0103102.htm Jagatguru Shankaracharya Swami Vasudevananda Saraswati said that we should give our identity as unity in adversity.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
On Mar 10, 2007, at 10:28 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: As for superficiality, well, I think it's good to remember that she is playing *roles*, the vast majority of which are written by men, But so are other far more talented actresses as well, and they come across much better. and that portray women who...uh...*are* superficial. All of the roles she's gotten are meant to portray women as superficial? Well, I disagree. So if you bought her as superficial, she was doing her job. Except that in the hands of more talented actresses all of her roles would have been done much more competently, I would surmise. But those far more talented women didn't get the job because JR, talentless though she may be, was thought to be more bankable. So no, she wasn't doing her job, she was doing *a* job. I have never met her, but I had friends in Santa Fe who knew her well, because Julia has a ranch next to theirs near Taos. They describe her as anything *but* superficial off camera, But we're talking *on* camera. I have no problem with her in any other sense--think she has a nice life, in fact. especially when the subject turns to literature or poetry. Who cares? They were the ones who turned me onto the soundtrack CD of The Postman, on which she recites some of the poetry of her favorite poet, Pablo Neruda. Great stuff. She's far from my favorite actress, but I have enjoyed moments in her work. I'd like to see her play someone really BAD, the way Helen Mirren got to as Morgana in Excalibur. I'd be willing to bet that she's always wanted to play a heavy villain, too, but that as with Robert Redford, no one ever allowed her to. Or no one ever thought she could pull it off. Or maybe *she* had the good sense to recognize that. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 10, 2007, at 10:28 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: As for superficiality, well, I think it's good to remember that she is playing *roles*, the vast majority of which are written by men, But so are other far more talented actresses as well, and they come across much better. and that portray women who...uh...*are* superficial. All of the roles she's gotten are meant to portray women as superficial? Well, I disagree. So if you bought her as superficial, she was doing her job. Except that in the hands of more talented actresses all of her roles would have been done much more competently, I would surmise. But those far more talented women didn't get the job because JR, talentless though she may be, was thought to be more bankable. So no, she wasn't doing her job, she was doing *a* job. I have never met her, but I had friends in Santa Fe who knew her well, because Julia has a ranch next to theirs near Taos. They describe her as anything *but* superficial off camera, But we're talking *on* camera. I have no problem with her in any other sense--think she has a nice life, in fact. especially when the subject turns to literature or poetry. Who cares? They were the ones who turned me onto the soundtrack CD of The Postman, on which she recites some of the poetry of her favorite poet, Pablo Neruda. Great stuff. She's far from my favorite actress, but I have enjoyed moments in her work. I'd like to see her play someone really BAD, the way Helen Mirren got to as Morgana in Excalibur. I'd be willing to bet that she's always wanted to play a heavy villain, too, but that as with Robert Redford, no one ever allowed her to. Or no one ever thought she could pull it off. Or maybe *she* had the good sense to recognize that. Meow. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
Sounds like I am missing a great discussion and night with the bros. Barcelona sounds pretty sweet too! Thanks for including me. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I think the exemption only extends to guys who claim to have a connection with God. Those homeless guys are the saints that we should think of differently. Here in DC that is about one out of three guys on the street. In fact I handed a George Washington to a guy the other day who was quoting the Bible so convincingly I almost let him put his hand on my head to save me. Maybe you should have let him. I would have but there was something organic on his hand. Curtis, I just wanted you to know that I was thinking of you fondly tonight. I was having dinner with my next-door neighbor, and we were talking about all this GREAT stuff -- anything from The Lost Tomb Of Jesus to the project he's working on right now (The Old Testament) to music (of course) to weird, kinky sex stuff, to women and how to live with them, to music, to gurus and about how many people go searching for them to find themselves and end up losing themselves, to music, to life in the south of France, to street stories from New York and Tulsa and other weird places, to music, and back to music again. If you ever get to France, and I am still living here (I made the terrible mistake not long ago of discovering Barcelona), you really have to drop by so I can introduce the two of you. He has one of the world's largest collections of 78s. Every- thing from classic blues to early country to ethnic stuff from all over the world, tens of thousands of them. You'd be in Hog Heaven.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
Spraig, new bumper stickers: I'm not being negligent, my kid's a saint! Your kid is on honor role, my kid saved the world from sin. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Curtis, you have such an impoverished imagination. I don't mean your ability to fantasize stuff that isn't real, I mean your ability to entertain alternate possibilities. OK help me out. Under what conditions is it OK for parents to let their 9 year old wander off alone? Ask the parents of Jesus.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
On Mar 9, 2007, at 6:28 PM, authfriend wrote: Try this, Sal. Go here-- http://www.hindu.com/ --and type Shankaracharya in the search box at the top of the page. Then go to-- http://www.hinduismtoday.com/ --and do the same search. Well, about 300+ for the first, many on the recent shooting, and barely 100 for the second. Yeah, those Shanks sure are on everybody's front burners. For a tradition supposedly over 1000 years old, that's not only a poor showing, it's about rock bottom. Thanks, Judy, you proved my point. And I saw virtually nothing on any of their duties. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, but you're starting from the assumption that he was a mentally ill homeless dude. My point is that to run a Shankaracharya outfit, he couldn't possibly have been. Shankaracharyas aren't chosen for their administrative and political competence, but they're under a tremendous amount of scrutiny, and if they foul up in those respects, you'll hear about it. Mental illness or personality disorders run a gambit (run the gamut) from non functional to very functional. snip The main thing is that leaving home at 9 is not normal But you don't think *anyone* with a religious calling is normal. As far as you're concerned, millions of highly productive people throughout history haven't been normal. Martin Luther King wasn't normal. and I don't see any reason to view it as a super normal quality in him. I never suggested he had a supernormal quality in the sense of anything supernatural. But he was clearly an overachiever; most people who become leaders are. I am just forming my opinion on the facts that we have, just like you. You are focusing on his achievement as Shankaracharya and I am looking at him more personally. There is something wrong with a guy leaving home at 9 and spending his life away from society. There's something *different* about such a person, no question. I don't know how you can categorically state that this difference is wrong. That just strikes me as incredibly arrogant, as well as ethnocentric. Even when he rejoined society he would not be in the presence of women. We are all drawing our own conclusions from these simple facts of his life. I am saying that this is just my opinion about the guy. Any attempt to be more right about this topic than I am will not get any traction with me. Well, I know that. My mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts. What I'm pointing out is that your conclusions just aren't logical. I think we are just both expressing different ways of looking at an interesting life.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Mar 9, 2007, at 10:37 AM, authfriend wrote: How many of these homeless guys, if you plucked them off the street, dressed them up in robes, gave them a fancy house with lots of servants, and appointed them the leader of, say, a prominent Christian denomination, would actually end up fulfilling the expectations for a person in such a position? Sounds like the rajas--don't forget the fancy hats and bagpipes. False comparison--they didn't grow up that way, Judy. GD obviously was exposed to that if he was from the Brahmin class, as I believe you and others have maintained. And what expectations did he fulfill? You're once again just projecting. Is there some kind of laundry list of things a guru is supposed to do? Of course not, they just make it up as they go along, and then one of their followers calls whatever it is they've done, accomplishments. Exactly. The problem with the literature of spirituality is that almost all of it, in every era, has been written by the unrealized writing *their* impressions of the realized. Of course, guru is a red herring in the context of this particular discussion. There most certainly is a laundry list of things that are expected from a Shankaracharyas, just as there is for an archbishop or any other major leader of a large religious organization. I know you don't feel you need to be familiar with the context of a discussion to make pronouncements about it, Barry, but *this* branch of the discussion was about Guru Dev's general competence as a human bean compared to that of your standard homeless person.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
Er...this is a silly argument. Go back to the 19th century in India, when a woman would have as 16 or 20 kids in a lifetime, many of them died, or still born, or disappeared, or even sold, maybe having 6 or 7 survive. As far as I know preople got married at 13. It was commonplace. So, one kid of 9 going off into the VERY established tradition of seeking knowledge from a monestary or spiritual master, would not be viewed the same as it is in our modern western world. Add to that, I believe the story is that Guru Dev ran away twice. The first time they searched and brought him back. The second time they must have accepted that he was destined to seek for knowledge. Or, maybe they really did have the experiences described that he seemed like an Avatar from day one. Who knows. OffWorld --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Spraig, new bumper stickers: I'm not being negligent, my kid's a saint! Your kid is on honor role, my kid saved the world from sin. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Curtis, you have such an impoverished imagination. I don't mean your ability to fantasize stuff that isn't real, I mean your ability to entertain alternate possibilities. OK help me out. Under what conditions is it OK for parents to let their 9 year old wander off alone? Ask the parents of Jesus.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't allege that he was homeless, that is a fact. He was *houseless*, not necessarily homeless. I have my own opinion about his mental state just as you do. I sincerely believe that he needed medical attention as a boy. I think his folks needed a check up from the neck up also. Whatever he was able to achieve with such a deplorable beginning in life is amazing. Don't forget that his achievement began while he was still 9 years old. How many 9-year-olds do you know who could go off on their own and wander through India for years without running into big trouble somewhere along the way? That was one incredibly competent and resourceful 9-year-old right from the start. As for needing medical attention, how do you know he didn't get whatever the equivalent was in India at the time? I rather doubt it would have occurred to anybody to send him to a psychiatrist even if one was available, which I also doubt. But for all we know, his parents may have taken him to the local Ayur-Vedic physician, or a priest, or the village sage for evaluation. That's what I mean about your lack of imagination. You're not able to imagine what the available resources were, or that his parents may have done everything they possibly could to get him the help they perceived he needed. What were they going to do when nothing could sway him, chain him to the radiator? The aspect that you raise considering his humble beginnings, that he rose to such heights in the Hindu religion is amazing. It is a heroic tale of survival worthy of a movie. The fact that his position of power we instrumental in upholding social values that I find repugnant is another issue. But I appreciate your perspective that he was a spiritual Horatio Alger story. That is an aspect I was not appreciating fully. Yeah, except it wasn't a Horatio Alger story. Horatio Alger wrote about people from disadvantaged beginnings who clawed their way up the ladder to success in society via hard work and persistence. Guru Dev, in contrast, didn't *want* success in society, and he made no effort to get there. He was lifted up by others from some obscure place on the ladder to the very top in one step and despite his protests. Admirable or not, Guru Dev was sui generis.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Mar 9, 2007, at 4:08 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: And, at the same time, that aspect is Just Another My-Guru-Is-Special Story. And by extension, *I'm* special as well. Exactly. Of course, TM critics, unlike those nasty, fanatical TMers, would never descend to piling on.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But you're missing the point, Curtis. Judy IS right. And you're wrong. That's just the way things are. Thanks man, I just get confused sometimes, it started when I was nine years old... Of course, TM critics, unlike those nasty, fanatical TMers, would *never* descend to piling on.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 9, 2007, at 6:28 PM, authfriend wrote: Try this, Sal. Go here-- http://www.hindu.com/ --and type Shankaracharya in the search box at the top of the page. Then go to-- http://www.hinduismtoday.com/ --and do the same search. Well, about 300+ for the first, many on the recent shooting, and barely 100 for the second. Yeah, those Shanks sure are on everybody's front burners. For a tradition supposedly over 1000 years old, that's not only a poor showing, it's about rock bottom. Thanks, Judy, you proved my point. And I saw virtually nothing on any of their duties. ROTFL!! Sal, you are just hilarious. If I thought you really believed the nonsense you spout, I'd be worried about you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Er...this is a silly argument. Go back to the 19th century in India, when a woman would have as 16 or 20 kids in a lifetime, many of them died, or still born, or disappeared, or even sold, maybe having 6 or 7 survive. As far as I know preople got married at 13. It was commonplace. So, one kid of 9 going off into the VERY established tradition of seeking knowledge from a monestary or spiritual master, would not be viewed the same as it is in our modern western world. Add to that, I believe the story is that Guru Dev ran away twice. The first time they searched and brought him back. The second time they must have accepted that he was destined to seek for knowledge. Or, maybe they really did have the experiences described that he seemed like an Avatar from day one. Who knows. OffWorld Seems likely. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Spraig, new bumper stickers: I'm not being negligent, my kid's a saint! Your kid is on honor role, my kid saved the world from sin. These are great!
