Barry,

Just to let you know, I really enjoyed reading your vignette about 
searching in the dark alleyways of your medieval town. However, 
rather than emailing you in the normal timeline, I have been waiting 
to send a thank you. You did send me a teethy little reply to some 
post I wrote a week or so ago, but I concluded that you were actually 
quite bored since Judy was on time-out. Sorry I didn't reply but I am 
unable to fulfill your pugilistic needs in the manner to which you 
have become accustomed. However, now that the punch and judy show is 
back on full disply and you have something to occupy your 
imagination, I can give you the compliment you deserve.

Fine piece of writing. 

And just to prove it, I saluted your work tonight with a wonderous 
measure of one of the great spirits of recent memory: Woodford 
Reserve, Distillers Select, Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey, Batch 
171, Bottle 1608.

May you be remembered for what you do best.

empty
 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" 
> > <willytex@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > Amazingly cool, I guess, if that's what you want 
> > > > > > out of life is to nitpick with Judy and Rory
> > > > > > about how Freddy levitated and then flew through 
> > > > > > the air.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Point of clarification, Richard -- I never met 
> > > > > Frederick Lenz and have no opinion on whether or 
> > > > > how he levitated etc.
> > > >
> > > > jstein wrote:
> > > > Ditto here.
> > >
> > > "No, Barry, that's your *fantasy*, the reality you 
> > > construct for yourself. Awfully petty and small-minded 
> > > compared to the reality of developing one's consciousness 
> > > (and possibly that of the world)--even if *that* turns 
> > > out to have been an illusion as well." - Judy Stein
> > > 
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/143436
> > 
> > As you know, Willytex, what I was calling Barry's
> > fantasy was *not* that Lenz had levitated. Liar
> > that you are, you omitted the context to make it
> > seem that I had.
> > 
> > Here's what I was responding to from Barry:
> > 
> > > Even if it was an illusion, I've seen it and you
> > > haven't. And that's what you're pissed off about.
> 
> And no, Judy's not the *least* bit pissed off,
> certainly not enough to go over the 35-post-per-
> week limit *yet again*.  :-)
> 
> While she can make any statement she wishes about
> her motivations here, I'm just suggesting that
> folks look into the one that she never seems to 
> recognize in herself -- jealousy.
> 
> 30+ years "developing her consciousness" on a path 
> that has brought her no closer to certain spiritual 
> phenomena (levitation, enlightenment, etc.) than 
> reading about them and arguing endlessly about them, 
> as if her reading and watching videos of other people
> *talking* about them had rendered her some kind of
> expert. Does that sound familiar, somewhat akin to 
> dumping on a film because someone else dumps on it, 
> without ever having seen it herself?
> 
> In other spiritual trips, we refer to such a path 
> as "armchair spirituality." It's fine, I guess, if 
> what you want is to read about or hear about other
> people's experiences. If one reads *enough* about
> them, one can even appear somewhat knowledgeable.
> But the bottom line -- the one that many people
> forget to ask -- is, "Have you ever experienced
> these things yourself, or are you talking so auth-
> oritatively based only on things you've read about
> or been told about?"
> 
> I'd suggest that if Judy wants to make a case for
> the value of "developing one's consciousness" via
> TM and the TM-siddhi programs she *demonstrate* a 
> bit of that developed consciousness in her posts. 
> Spending 60-70% of her time arguing with and put-
> ting down those who don't agree with her "expertise," 