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 9, 2007, at 2:27 PM, authfriend wrote: And what expectations did he fulfill? You're once again just projecting. Well, no, I seem to have a little more familiarity with the duties and responsibilities of a Shankaracharya than you do. See another post to Curtis for more details. I did, Judy, and all you did was project what you feel must go on in a Shankaracharya outfit, as you called it. When was the last time you read in any kind of legitimate publication that any of what you assume actually went on? You know, Sal, I confess, I forgot to write down the date of the last time I looked at Hinduism Today or the Hindu Times, but it was probably a couple of months ago. If you actually look at the lists of Shankaracharya hits for the Hindu Times and Hinduism Today, you'll find articles reporting on most of the agenda items I suggested earlier were among the responsibilities of Shankaracharyas. What you mostly seem to be familiar with is your fervent imagination. Is there some kind of laundry list of things a guru is supposed to do? Shankaracharya, not just guru, Sal. Again, it's like being an archbishop. According to whom? The Catholic Church is a worldwide organization that runs schools and provides food to millions all over the world, amongst many other things. If you're seriously suggesting a comparison, I'd say lay off the LSD. All of these musings are simply more and more projecting. Damn, Sal, you're right, the Roman Catholic Church just isn't precisely equivalent to the official Hindu establishment in India in every single respect. However, unfortunately, there is no organization that is precisely parallel, so, you know, we have to do the best we can. The archbishops of U.S. dioceses are generally concerned with running things in the U.S., not the Church's international programs; and I'd be very surprised if the Hindu establishment in India didn't provide food and run schools in India, if not elsewhere. So the comparison actually does work for what I was suggesting about the duties and responsibilities of the Shankaracharya. Do yourself a favor, Judy, and try a Google search on Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math and see what you come up with. There's about 200+ mentions, all of them related to--surprise!-- either MMY or the TMO. I guess they must have had trouble filling the position after GD died. Another little lesson for Sal here... First, a search tip: if you want to *exclude* certain types of hits, such as those related to MMY or the TMO, type the keywords you want to exclude preceded by a minus sign. I did a search on several different spellings of the name of the current Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math (Swaroopananda, Swarupananda, Swaroopanand, Swarupanand--there are probably others) and got about 500 hits. And If you do a search on just Shankaracharya what you mostly get is info on that shooting. Not if you do them on the two newspaper sites I cited. Apparently apart from you and a few other devotees As noted, not a devotee. nobody much else considers GD or whatever goes on at Shankaracharya outfits to be either of much importance or interest. It would be unlikely you'd find current news items about Guru Dev on the Web, since he was active before most newspapers started keeping electronic archives. And finding pages about Guru Dev that aren't related to MMY or the TMO is difficult, because even independent articles tend to mention one or the other or both on the basis of the association. I know I've seen them, but damn, Sal, I didn't grab the URLs at the time so I could document them for you now. But there's plenty about the activities of the current Shankaracharyas, including the Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math, that doesn't relate to the murder.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: ...there is a big difference between someone like Guru Dev and someone like Turpuiose B. Out of curiosity, what do you consider that difference to be? The former lived in the forest and exhibited acumen and conviction, the latter is homeless, scattered, and directionless. I would have thought those facts were obvious. You forgot to call me a drunk, but thanks for clarifying. Please see my latest post, the one on how people react to ideas that run counter to their own. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
On Mar 9, 2007, at 1:17 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 8, 2007, at 8:59 PM, authfriend wrote: The bulk of the evidence is that he *was* revered for his personal qualities. That's called a cult of personality, Judy, and is usually not considered very healthy. Reverence for him and others like him based on personal qualities might be one of the reasons India is such a mess. Exactly. *George W. Bush* is revered by millions of Americans for his personal qualities. Most of which are merely projections, of course. And it doesn't have to apply only to politicians either, as Judy would probably say it does. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Predictably I disagree with Schilpp's assessment of what the world needs, including his opposition to the US entering WWII. I strongly disagree with his assertion that Guru Dev was a valuable source of values since his support of the caste system's oppressiveness puts him at the ethical level of Strom Thurman. Any guy who is going to ask to be taken seriously as a moral authority is gunna at least have to clear the bar of our lowest social values. That is not repressing people due to their birth. It is immoral and wrong. Appealing to the tradition of oppression does not get him off the hook any more than it did for good ol' boy Strom. There is no evidence I have found that Guru Dev supported the misguided and repressive elements of the caste system, only that he saw the caste structure as a natural outgrowth of society's dharma. The caste system is not there to repress others, though it can be used to do that. By itself it is a natural way that society orgainzes itself, so that each of evolves quickly and comfortably. It was compassion that drove Guru Dev's actions, not a desire for control.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think my example are fine. They show that people's reverence for another person has more to do with their own needs than the person they revere. What happened afterwards is irrelevant except that it dramatizes that people are often wrong about the person's qualities. Now in Guru Dev's case I can see people thinking highly of him the way people give the Pope a lot of credit. Even though the Pope, IMO supports some ideas that don't serve our time well. But to be generous to Guru Dev, I can see him as a Pope like figure who did his job well and supported the ideas of his antiquated tradition. As far as why people revered him I don't think either of us has any better evidence. Gandhi followers did not join in this high regard because they were fighting institutions like the one Guru Dev represented in order to bring some more justice to India. So he was not universally revered, he was revered by people who agreed with the orthodox Hindu perspective he represented. I am only a materialist compared to many posters here. I am not any pure ideology. Your skepticism about my evidence is warranted. When it comes to my take on Guru Dev I am just spouting my opinion based on very little information about him. This lack of information is also the state for people who make a big deal about his life. They are claiming that he was really special and I am saying I don't see any evidence for that yet. All the conjecture about him is just that. Personal presence is a quality universally quoted from Mao's followers. It means nothing to me. I don't doubt that people who revered Guru Dev felt loads of it. This is an area that people suck in. People are terrible at judging a person from afar and it gets worse in groups. So why make any conjecture about his mental state pro or con? It is just a piece for discussion, and it has worked. There have been some good responses including yours. I was sincere in my opinions as others have been in theirs. I judge Guru Dev's behavior from a few facts of his life if we accept them. He left home at an incredibly early age. I asked my social worker friend what kind of kid leaves home at age 9. Abused kids are the only ones she has ever come across. Kids naturally want the support of their family. It is highly unnatural to want to leave. His supposed spiritual mission is something that requires a lot of beliefs that I don't share. It is also possible that he had an attachment disorder. He did not feel anything for his family. In this possibility he may have been treated well, but was unable to feel anything towards his family. The idea of a child being allowed to leave the house and fend for himself is horrific and a crime in this country. Think about his parents for a moment. This was not normal in India either. So I am just stating my opinion that I think he had social problems. He seemed to do OK being treated as a God, but he couldn't just hang as an equal with other people before he was elevated to that status. Actually casual investigation will show that Guru Dev was very reluctant to take the post of Shankaracharya. It took twenty years (!) for him to take it. You are either trying to start a discussion, or haven't taken the time to challenge your assumptions with some research.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Mar 8, 2007, at 8:59 PM, authfriend wrote: The bulk of the evidence is that he *was* revered for his personal qualities. That's called a cult of personality, Judy, and is usually not considered very healthy. Reverence for him and others like him based on personal qualities might be one of the reasons India is such a mess. Exactly. *George W. Bush* is revered by millions of Americans for his personal qualities. Reverence for a leader on the basis of his or her personal qualities does not, of course, automatically constitute a cult of personality. A cult of personality exists when the reverence for the leader is based on alleged personal qualities that he or she either does not actually possess, or that are irrelevant in evaluating his or her actions as a leader (as Shakespeare has Hamlet describe the fratridical King Claudius, That one can smile, and smile, and be a villain). The term therefore is an expression of opinion about the leader's character and/or the nature of his/her actions, not a statement of established fact. And obviously, that the majority of Americans would now say support for Bush constitutes a cult of personality says absolutely zero about whether the reverence for Guru Dev entailed a cult of personality. Each case must be evaluated on its own merits. The equivalence Barry draws is a little like saying that because the fans of Andrea Bocelli revere him despite his lack of genuine musical talent, therefore reverence for Placido Domingo is equally misplaced. Also, it's not always one or the other. Bill Clinton was revered for his personal qualities at least as much as Bush is, despite some serious failures of character; but their respective failings, both personally and politically, are hardly comparable in terms of their effects on national and global well- being. (Well, one might say Clinton's inability to keep his zipper up had the effect of putting George Bush in office, but that just highlights the complexities involved in applying the cult of personality label.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
society's dharma In the South it was called Jim Crow. It states that by the circumstances of your birth you are destined to live within specific boundaries. There are no good Jim Crow laws and there are no good reasons for a caste system if you are in the groups whose lives are restricted by it. One of the strongest arguments against dropping the Jim Crow laws in the South was that Blacks were by nature, unable to control their animal impulses and it was unsafe to have them mix with white women. This attitude continued though the history of blues and rock music. It goes against nature was just as false an argument then. In the same time period as Guru Dev, Gandhi was directly attacking the caste system. I don't think that Guru Dev supported it in a desire for control, I think he did it out of ignorance. As a Brahman his privileged existence was only benefited by the rules, so it would have taken an extraordinary amount of courage to fight this system as Gandhi found out when Hindu fanatics shot him. Saying that Sudras are evolving quickly and comfortably by the restrictions on their economic opportunities imposed on them sounds like a bad justification for oppression and cruelty. You and I are white guys in a first world country. We have no blocks to our advancement in any area of our lives. I think everyone should have such an open road ahead of them. I think society has made some good steps to help insure this. Here in DC we have a large community of middle and upper class black men and women who are proving all those racist claims about their potential and nature by segregationists dead wrong. I wish the same for low caste Hindus. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Predictably I disagree with Schilpp's assessment of what the world needs, including his opposition to the US entering WWII. I strongly disagree with his assertion that Guru Dev was a valuable source of values since his support of the caste system's oppressiveness puts him at the ethical level of Strom Thurman. Any guy who is going to ask to be taken seriously as a moral authority is gunna at least have to clear the bar of our lowest social values. That is not repressing people due to their birth. It is immoral and wrong. Appealing to the tradition of oppression does not get him off the hook any more than it did for good ol' boy Strom. There is no evidence I have found that Guru Dev supported the misguided and repressive elements of the caste system, only that he saw the caste structure as a natural outgrowth of society's dharma. The caste system is not there to repress others, though it can be used to do that. By itself it is a natural way that society orgainzes itself, so that each of evolves quickly and comfortably. It was compassion that drove Guru Dev's actions, not a desire for control.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: The funny thing is that I read that Guru Dev page that was posted earlier, http://www.srigurudev.net/srigurudev/gurudev/biography.html trying to just understand what his quotes revealed about him. He came off like such a priggish old fart. Obsessed with people not sinning and preparing for death. Teaching the scriptures without his own thinking entering in, just like the good little fundamentalist Hindu he was. The quotes could have been Jimmy Swaggart if you just changed the name of the God. I don't know what motivates a kid to try to leave home at 9, never have relationships with women to the point of banning them from his presence when he is older, and living as a homeless man in National Parks away from all people...but I'm not giving him special guy credit for it. There are much simpler explanations. Those much simpler explanations, though, might also have to cover why so many people in India, from all strata of society, revered him so deeply. And oh, by the way, one doesn't usually refer to a hermit who makes his home in the forest for spiritual reasons as a homeless man. That's what's called loading the language in anti-thought reform circles. Yes, that is rather radical to use that terminology, as there is a big difference between someone like Guru Dev and someone like Turpuiose B. Out of curiosity, what do you consider that difference to be? The former lived in the forest and exhibited acumen and conviction, the latter is homeless, scattered, and directionless. I would have thought those facts were obvious. OffWorld They are.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: ...there is a big difference between someone like Guru Dev and someone like Turpuiose B. Out of curiosity, what do you consider that difference to be? The former lived in the forest and exhibited acumen and conviction, the latter is homeless, scattered, and directionless. I would have thought those facts were obvious. You forgot to call me a drunk, but thanks for clarifying. The personal dig aside, Offworld makes the point (which Barry chooses, of course, not to address, because it refutes his and Curtis's position so conclusively) succinctly: the implications of the term homeless in its common usage simply don't apply to Guru Dev. Another way of putting it might be, Home is where the heart is.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
Actually casual investigation will show that Guru Dev was very reluctant to take the post of Shankaracharya. It took twenty years (!) for him to take it. You are either trying to start a discussion, or haven't taken the time to challenge your assumptions with some research. This was my point. Before he was Shankaracharya he couldn't stand to be around people. When they were waving camphor and ghee lamps in front of him worshiping him as Shankaracharya he was OK with people. I think he had a strange relationship with his fellow man. His reluctance to become Shankaracharya is not relevant to my point although it adds to the drama of his story. At the end of James Browns concerts he would collapse and pretend he could not go on until the crowd rose to a fever pitch. Here in DC we can't get our homeless people into shelters either, even when it is freezing cold. They love their freedom and I suspect so did Guru Dev. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I think my example are fine. They show that people's reverence for another person has more to do with their own needs than the person they revere. What happened afterwards is irrelevant except that it dramatizes that people are often wrong about the person's qualities. Now in Guru Dev's case I can see people thinking highly of him the way people give the Pope a lot of credit. Even though the Pope, IMO supports some ideas that don't serve our time well. But to be generous to Guru Dev, I can see him as a Pope like figure who did his job well and supported the ideas of his antiquated tradition. As far as why people revered him I don't think either of us has any better evidence. Gandhi followers did not join in this high regard because they were fighting institutions like the one Guru Dev represented in order to bring some more justice to India. So he was not universally revered, he was revered by people who agreed with the orthodox Hindu perspective he represented. I am only a materialist compared to many posters here. I am not any pure ideology. Your skepticism about my evidence is warranted. When it comes to my take on Guru Dev I am just spouting my opinion based on very little information about him. This lack of information is also the state for people who make a big deal about his life. They are claiming that he was really special and I am saying I don't see any evidence for that yet. All the conjecture about him is just that. Personal presence is a quality universally quoted from Mao's followers. It means nothing to me. I don't doubt that people who revered Guru Dev felt loads of it. This is an area that people suck in. People are terrible at judging a person from afar and it gets worse in groups. So why make any conjecture about his mental state pro or con? It is just a piece for discussion, and it has worked. There have been some good responses including yours. I was sincere in my opinions as others have been in theirs. I judge Guru Dev's behavior from a few facts of his life if we accept them. He left home at an incredibly early age. I asked my social worker friend what kind of kid leaves home at age 9. Abused kids are the only ones she has ever come across. Kids naturally want the support of their family. It is highly unnatural to want to leave. His supposed spiritual mission is something that requires a lot of beliefs that I don't share. It is also possible that he had an attachment disorder. He did not feel anything for his family. In this possibility he may have been treated well, but was unable to feel anything towards his family. The idea of a child being allowed to leave the house and fend for himself is horrific and a crime in this country. Think about his parents for a moment. This was not normal in India either. So I am just stating my opinion that I think he had social problems. He seemed to do OK being treated as a God, but he couldn't just hang as an equal with other people before he was elevated to that status. Actually casual investigation will show that Guru Dev was very reluctant to take the post of Shankaracharya. It took twenty years (!) for him to take it. You are either trying to start a discussion, or haven't taken the time to challenge your assumptions with some research.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of TurquoiseB Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 1:06 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment..by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yep- I loved the Beatles- George was my fave, then Ringo probably. They were just a life changing group- the Fab Four. Presley cracked the door open pretty good, but the Beatles flung it open the rest of the way. But the bottom line is that they were just four Ordinary Guys. The Beatles phenomenon was all about what millions of people projected *onto* those four Ordinary Guys. Ordinary in many ways, as Beethoven and Mozart were ordinary in many ways, but extraordinary as creative geniuses.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: society's dharma In the South it was called Jim Crow. It states that by the circumstances of your birth you are destined to live within specific boundaries. I should have said that I am not defending the caste system as currently practiced. I am supporting the caste system conceptually, as an ideal. There is a wide range of consideration for how we live. It is never black and white, though easiest to support such a polarized world view. Paradox abounds. So I can say I support the caste system as a natural system, but also have my eyes open to its large potential for abuse. Its like teaching a baby to eat. At first they may be horribly awkward, causing all sorts of problems for themselves and those around them by their misuse of a fork and spoon. May even injure themselves with it. After watching such a process, would you then conclude that rather than babies learn to use a fork and spoon, they are flawed in struments based on the baby's inability to use them, and declare that from then on the baby will eat with its hands?
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually casual investigation will show that Guru Dev was very reluctant to take the post of Shankaracharya. It took twenty years (!) for him to take it. You are either trying to start a discussion, or haven't taken the time to challenge your assumptions with some research. This was my point. Before he was Shankaracharya he couldn't stand to be around people. His desire to live in isolation and silence had to do with his self development. The fact that he needed to be away from people to accomplish it was a byproduct. Its like the difference between driving a car to work vs. taking the bus. Because most people prefer to drive to work in a car because it is faster and more convenient doesn't mean that they can't stand to take the bus. It just doesn't serve their needs to take the bus.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
On Mar 9, 2007, at 9:31 AM, authfriend wrote: The personal dig aside, Offworld makes the point (which Barry chooses, of course, not to address, because it refutes his and Curtis's position so conclusively) succinctly: the implications of the term homeless in its common usage simply don't apply to Guru Dev. Another way of putting it might be, Home is where the heart is. Sure, Judy, and the fact that a number of people living on top of grates in DC say they like their neighborhoods must mean they're not homeless either, right? You just can't give up on your fantasies. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip And oh, by the way, one doesn't usually refer to a hermit who makes his home in the forest for spiritual reasons as a homeless man. That's what's called loading the language in anti-thought reform circles. Actually, what Curtis wrote is the result of NOT loading loading the language by cutting the guy and his actions a break because he was somehow spiritual. I found his description refreshing; it's how *most people on the planet* would view the life of such a person if they hadn't been programmed to view it as somehow special and highly evolved. Actually most people on the planet are not so programmed. But most would have the good sense to make the distinction between someone whose lifestyle is purposely unconventional due to their religious convictions, and someone whose lifestyle is unconventional because they can't get their act together. It's not even necessary to *approve* of those religious convictions to recognize the difference.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 9, 2007, at 1:17 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Mar 8, 2007, at 8:59 PM, authfriend wrote: The bulk of the evidence is that he *was* revered for his personal qualities. That's called a cult of personality, Judy, and is usually not considered very healthy. Reverence for him and others like him based on personal qualities might be one of the reasons India is such a mess. Exactly. *George W. Bush* is revered by millions of Americans for his personal qualities. Most of which are merely projections, of course. And it doesn't have to apply only to politicians either, as Judy would probably say it does. It's typically applied to political leaders, particularly heads of state (that's what the term was coined to refer to), but even in the generic sense it's applicable only in certain specific situations of reverence for a leader, as I explained in my earlier post.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of TurquoiseB Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 1:06 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment..by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: Yep- I loved the Beatles- George was my fave, then Ringo probably. They were just a life changing group- the Fab Four. Presley cracked the door open pretty good, but the Beatles flung it open the rest of the way. But the bottom line is that they were just four Ordinary Guys. The Beatles phenomenon was all about what millions of people projected *onto* those four Ordinary Guys. Ordinary in many ways, as Beethoven and Mozart were ordinary in many ways, but extraordinary as creative geniuses. Yep- I haven't seen a musical group yet that could play every genre of music as well and as comfortably as they did. And they were doing stuff with multi-tracked sound when working with George Martin that was decades ahead of its time.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually casual investigation will show that Guru Dev was very reluctant to take the post of Shankaracharya. It took twenty years (!) for him to take it. You are either trying to start a discussion, or haven't taken the time to challenge your assumptions with some research. This was my point. Before he was Shankaracharya he couldn't stand to be around people. When they were waving camphor and ghee lamps in front of him worshiping him as Shankaracharya he was OK with people. I think he had a strange relationship with his fellow man. I know very little about Guru Dev and have no desire to find out more. He's dead, and of no relevance to my life. But what you say here, Curtis, strikes a *strong* relevance to things I've noticed in my study of spirituality in general. There is *all too often* a common trait among spiritual teachers -- they have an inability to relate to other people *except* in the role of teachers, to whom these other people are often *required* to wave camphor and treat them as *non-equals*. One has to journey far and wide to find a spiritual teacher who is willing or able to relate to his or her students as equals, and to form any relationships with them that are *not* based on an enormous disparity of power. I've seen this trait in *so many* spiritual teachers that I really think it comes with the territory. Just as it can be legitimately said that anyone who actually wants to become President of the United States is unqualified to hold the position, I think it can be legitimately said that anyone who is willing to fit into the trad- itional me teacher, you peon spiritual teacher mold is potentially unqualified to do so. It's just such an *artificial* model, and one that in my long-considered opinion has so many *drawbacks* for both student and teacher, that I think the whole traditional teacher-student model should be thrown into the trash bin and another one found.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
The personal dig aside, Offworld makes the point (which Barry chooses, of course, not to address, because it refutes his and Curtis's position so conclusively) succinctly: the implications of the term homeless in its common usage simply don't apply to Guru Dev. Another way of putting it might be, Home is where the heart is. Here in DC guys living in National Parks are counted as homeless or transient. They don't have jobs, don't support the community with taxes, and don't own or rent real estate. Many of the guys in our area are super religious and believe that they have direct communication with God. They are unable to cope with society. Here in the US we don't give them an exemption because they have strong beliefs. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that Guru Dev was any different when he was living in the woods. The fact that he became revered as a living God later says more about the culture he lived in than any personal qualities he may have had. I was interested that the site tried to use miracles as a way to support the idea that he was special. Do you think he had a magic way of gaining funds? Do you believe that a tiger walking past him was evidence of his special relationship of nature? Do you think that the President of India calling the head of his largest voting base grand names makes it more likely to be so? I am purposely using the terms of my culture and perspective on his life. I am not in his culture and don't have any reason to adapt the perspective of people who have bought into his mythology. Guru Dev was a fascinating guy. There are a lot of ways to view his life. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: ...there is a big difference between someone like Guru Dev and someone like Turpuiose B. Out of curiosity, what do you consider that difference to be? The former lived in the forest and exhibited acumen and conviction, the latter is homeless, scattered, and directionless. I would have thought those facts were obvious. You forgot to call me a drunk, but thanks for clarifying. The personal dig aside, Offworld makes the point (which Barry chooses, of course, not to address, because it refutes his and Curtis's position so conclusively) succinctly: the implications of the term homeless in its common usage simply don't apply to Guru Dev. Another way of putting it might be, Home is where the heart is.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
Sure, Judy, and the fact that a number of people living on top of grates in DC say they like their neighborhoods must mean they're not homeless either, right? You just can't give up on your fantasies. I think the exemption only extends to guys who claim to have a connection with God. Those homeless guys are the saints that we should think of differently. Here in DC that is about one out of three guys on the street. In fact I handed a George Washington to a guy the other day who was quoting the Bible so convincingly I almost let him put his hand on my head to save me. India may have a system that works for their homeless. If calling yourself a holy man lets them eek out a living, it may be better than what we have here. We treat our homeless really poorly and pretend they don't exist. I can't believe how many are homeless in the DC area. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 9, 2007, at 9:31 AM, authfriend wrote: The personal dig aside, Offworld makes the point (which Barry chooses, of course, not to address, because it refutes his and Curtis's position so conclusively) succinctly: the implications of the term homeless in its common usage simply don't apply to Guru Dev. Another way of putting it might be, Home is where the heart is. Sure, Judy, and the fact that a number of people living on top of grates in DC say they like their neighborhoods must mean they're not homeless either, right? You just can't give up on your fantasies. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip As a Brahman his privileged existence was only benefited by the rules, so it would have taken an extraordinary amount of courage to fight this system Actually he spent most of his life, by choice, *not* benefiting from the privilege of being a Brahmin. As Jim points out, he had to be cajoled for many years before he'd consent to take a position in which he was accorded that privilege.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually casual investigation will show that Guru Dev was very reluctant to take the post of Shankaracharya. It took twenty years (!) for him to take it. You are either trying to start a discussion, or haven't taken the time to challenge your assumptions with some research. This was my point. Before he was Shankaracharya he couldn't stand to be around people. When they were waving camphor and ghee lamps in front of him worshiping him as Shankaracharya he was OK with people. Or not. For all we know, the entire time he was Shankaracharya, he may have been wishing he were back in the forest by himself communing with God and living on roots and berries. snip Here in DC we can't get our homeless people into shelters either, even when it is freezing cold. Or they prefer the cold to the dangerous squalor of the shelters.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But the bottom line is that they were just four Ordinary Guys. The Beatles phenomenon was all about what millions of people projected *onto* those four Ordinary Guys. Ordinary in many ways, as Beethoven and Mozart were ordinary in many ways, but extraordinary as creative geniuses. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. First, I believe that the term 'genius' is overused and completely inappropriate when dealing with popular music. I know of no one I would apply the term to, and I have a collection of thousands of albums. To compare the Beatles and their musicianship to Mozart or Beethoven is, in my opinion, silly. They wrote pop songs. Better pop songs than most, but pop songs nonetheless. They had an intuitive grasp of vocal harmony, but intuitive was all that it was. They didn't even venture out of 3/4 or 4/4 time until We Can Work It Out. But they were cute and they appeared at a time at which the world was desperately seeking an alternative to the churn-it-out-and-sell-it music produced by Tin Pan Alley and the music companies, and so they found a resonance with audiences. But just look at what those audiences were *comparing* them to. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
On Mar 9, 2007, at 11:01 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: India may have a system that works for their homeless. If calling yourself a holy man lets them eek out a living, it may be better than what we have here. We treat our homeless really poorly and pretend they don't exist. I can't believe how many are homeless in the DC area. Actually in India many criminals will don the robes of a sanyassi in order to remain on the lam. No better way to hide from authorities than to look like a holy man. I've heard yogis claim it's not safe to be a sadhu these days because so many of them are outright criminals.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
I've seen this trait in *so many* spiritual teachers that I really think it comes with the territory. Just as it can be legitimately said that anyone who actually wants to become President of the United States is unqualified to hold the position, I think it can be legitimately said that anyone who is willing to fit into the trad- itional me teacher, you peon spiritual teacher mold is potentially unqualified to do so. Wow, that was best thing I have read all week! That totally nails where I am at. I am only interested in relating to people as equals. I expect the same in return. People can try to separate themselves in so many ways, spiritually being only one. I grew up in prep schools and never even really saw the class system in place. But as hired help as a bluesman for rich private parties, I often see my employer tying to speak to me as if I am in a different class. Not overtly shitty, but distinctly not equal. At some point in the conversation they often realize that I am not speaking to them in the deferential, insecure manor due to their status. This usually leads them to get real with me and drop the false wall. It has lead to some really interesting friendships. I think that unless the person is a real dick, being real with them can make it safe for them to drop the barriers. My therapy for my upbringing has been close friends from other cultures. They relate to me on such a deep human to human level, beyond either of our conditioning. I'll bet you have found the same. Great post Turq. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Actually casual investigation will show that Guru Dev was very reluctant to take the post of Shankaracharya. It took twenty years (!) for him to take it. You are either trying to start a discussion, or haven't taken the time to challenge your assumptions with some research. This was my point. Before he was Shankaracharya he couldn't stand to be around people. When they were waving camphor and ghee lamps in front of him worshiping him as Shankaracharya he was OK with people. I think he had a strange relationship with his fellow man. I know very little about Guru Dev and have no desire to find out more. He's dead, and of no relevance to my life. But what you say here, Curtis, strikes a *strong* relevance to things I've noticed in my study of spirituality in general. There is *all too often* a common trait among spiritual teachers -- they have an inability to relate to other people *except* in the role of teachers, to whom these other people are often *required* to wave camphor and treat them as *non-equals*. One has to journey far and wide to find a spiritual teacher who is willing or able to relate to his or her students as equals, and to form any relationships with them that are *not* based on an enormous disparity of power. I've seen this trait in *so many* spiritual teachers that I really think it comes with the territory. Just as it can be legitimately said that anyone who actually wants to become President of the United States is unqualified to hold the position, I think it can be legitimately said that anyone who is willing to fit into the trad- itional me teacher, you peon spiritual teacher mold is potentially unqualified to do so. It's just such an *artificial* model, and one that in my long-considered opinion has so many *drawbacks* for both student and teacher, that I think the whole traditional teacher-student model should be thrown into the trash bin and another one found.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
On Mar 9, 2007, at 10:39 AM, Rick Archer wrote: Ordinary in many ways, as Beethoven and Mozart were ordinary in many ways, but extraordinary as creative geniuses. They definitely had some gifts and songwriting was certainly one of them. But let's not forget they were also the first band to really get into the use of multitrack recording *as an art form*. If anything points out the extent to which multitracking was the key to their genius (way overused IMO), all one has to do is listen to the Beatle's recent CD/SRS-DVD Love. It's the ultimate Beatle's mix tape done by George Martin and son. George Martin truly was the fifth Beatle. And if you don't have Love, you don't know what you're missing. I especially enjoy Love in Surround Sound while munching on semolina pilchards.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
For all we know the reason he wasn't rousted out of the National Park was because of his status. Neither of us knows how he was able to cash in on it. Remember he wore the robe of his order of elite monks who could only be Brahmans. He actually wore his privileged class status AS his sleeve! Of course whether or not he chose to cash in on it is irrelevant to the fact that he had the choice, unlike his lower caste contemporaries. Here in the US some white guys like to grow dreads and act like Rastamen. But at any time they can cut them off and go work in a bank. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip As a Brahman his privileged existence was only benefited by the rules, so it would have taken an extraordinary amount of courage to fight this system Actually he spent most of his life, by choice, *not* benefiting from the privilege of being a Brahmin. As Jim points out, he had to be cajoled for many years before he'd consent to take a position in which he was accorded that privilege.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
Or not. For all we know, the entire time he was Shankaracharya, he may have been wishing he were back in the forest by himself communing with God and living on roots and berries. I think it is likely that he felt like this often. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Actually casual investigation will show that Guru Dev was very reluctant to take the post of Shankaracharya. It took twenty years (!) for him to take it. You are either trying to start a discussion, or haven't taken the time to challenge your assumptions with some research. This was my point. Before he was Shankaracharya he couldn't stand to be around people. When they were waving camphor and ghee lamps in front of him worshiping him as Shankaracharya he was OK with people. Or not. For all we know, the entire time he was Shankaracharya, he may have been wishing he were back in the forest by himself communing with God and living on roots and berries. snip Here in DC we can't get our homeless people into shelters either, even when it is freezing cold. Or they prefer the cold to the dangerous squalor of the shelters.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
I read a great article once about how tough the life of a wandering sadhu is. The guy was describing how tormented they get by people demanding miracles and cures. If they can't produce them they get abused. He also complained that the double edged sword of being holy is that people ignore your own needs a lot so they often don't get fed because people figure they don't really need to eat. It seems like a tough gig. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 9, 2007, at 11:01 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: India may have a system that works for their homeless. If calling yourself a holy man lets them eek out a living, it may be better than what we have here. We treat our homeless really poorly and pretend they don't exist. I can't believe how many are homeless in the DC area. Actually in India many criminals will don the robes of a sanyassi in order to remain on the lam. No better way to hide from authorities than to look like a holy man. I've heard yogis claim it's not safe to be a sadhu these days because so many of them are outright criminals.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 9, 2007, at 9:31 AM, authfriend wrote: The personal dig aside, Offworld makes the point (which Barry chooses, of course, not to address, because it refutes his and Curtis's position so conclusively) succinctly: the implications of the term homeless in its common usage simply don't apply to Guru Dev. Another way of putting it might be, Home is where the heart is. Sure, Judy, and the fact that a number of people living on top of grates in DC say they like their neighborhoods must mean they're not homeless either, right? Depends on what they'd do if you offered them a nice house free of any conditions. You just can't give up on your fantasies. ROTFL! The fantasy is that homeless people are living on the streets because they prefer to do so. One way people cope with finding themselves in a desperate situation for which they themselves are largely responsible is to pretend they've chosen it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sure, Judy, and the fact that a number of people living on top of grates in DC say they like their neighborhoods must mean they're not homeless either, right? You just can't give up on your fantasies. I think the exemption only extends to guys who claim to have a connection with God. Those homeless guys are the saints that we should think of differently. Here in DC that is about one out of three guys on the street. In fact I handed a George Washington to a guy the other day who was quoting the Bible so convincingly I almost let him put his hand on my head to save me. Maybe you should have let him. I'm just fascinated by the nearsightedness of this perspective and the extremely selective way you pick and choose the evidence for it. How many of these homeless guys, if you plucked them off the street, dressed them up in robes, gave them a fancy house with lots of servants, and appointed them the leader of, say, a prominent Christian denomination, would actually end up fulfilling the expectations for a person in such a position?
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For all we know the reason he wasn't rousted out of the National Park was because of his status. Neither of us knows how he was able to cash in on it. Huh?? I have no idea what point you're making. Remember he wore the robe of his order of elite monks who could only be Brahmans. He actually wore his privileged class status AS his sleeve! Of course whether or not he chose to cash in on it is irrelevant to the fact that he had the choice, unlike his lower caste contemporaries. Here in the US some white guys like to grow dreads and act like Rastamen. But at any time they can cut them off and go work in a bank. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip As a Brahman his privileged existence was only benefited by the rules, so it would have taken an extraordinary amount of courage to fight this system Actually he spent most of his life, by choice, *not* benefiting from the privilege of being a Brahmin. As Jim points out, he had to be cajoled for many years before he'd consent to take a position in which he was accorded that privilege.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Sure, Judy, and the fact that a number of people living on top of grates in DC say they like their neighborhoods must mean they're not homeless either, right? You just can't give up on your fantasies. I think the exemption only extends to guys who claim to have a connection with God. Those homeless guys are the saints that we should think of differently. Here in DC that is about one out of three guys on the street. In fact I handed a George Washington to a guy the other day who was quoting the Bible so convincingly I almost let him put his hand on my head to save me. Maybe you should have let him. I'm just fascinated by the nearsightedness of this perspective and the extremely selective way you pick and choose the evidence for it. How many of these homeless guys, if you plucked them off the street, dressed them up in robes, gave them a fancy house with lots of servants, and appointed them the leader of, say, a prominent Christian denomination, would actually end up fulfilling the expectations for a person in such a position? To say nothing of coping with Guru Dev's well known rule for accepting *zero* donations or income from the outside. Nothing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Before he was Shankaracharya he couldn't stand to be around people. When they were waving camphor and ghee lamps in front of him worshiping him as Shankaracharya he was OK with people. I wrote: Or not. For all we know, the entire time he was Shankaracharya, he may have been wishing he were back in the forest by himself communing with God and living on roots and berries. I think it is likely that he felt like this often. So it *wasn't* necessarily that he was OK with people when they were worshipping him as Shankaracharya. That was my point.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
So it *wasn't* necessarily that he was OK with people when they were worshipping him as Shankaracharya. That was my point. All we know is this is how he chose to live. First alone, then as a living God with people doing pujas to him. I wish we knew more about how he felt about it but his actions speak for what what he chose. It is a fact the the context of his association with other people was as in a revered status. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Before he was Shankaracharya he couldn't stand to be around people. When they were waving camphor and ghee lamps in front of him worshiping him as Shankaracharya he was OK with people. I wrote: Or not. For all we know, the entire time he was Shankaracharya, he may have been wishing he were back in the forest by himself communing with God and living on roots and berries. I think it is likely that he felt like this often. So it *wasn't* necessarily that he was OK with people when they were worshipping him as Shankaracharya. That was my point.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Sure, Judy, and the fact that a number of people living on top of grates in DC say they like their neighborhoods must mean they're not homeless either, right? You just can't give up on your fantasies. I think the exemption only extends to guys who claim to have a connection with God. Those homeless guys are the saints that we should think of differently. Here in DC that is about one out of three guys on the street. In fact I handed a George Washington to a guy the other day who was quoting the Bible so convincingly I almost let him put his hand on my head to save me. Maybe you should have let him. I'm just fascinated by the nearsightedness of this perspective and the extremely selective way you pick and choose the evidence for it. How many of these homeless guys, if you plucked them off the street, dressed them up in robes, gave them a fancy house with lots of servants, and appointed them the leader of, say, a prominent Christian denomination, would actually end up fulfilling the expectations for a person in such a position? MANY of them. Judy, I have to say that it doesn't sound as if you've ever actually talked to very many homeless people. If you had I don't think you'd say the things you said above. Like Curtis, I've met and had long conver- sations with a number of homeless people, ANY of whom could pull off what you suggest above (becoming Pat Robertson), and without breaking a sweat doing it. There is as wide a range of human beings and human characteristics among the homeless as there is among the...uh...homed. It's yer classic bell curve. And at both ends and in the middle of that curve there are remarkable people. I've met former Catholic priests who are now homeless, and ministers (lots! of ministers...I wonder what that says?) and guys who have never read a spiritual book in their lives, yet who were among the most spiritual people I've met on this planet. Before you go spoutin' off about the homeless, Judy, I'd advise gettin' out and *meeting* a few more of them. It's a crapshoot. You might run into a crazy or a drunk or a criminal on the run or you might just run into the Buddha. But then you could just as easily run into all these people in the poshest neighborhood in New Jersey.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Sure, Judy, and the fact that a number of people living on top of grates in DC say they like their neighborhoods must mean they're not homeless either, right? You just can't give up on your fantasies. I think the exemption only extends to guys who claim to have a connection with God. Those homeless guys are the saints that we should think of differently. Here in DC that is about one out of three guys on the street. In fact I handed a George Washington to a guy the other day who was quoting the Bible so convincingly I almost let him put his hand on my head to save me. Maybe you should have let him. I'm just fascinated by the nearsightedness of this perspective and the extremely selective way you pick and choose the evidence for it. How many of these homeless guys, if you plucked them off the street, dressed them up in robes, gave them a fancy house with lots of servants, and appointed them the leader of, say, a prominent Christian denomination, would actually end up fulfilling the expectations for a person in such a position? To say nothing of coping with Guru Dev's well known rule for accepting *zero* donations or income from the outside. Nothing. If one of Curtis's street people were successful in these respects, it would be awfully difficult not to view them as special. (Or let's say remarkable, since special has acquired such negative baggage on this forum.)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
Tiger Woods should boycott The Masters until Augusta National admits a women as a voting member. I think I can beat Jack's record of eighteen majors without playing here, Tiger could announce at a protest/press conference outside the AN gates. Hootie and the boys would have heart attacks. Tiger could then go on offer his own tournament as a socially conscious alternative to Masters Week. Lee Trevino would be there (he used to dress with the caddies in protest). authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip As a Brahman his privileged existence was only benefited by the rules, so it would have taken an extraordinary amount of courage to fight this system Actually he spent most of his life, by choice, *not* benefiting from the privilege of being a Brahmin. As Jim points out, he had to be cajoled for many years before he'd consent to take a position in which he was accorded that privilege. - The fish are biting. Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip How many of these homeless guys, if you plucked them off the street, dressed them up in robes, gave them a fancy house with lots of servants, and appointed them the leader of, say, a prominent Christian denomination, would actually end up fulfilling the expectations for a person in such a position? MANY of them. Judy, I have to say that it doesn't sound as if you've ever actually talked to very many homeless people. If you had I don't think you'd say the things you said above. Like Curtis, I've met and had long conver- sations with a number of homeless people, ANY of whom could pull off what you suggest above (becoming Pat Robertson), and without breaking a sweat doing it. There is as wide a range of human beings and human characteristics among the homeless as there is among the...uh...homed. It's yer classic bell curve. And at both ends and in the middle of that curve there are remarkable people. I doubt it's anywhere near the percentage you claim (there *are* statistics on how many are mentally ill and/or addicted), but the point is you would consider a homeless person who was elevated to, say, Archbishop and made a good job of it remarkable, and rightly so. According to Curtis, Guru Dev was just another mentally unbalanced homeless bum, nothing at all special about him. I've met former Catholic priests who are now homeless, and ministers (lots! of ministers...I wonder what that says?) and guys who have never read a spiritual book in their lives, yet who were among the most spiritual people I've met on this planet. Well, yeah, but that's by *your* definition of spiritual.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Sure, Judy, and the fact that a number of people living on top of grates in DC say they like their neighborhoods must mean they're not homeless either, right? You just can't give up on your fantasies. I think the exemption only extends to guys who claim to have a connection with God. Those homeless guys are the saints that we should think of differently. Here in DC that is about one out of three guys on the street. In fact I handed a George Washington to a guy the other day who was quoting the Bible so convincingly I almost let him put his hand on my head to save me. Maybe you should have let him. I would have but there was something organic on his hand. I'm just fascinated by the nearsightedness of this perspective and the extremely selective way you pick and choose the evidence for it. How many of these homeless guys, if you plucked them off the street, dressed them up in robes, gave them a fancy house with lots of servants, and appointed them the leader of, say, a prominent Christian denomination, would actually end up fulfilling the expectations for a person in such a position? One in a million I guess. The 2001 census puts the homeless in India at 78 million. But this isn't my point. The fact that he was homeless doesn't mean he wasn't very interesting. I have gotten to know quite a few homeless guys because they hang out for my outdoor shows. They run the range from really bright but quirky, to off the wall. I don't really know much about how much more than showing up and spouting scripture is involved in the Shankaracharya job, do you? I am not saying he wasn't really good at it, I don't know. But I was looking for evidence for the accolades he gets in the movement and I don't see it. I agree with your point that I am judging him from a few quotes, but that is what we have and others are judging him as His Divinity on similar evidence. I already told you I don't consider the fact that he was revered to be proof that he deserved it. I gave examples of revered people who did not. The idea that millions still feel that way about him lacks any evidence for me. How would we know? It isn't like Kitty Kelly is going to make him her next project, so I doubt we are going to get anymore insight into him. Hindu fanatics killed Gandhi. We know about Mao's personal weirdness from his doctor who wrote a tell all memoir. Unless someone is going to write it who was around Guru Dev we will never know what it was really like in Joitir Math. It would make a great sitcom though. So do you believe that he had a magic source of funds and that this should be taken as evidence of his special powers, or do you think he had secret backing and kept it quiet as a PR move? (guess which I pick)
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
If one of Curtis's street people were successful in these respects, it would be awfully difficult not to view them as special. (Or let's say remarkable, since special has acquired such negative baggage on this forum.) I think we are missing each other on this point. He was a fascinating guy. I probably would connect with him on his love of nature. I don't see any evidence for him being more amazing then a lot of other religious leaders upholding the status quo even if it includes the cruelty of the caste system. I think you are over focusing on my bringing up the fact of his homelessness. That doesn't make him less interesting, it makes him more. Especially when coupled with your point about how he pulled of the Shankaracharya gig. So I'll give him special and remarkable (although not necessarily for the reasons he is revered in TMO), but he doesn't' get divine. Is that fair? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Sure, Judy, and the fact that a number of people living on top of grates in DC say they like their neighborhoods must mean they're not homeless either, right? You just can't give up on your fantasies. I think the exemption only extends to guys who claim to have a connection with God. Those homeless guys are the saints that we should think of differently. Here in DC that is about one out of three guys on the street. In fact I handed a George Washington to a guy the other day who was quoting the Bible so convincingly I almost let him put his hand on my head to save me. Maybe you should have let him. I'm just fascinated by the nearsightedness of this perspective and the extremely selective way you pick and choose the evidence for it. How many of these homeless guys, if you plucked them off the street, dressed them up in robes, gave them a fancy house with lots of servants, and appointed them the leader of, say, a prominent Christian denomination, would actually end up fulfilling the expectations for a person in such a position? To say nothing of coping with Guru Dev's well known rule for accepting *zero* donations or income from the outside. Nothing. If one of Curtis's street people were successful in these respects, it would be awfully difficult not to view them as special. (Or let's say remarkable, since special has acquired such negative baggage on this forum.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is as wide a range of human beings and human characteristics among the homeless as there is among the...uh...homed. It's yer classic bell curve. And at both ends and in the middle of that curve there are remarkable people. I've met former Catholic priests who are now homeless, and ministers (lots! of ministers...I wonder what that says?) and guys who have never read a spiritual book in their lives, yet who were among the most spiritual people I've met on this planet. Santa Fe, New Mexico is a weird place. When you're there as a tourist, it looks all posh and upscale. But when you live there, you soon discover that you're living in the cap- ital of second poorest state in the nation. There are a *lot* of homeless there, and I've been privileged enough to have conversations with many of them. There's the guy who stands at the corner of St. Francis and West Alameda selling newspapers, wearing a skirt. Crazy as a bedbug. But before his career as a homeless cross-dressing news- paper salesman on the street, he was one of the top scientists up at the National Labs in Los Alamos. The story on the street (he won't talk about it himself) is that he worked for years on super-secret advanced weaponry and one day he just snapped, and left. There are the guys down on the Plaza who dress like cowboys and actually have an established cowboy camp up along the river off Upper Canyon Road. They're a real trip. One of them is even like their cowboy spiritual leader. Living on the street can get you down. It's a bitch. But there are some people who *don't* let it get them down. And they're a real treat to meet and interact with.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: According to Curtis, Guru Dev was just another mentally unbalanced homeless bum, nothing at all special about him. I think that's *exactly* what Curtis and I are saying, Judy. That is *exactly* how he would have been seen if he had been living the same lifestyle in the United States instead of India. And I don't think that there is anything wrong with saying this. It's a perfectly valid way of seeing him and his life. And there are *other* perfectly valid ways of seeing him and his life. They are not mutually exclusive.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Sure, Judy, and the fact that a number of people living on top of grates in DC say they like their neighborhoods must mean they're not homeless either, right? You just can't give up on your fantasies. I think the exemption only extends to guys who claim to have a connection with God. Those homeless guys are the saints that we should think of differently. Here in DC that is about one out of three guys on the street. In fact I handed a George Washington to a guy the other day who was quoting the Bible so convincingly I almost let him put his hand on my head to save me. Maybe you should have let him. I'm just fascinated by the nearsightedness of this perspective and the extremely selective way you pick and choose the evidence for it. How many of these homeless guys, if you plucked them off the street, dressed them up in robes, gave them a fancy house with lots of servants, and appointed them the leader of, say, a prominent Christian denomination, would actually end up fulfilling the expectations for a person in such a position? MANY of them. Judy, I have to say that it doesn't sound as if you've ever actually talked to very many homeless people. If you had I don't think you'd say the things you said above. Like Curtis, I've met and had long conver- sations with a number of homeless people, ANY of whom could pull off what you suggest above (becoming Pat Robertson), and without breaking a sweat doing it. There is as wide a range of human beings and human characteristics among the homeless as there is among the...uh...homed. It's yer classic bell curve. And at both ends and in the middle of that curve there are remarkable people. I've met former Catholic priests who are now homeless, and ministers (lots! of ministers...I wonder what that says?) and guys who have never read a spiritual book in their lives, yet who were among the most spiritual people I've met on this planet. Before you go spoutin' off about the homeless, Judy, I'd advise gettin' out and *meeting* a few more of them. It's a crapshoot. You might run into a crazy or a drunk or a criminal on the run or you might just run into the Buddha. But then you could just as easily run into all these people in the poshest neighborhood in New Jersey. In San Francisco the word is among those working in the business district to not even look at the pandhandlers, unless you want to be followed down the street by someone cursing you for not paying up. Before I knew that, I tried to talk to a homeless guy around Union Square and ended up being called a 'mf' because I wouldn't give him more than a buck. Cheery bunch.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: According to Curtis, Guru Dev was just another mentally unbalanced homeless bum, nothing at all special about him. I think that's *exactly* what Curtis and I are saying, Judy. That is *exactly* how he would have been seen if he had been living the same lifestyle in the United States instead of India. If he had been living in the US, no one would have known of his existence nor tried to appoint him to anything. He would have passed away quietly; no TM, no Maharishi, no TMO, no FFL forum. Nothing except a nuclear holocaust. Jai Guru Dev.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
Let's back up to when his criminally negligent parents let a 9 your old go off on his own because he insisted he had a mission. WTF! When I send the news crew to do this story I am gunna focus on these psychos! You have to be knee deep in the mythology to accept this hideous act of parental neglect. And they had money to get help, they have no excuse. This was not a common thing in India or any culture, it was inexcusable. Guru Dev was a victim here. That is the Access Hollywood scoop on this guy. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: According to Curtis, Guru Dev was just another mentally unbalanced homeless bum, nothing at all special about him. I think that's *exactly* what Curtis and I are saying, Judy. That is *exactly* how he would have been seen if he had been living the same lifestyle in the United States instead of India. And I don't think that there is anything wrong with saying this. It's a perfectly valid way of seeing him and his life. And there are *other* perfectly valid ways of seeing him and his life. They are not mutually exclusive.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
On Mar 9, 2007, at 11:24 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: I read a great article once about how tough the life of a wandering sadhu is. The guy was describing how tormented they get by people demanding miracles and cures. If they can't produce them they get abused. He also complained that the double edged sword of being holy is that people ignore your own needs a lot so they often don't get fed because people figure they don't really need to eat. It seems like a tough gig. Malnoursishment as well, since what most people tend to give you for food is white rice.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let's back up to when his criminally negligent parents let a 9 your old go off on his own because he insisted he had a mission. WTF! When I send the news crew to do this story I am gunna focus on these psychos! You have to be knee deep in the mythology to accept this hideous act of parental neglect. And they had money to get help, they have no excuse. This was not a common thing in India or any culture, it was inexcusable. Guru Dev was a victim here. That is the Access Hollywood scoop on this guy. If you read the easily available story on His early life, you will see that his parents were quite dismayed when he left home and had the police out looking for him. So it was not at all a case of neglect. It sounds to me after reading all you have said about Him, that you are trying to rehabilitate your previously thoughtlessly devotional feelings towards Guru Dev, to make sense of Him in terms of your life now.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If one of Curtis's street people were successful in these respects, it would be awfully difficult not to view them as special. (Or let's say remarkable, since special has acquired such negative baggage on this forum.) I think we are missing each other on this point. He was a fascinating guy. I probably would connect with him on his love of nature. I don't see any evidence for him being more amazing then a lot of other religious leaders upholding the status quo even if it includes the cruelty of the caste system. I think you are over focusing on my bringing up the fact of his homelessness. That doesn't make him less interesting, it makes him more. Especially when coupled with your point about how he pulled of the Shankaracharya gig. So I'll give him special and remarkable (although not necessarily for the reasons he is revered in TMO), but he doesn't' get divine. Is that fair? fyi, one key reason I see him as His Divinity was an experience I had, one of quite a few, touched upon in post #81863. If it had been George Bush instead, I'd be voting Republican ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
:If you read the easily available story on His early life, you will see that his parents were quite dismayed when he left home and had the police out looking for him. So it was not at all a case of neglect. It sounds to me after reading all you have said about Him, that you are trying to rehabilitate your previously thoughtlessly devotional feelings towards Guru Dev, to make sense of Him in terms of your life now. As a teacher my devotion to Guru Dev was carefully cultivated when I was in the movement. It was far from thoughtless. It requires no rehabilitation. My perspective has changed. I know the story. Quite dismayed and calling the cops at first does not excuse the moment they let him go on his own. You are a parent. The child does not know better than the parent concerning his own welfare. Are you saying the kid was too powerful for the parents to control? I'd like to hear that excuse in a social service's child welfare hearing. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Let's back up to when his criminally negligent parents let a 9 your old go off on his own because he insisted he had a mission. WTF! When I send the news crew to do this story I am gunna focus on these psychos! You have to be knee deep in the mythology to accept this hideous act of parental neglect. And they had money to get help, they have no excuse. This was not a common thing in India or any culture, it was inexcusable. Guru Dev was a victim here. That is the Access Hollywood scoop on this guy. If you read the easily available story on His early life, you will see that his parents were quite dismayed when he left home and had the police out looking for him. So it was not at all a case of neglect. It sounds to me after reading all you have said about Him, that you are trying to rehabilitate your previously thoughtlessly devotional feelings towards Guru Dev, to make sense of Him in terms of your life now.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
Not to diminish your experiences, I had some profound Guru Dev ones in the movement also. Because I have changed how I interpret these experiences doesn't mean I don't hear you on this. If they are experiences that you value, high five. I didn't mean for this Guru Dev discussion to become an advocacy piece for how others should view him. I am just telling my perspective. It is a fine line not to come off as disrespecting other people's view of him and be true to my own. I appreciate your ability to be secure enough in your own views to be able to exchange ideas on this topic. I think some cool stuff has come out because of it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: If one of Curtis's street people were successful in these respects, it would be awfully difficult not to view them as special. (Or let's say remarkable, since special has acquired such negative baggage on this forum.) I think we are missing each other on this point. He was a fascinating guy. I probably would connect with him on his love of nature. I don't see any evidence for him being more amazing then a lot of other religious leaders upholding the status quo even if it includes the cruelty of the caste system. I think you are over focusing on my bringing up the fact of his homelessness. That doesn't make him less interesting, it makes him more. Especially when coupled with your point about how he pulled of the Shankaracharya gig. So I'll give him special and remarkable (although not necessarily for the reasons he is revered in TMO), but he doesn't' get divine. Is that fair? fyi, one key reason I see him as His Divinity was an experience I had, one of quite a few, touched upon in post #81863. If it had been George Bush instead, I'd be voting Republican ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: :If you read the easily available story on His early life, you will see that his parents were quite dismayed when he left home and had the police out looking for him. So it was not at all a case of neglect. It sounds to me after reading all you have said about Him, that you are trying to rehabilitate your previously thoughtlessly devotional feelings towards Guru Dev, to make sense of Him in terms of your life now. As a teacher my devotion to Guru Dev was carefully cultivated when I was in the movement. It was far from thoughtless. It requires no rehabilitation. My perspective has changed. I know the story. Quite dismayed and calling the cops at first does not excuse the moment they let him go on his own. You are a parent. The child does not know better than the parent concerning his own welfare. Are you saying the kid was too powerful for the parents to control? I'd like to hear that excuse in a social service's child welfare hearing. Thanks for the clarification. You are absolutely right- absent of any direct experience, the guy will look to anyone as they wish to see him. There is no way to 'make the argument' that refutes anything you have said, though some of your logic is off, imo. Other than that, the only way to see him differenty is through your own direct experience. Some people think that is currently possible, and some do not.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not to diminish your experiences, I had some profound Guru Dev ones in the movement also. Because I have changed how I interpret these experiences doesn't mean I don't hear you on this. If they are experiences that you value, high five. I didn't mean for this Guru Dev discussion to become an advocacy piece for how others should view him. I am just telling my perspective. It is a fine line not to come off as disrespecting other people's view of him and be true to my own. I appreciate your ability to be secure enough in your own views to be able to exchange ideas on this topic. I think some cool stuff has come out because of it. Agreed on all points. One thing I find very useful about FFL is this ability to share beliefs and perceived phenomena, so that we can move on from them- not necessarily reject, but clarify and integrate them. Case in point that mind blowing experience I have of Guru Dev. Until I shared it here on FFL, I had told maybe three people about it, and wanted to see it for what it was in a broader context. So I appreciate sharing stuff, not as a way to pose as this or that, but just to get stuff out in the open where we can all discuss it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
On Mar 9, 2007, at 10:37 AM, authfriend wrote: How many of these homeless guys, if you plucked them off the street, dressed them up in robes, gave them a fancy house with lots of servants, and appointed them the leader of, say, a prominent Christian denomination, would actually end up fulfilling the expectations for a person in such a position? Sounds like the rajas--don't forget the fancy hats and bagpipes. False comparison--they didn't grow up that way, Judy. GD obviously was exposed to that if he was from the Brahmin class, as I believe you and others have maintained. And what expectations did he fulfill? You're once again just projecting. Is there some kind of laundry list of things a guru is supposed to do? Of course not, they just make it up as they go along, and then one of their followers calls whatever it is they've done, accomplishments. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip How many of these homeless guys, if you plucked them off the street, dressed them up in robes, gave them a fancy house with lots of servants, and appointed them the leader of, say, a prominent Christian denomination, would actually end up fulfilling the expectations for a person in such a position? One in a million I guess. The 2001 census puts the homeless in India at 78 million. But this isn't my point. The fact that he was homeless doesn't mean he wasn't very interesting. I have gotten to know quite a few homeless guys because they hang out for my outdoor shows. They run the range from really bright but quirky, to off the wall. I don't really know much about how much more than showing up and spouting scripture is involved in the Shankaracharya job, do you? On the basis of Indian news reports about the activities of the various Shankarcharyas, there appears to be a great deal involved in terms of setting policy, mediating disputes, supervising the organization of events, consulting with dignitaries and officials, counseling followers, and so on, a lot like an archbishop in the Catholic Church. I am not saying he wasn't really good at it, I don't know. But I was looking for evidence for the accolades he gets in the movement and I don't see it. Yes, but you're starting from the assumption that he was a mentally ill homeless dude. My point is that to run a Shankaracharya outfit, he couldn't possibly have been. Shankaracharyas aren't chosen for their administrative and political competence, but they're under a tremendous amount of scrutiny, and if they foul up in those respects, you'll hear about it. snip I already told you I don't consider the fact that he was revered to be proof that he deserved it. I gave examples of revered people who did not. Which were both really silly, not remotely comparable for the reasons I explained (and you did not address). The idea that millions still feel that way about him lacks any evidence for me. How would we know? It isn't like Kitty Kelly is going to make him her next project, so I doubt we are going to get anymore insight into him. It's the dog that didn't bark. With somebody that important, who is supposed to be the ultimate in righteousness and wisdom, if little or no criticism has turned up a half-century after their death, the chances are pretty good they didn't depart too far from that standard. Hindu fanatics killed Gandhi. We know about Mao's personal weirdness from his doctor who wrote a tell all memoir. Mao's personal weirdness wasn't the problem. It was what he did to the country under his leadership. The judgment of history would be negative even if his personal characteristics had been utterly unremarkable. Gandhi died only a few years before Guru Dev, and we know all about his weirdnesses and have for a long time. MMY is still alive, and we sure know plenty about *his* failings, both personal and leadership-wise, don't we? snip So do you believe that he had a magic source of funds and that this should be taken as evidence of his special powers, or do you think he had secret backing and kept it quiet as a PR move? More likely the latter, but I don't rule out the former. Note that I never suggested he had special powers. Got another straw man there?
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If one of Curtis's street people were successful in these respects, it would be awfully difficult not to view them as special. (Or let's say remarkable, since special has acquired such negative baggage on this forum.) I think we are missing each other on this point. He was a fascinating guy. I probably would connect with him on his love of nature. I don't see any evidence for him being more amazing then a lot of other religious leaders upholding the status quo even if it includes the cruelty of the caste system. I think you are over focusing on my bringing up the fact of his homelessness. And not getting the medical attention he needed, as I recall. Curtis, when you suggest that a very prominent spiritual leader was mentally ill and homeless, it's such astonishing assertion, particularly when it goes against everything we know about Guru Dev, that it's going to be the focus of attention as long as you continue to start from that notion in your evaluation of him. That doesn't make him less interesting, it makes him more. Especially when coupled with your point about how he pulled of the Shankaracharya gig. So I'll give him special and remarkable (although not necessarily for the reasons he is revered in TMO), but he doesn't' get divine. Is that fair? I think you ought to withdraw the homeless and mentally ill allegations. Divine, I don't care about one way or the other.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: According to Curtis, Guru Dev was just another mentally unbalanced homeless bum, nothing at all special about him. I think that's *exactly* what Curtis and I are saying, Judy. That is *exactly* how he would have been seen if he had been living the same lifestyle in the United States instead of India. And I don't think that there is anything wrong with saying this. It's a perfectly valid way of seeing him and his life. If you don't mind its being ridiculously inaccurate on its face, sure.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: :If you read the easily available story on His early life, you will see that his parents were quite dismayed when he left home and had the police out looking for him. So it was not at all a case of neglect. It sounds to me after reading all you have said about Him, that you are trying to rehabilitate your previously thoughtlessly devotional feelings towards Guru Dev, to make sense of Him in terms of your life now. As a teacher my devotion to Guru Dev was carefully cultivated when I was in the movement. It was far from thoughtless. It requires no rehabilitation. My perspective has changed. I know the story. Quite dismayed and calling the cops at first does not excuse the moment they let him go on his own. You are a parent. The child does not know better than the parent concerning his own welfare. Are you saying the kid was too powerful for the parents to control? I'd like to hear that excuse in a social service's child welfare hearing. Curtis, you have such an impoverished imagination. I don't mean your ability to fantasize stuff that isn't real, I mean your ability to entertain alternate possibilities.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 9, 2007, at 10:37 AM, authfriend wrote: How many of these homeless guys, if you plucked them off the street, dressed them up in robes, gave them a fancy house with lots of servants, and appointed them the leader of, say, a prominent Christian denomination, would actually end up fulfilling the expectations for a person in such a position? Sounds like the rajas--don't forget the fancy hats and bagpipes. False comparison--they didn't grow up that way, Judy. GD obviously was exposed to that if he was from the Brahmin class, as I believe you and others have maintained. So you're saying that any homeless guy who was raised in a devout Catholic household to the age of 9, when he left home for the streets, would be able to successfully perform the role of archbishop when he was installed in middle age? And what expectations did he fulfill? You're once again just projecting. Well, no, I seem to have a little more familiarity with the duties and responsibilities of a Shankaracharya than you do. See another post to Curtis for more details. Is there some kind of laundry list of things a guru is supposed to do? Shankaracharya, not just guru, Sal. Again, it's like being an archbishop. Of course not, they just make it up as they go along, and then one of their followers calls whatever it is they've done, accomplishments. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: ...there is a big difference between someone like Guru Dev and someone like Turpuiose B. Out of curiosity, what do you consider that difference to be? The former lived in the forest and exhibited acumen and conviction, the latter is homeless, scattered, and directionless. I would have thought those facts were obvious. You forgot to call me a drunk, but thanks for clarifying. Please see my latest post, the one on how people react to ideas that run counter to their own. :-) I was jest kiddin' ya. I already saw your post about Anti-TM'rs paranoia, and answered it thusly: I think you are projecting yourself into other people. Besides, I am pissed off that my post that said that I saw you staggering along on the streets of Paris, clutching an almost empty bottle of wine, and mumbling over and over something about TM bastards..that post never made the list. :-) OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
I don't allege that he was homeless, that is a fact. I have my own opinion about his mental state just as you do. I sincerely believe that he needed medical attention as a boy. I think his folks needed a check up from the neck up also. Whatever he was able to achieve with such a deplorable beginning in life is amazing. The aspect that you raise considering his humble beginnings, that he rose to such heights in the Hindu religion is amazing. It is a heroic tale of survival worthy of a movie. The fact that his position of power we instrumental in upholding social values that I find repugnant is another issue. But I appreciate your perspective that he was a spiritual Horatio Alger story. That is an aspect I was not appreciating fully. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: If one of Curtis's street people were successful in these respects, it would be awfully difficult not to view them as special. (Or let's say remarkable, since special has acquired such negative baggage on this forum.) I think we are missing each other on this point. He was a fascinating guy. I probably would connect with him on his love of nature. I don't see any evidence for him being more amazing then a lot of other religious leaders upholding the status quo even if it includes the cruelty of the caste system. I think you are over focusing on my bringing up the fact of his homelessness. And not getting the medical attention he needed, as I recall. Curtis, when you suggest that a very prominent spiritual leader was mentally ill and homeless, it's such astonishing assertion, particularly when it goes against everything we know about Guru Dev, that it's going to be the focus of attention as long as you continue to start from that notion in your evaluation of him. That doesn't make him less interesting, it makes him more. Especially when coupled with your point about how he pulled of the Shankaracharya gig. So I'll give him special and remarkable (although not necessarily for the reasons he is revered in TMO), but he doesn't' get divine. Is that fair? I think you ought to withdraw the homeless and mentally ill allegations. Divine, I don't care about one way or the other.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
Curtis, you have such an impoverished imagination. I don't mean your ability to fantasize stuff that isn't real, I mean your ability to entertain alternate possibilities. OK help me out. Under what conditions is it OK for parents to let their 9 year old wander off alone? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: :If you read the easily available story on His early life, you will see that his parents were quite dismayed when he left home and had the police out looking for him. So it was not at all a case of neglect. It sounds to me after reading all you have said about Him, that you are trying to rehabilitate your previously thoughtlessly devotional feelings towards Guru Dev, to make sense of Him in terms of your life now. As a teacher my devotion to Guru Dev was carefully cultivated when I was in the movement. It was far from thoughtless. It requires no rehabilitation. My perspective has changed. I know the story. Quite dismayed and calling the cops at first does not excuse the moment they let him go on his own. You are a parent. The child does not know better than the parent concerning his own welfare. Are you saying the kid was too powerful for the parents to control? I'd like to hear that excuse in a social service's child welfare hearing. Curtis, you have such an impoverished imagination. I don't mean your ability to fantasize stuff that isn't real, I mean your ability to entertain alternate possibilities.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't allege that he was homeless, that is a fact. Incorrect. He that is estabished in Being is forever at home in the ocean of pure consciousness, the home of all the laws of nature, the Kingdom of Heaven, in which Raj Ram is found in his Palace, his unbounded home. (ref. paraphrasing somebody somewhere) OffWorld I have my own opinion about his mental state just as you do. I sincerely believe that he needed medical attention as a boy. I think his folks needed a check up from the neck up also. Whatever he was able to achieve with such a deplorable beginning in life is amazing. The aspect that you raise considering his humble beginnings, that he rose to such heights in the Hindu religion is amazing. It is a heroic tale of survival worthy of a movie. The fact that his position of power we instrumental in upholding social values that I find repugnant is another issue. But I appreciate your perspective that he was a spiritual Horatio Alger story. That is an aspect I was not appreciating fully. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: If one of Curtis's street people were successful in these respects, it would be awfully difficult not to view them as special. (Or let's say remarkable, since special has acquired such negative baggage on this forum.) I think we are missing each other on this point. He was a fascinating guy. I probably would connect with him on his love of nature. I don't see any evidence for him being more amazing then a lot of other religious leaders upholding the status quo even if it includes the cruelty of the caste system. I think you are over focusing on my bringing up the fact of his homelessness. And not getting the medical attention he needed, as I recall. Curtis, when you suggest that a very prominent spiritual leader was mentally ill and homeless, it's such astonishing assertion, particularly when it goes against everything we know about Guru Dev, that it's going to be the focus of attention as long as you continue to start from that notion in your evaluation of him. That doesn't make him less interesting, it makes him more. Especially when coupled with your point about how he pulled of the Shankaracharya gig. So I'll give him special and remarkable (although not necessarily for the reasons he is revered in TMO), but he doesn't' get divine. Is that fair? I think you ought to withdraw the homeless and mentally ill allegations. Divine, I don't care about one way or the other.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
On Mar 9, 2007, at 2:27 PM, authfriend wrote: And what expectations did he fulfill? You're once again just projecting. Well, no, I seem to have a little more familiarity with the duties and responsibilities of a Shankaracharya than you do. See another post to Curtis for more details. I did, Judy, and all you did was project what you feel must go on in a Shankaracharya outfit, as you called it. When was the last time you read in any kind of legitimate publication that any of what you assume actually went on? What you mostly seem to be familiar with is your fervent imagination. Is there some kind of laundry list of things a guru is supposed to do? Shankaracharya, not just guru, Sal. Again, it's like being an archbishop. According to whom? The Catholic Church is a worldwide organization that runs schools and provides food to millions all over the world, amongst many other things. If you're seriously suggesting a comparison, I'd say lay off the LSD. All of these musings are simply more and more projecting. Do yourself a favor, Judy, and try a Google search on Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math and see what you come up with. There's about 200+ mentions, all of them related to--surprise!-- either MMY or the TMO. I guess they must have had trouble filling the position after GD died. And If you do a search on just Shankaracharya what you mostly get is info on that shooting. Apparently apart from you and a few other devotees nobody much else considers GD or whatever goes on at Shankaracharya outfits to be either of much importance or interest. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
Yes, but you're starting from the assumption that he was a mentally ill homeless dude. My point is that to run a Shankaracharya outfit, he couldn't possibly have been. Shankaracharyas aren't chosen for their administrative and political competence, but they're under a tremendous amount of scrutiny, and if they foul up in those respects, you'll hear about it. Mental illness or personality disorders run a gambit from non functional to very functional. Some disorders like narcissistic personality disorder can make a leader seem even more impressive. I am not trying to diagnose the guy and wouldn't be qualified if we had the information we need. But I have dated people with attachment disorders, so if I had to guess I would say this was part of what was going on. Or it could have been abuse at home. I have also dated people who had been abused, and this shaped their personalities in some pretty sad ways. The main thing is that leaving home at 9 is not normal and I don't see any reason to view it as a super normal quality in him. I am just forming my opinion on the facts that we have, just like you. You are focusing on his achievement as Shankaracharya and I am looking at him more personally. There is something wrong with a guy leaving home at 9 and spending his life away from society. Even when he rejoined society he would not be in the presence of women. We are all drawing our own conclusions from these simple facts of his life. I am saying that this is just my opinion about the guy. Any attempt to be more right about this topic than I am will not get any traction with me. I think we are just both expressing different ways of looking at an interesting life. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip How many of these homeless guys, if you plucked them off the street, dressed them up in robes, gave them a fancy house with lots of servants, and appointed them the leader of, say, a prominent Christian denomination, would actually end up fulfilling the expectations for a person in such a position? One in a million I guess. The 2001 census puts the homeless in India at 78 million. But this isn't my point. The fact that he was homeless doesn't mean he wasn't very interesting. I have gotten to know quite a few homeless guys because they hang out for my outdoor shows. They run the range from really bright but quirky, to off the wall. I don't really know much about how much more than showing up and spouting scripture is involved in the Shankaracharya job, do you? On the basis of Indian news reports about the activities of the various Shankarcharyas, there appears to be a great deal involved in terms of setting policy, mediating disputes, supervising the organization of events, consulting with dignitaries and officials, counseling followers, and so on, a lot like an archbishop in the Catholic Church. I am not saying he wasn't really good at it, I don't know. But I was looking for evidence for the accolades he gets in the movement and I don't see it. Yes, but you're starting from the assumption that he was a mentally ill homeless dude. My point is that to run a Shankaracharya outfit, he couldn't possibly have been. Shankaracharyas aren't chosen for their administrative and political competence, but they're under a tremendous amount of scrutiny, and if they foul up in those respects, you'll hear about it. snip I already told you I don't consider the fact that he was revered to be proof that he deserved it. I gave examples of revered people who did not. Which were both really silly, not remotely comparable for the reasons I explained (and you did not address). The idea that millions still feel that way about him lacks any evidence for me. How would we know? It isn't like Kitty Kelly is going to make him her next project, so I doubt we are going to get anymore insight into him. It's the dog that didn't bark. With somebody that important, who is supposed to be the ultimate in righteousness and wisdom, if little or no criticism has turned up a half-century after their death, the chances are pretty good they didn't depart too far from that standard. Hindu fanatics killed Gandhi. We know about Mao's personal weirdness from his doctor who wrote a tell all memoir. Mao's personal weirdness wasn't the problem. It was what he did to the country under his leadership. The judgment of history would be negative even if his personal characteristics had been utterly unremarkable. Gandhi died only a few years before Guru Dev, and we know all about his weirdnesses and have for a long time. MMY is still alive, and we sure know plenty about *his* failings, both personal and
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 9, 2007, at 10:37 AM, authfriend wrote: How many of these homeless guys, if you plucked them off the street, dressed them up in robes, gave them a fancy house with lots of servants, and appointed them the leader of, say, a prominent Christian denomination, would actually end up fulfilling the expectations for a person in such a position? Sounds like the rajas--don't forget the fancy hats and bagpipes. False comparison--they didn't grow up that way, Judy. GD obviously was exposed to that if he was from the Brahmin class, as I believe you and others have maintained. And what expectations did he fulfill? You're once again just projecting. Is there some kind of laundry list of things a guru is supposed to do? Of course not, they just make it up as they go along, and then one of their followers calls whatever it is they've done, accomplishments. Exactly. The problem with the literature of spirituality is that almost all of it, in every era, has been written by the unrealized writing *their* impressions of the realized.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: ...there is a big difference between someone like Guru Dev and someone like Turpuiose B. Out of curiosity, what do you consider that difference to be? The former lived in the forest and exhibited acumen and conviction, the latter is homeless, scattered, and directionless. I would have thought those facts were obvious. You forgot to call me a drunk, but thanks for clarifying. Please see my latest post, the one on how people react to ideas that run counter to their own. :-) I was jest kiddin' ya. I already saw your post about Anti-TM'rs paranoia, and answered it thusly: I think you are projecting yourself into other people. Besides, I am pissed off that my post that said that I saw you staggering along on the streets of Paris, clutching an almost empty bottle of wine, and mumbling over and over something about TM bastards..that post never made the list. Don't worry. This quote, talking about someone you have never met, will.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't allege that he was homeless, that is a fact. I have my own opinion about his mental state just as you do. I sincerely believe that he needed medical attention as a boy. I think his folks needed a check up from the neck up also. Whatever he was able to achieve with such a deplorable beginning in life is amazing. The aspect that you raise considering his humble beginnings, that he rose to such heights in the Hindu religion is amazing. It is a heroic tale of survival worthy of a movie. The fact that his position of power we instrumental in upholding social values that I find repugnant is another issue. But I appreciate your perspective that he was a spiritual Horatio Alger story. That is an aspect I was not appreciating fully. And, at the same time, that aspect is Just Another My-Guru-Is-Special Story. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: If one of Curtis's street people were successful in these respects, it would be awfully difficult not to view them as special. (Or let's say remarkable, since special has acquired such negative baggage on this forum.) I think we are missing each other on this point. He was a fascinating guy. I probably would connect with him on his love of nature. I don't see any evidence for him being more amazing then a lot of other religious leaders upholding the status quo even if it includes the cruelty of the caste system. I think you are over focusing on my bringing up the fact of his homelessness. And not getting the medical attention he needed, as I recall. Curtis, when you suggest that a very prominent spiritual leader was mentally ill and homeless, it's such astonishing assertion, particularly when it goes against everything we know about Guru Dev, that it's going to be the focus of attention as long as you continue to start from that notion in your evaluation of him. That doesn't make him less interesting, it makes him more. Especially when coupled with your point about how he pulled of the Shankaracharya gig. So I'll give him special and remarkable (although not necessarily for the reasons he is revered in TMO), but he doesn't' get divine. Is that fair? I think you ought to withdraw the homeless and mentally ill allegations. Divine, I don't care about one way or the other.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am saying that this is just my opinion about the guy. Any attempt to be more right about this topic than I am will not get any traction with me. I think we are just both expressing different ways of looking at an interesting life. But you're missing the point, Curtis. Judy IS right. And you're wrong. That's just the way things are.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
But you're missing the point, Curtis. Judy IS right. And you're wrong. That's just the way things are. Thanks man, I just get confused sometimes, it started when I was nine years old... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I am saying that this is just my opinion about the guy. Any attempt to be more right about this topic than I am will not get any traction with me. I think we are just both expressing different ways of looking at an interesting life. But you're missing the point, Curtis. Judy IS right. And you're wrong. That's just the way things are.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A really silly comment......by none other than Mr. Knapp LSGM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Curtis, you have such an impoverished imagination. I don't mean your ability to fantasize stuff that isn't real, I mean your ability to entertain alternate possibilities. OK help me out. Under what conditions is it OK for parents to let their 9 year old wander off alone? Ask the parents of Jesus.
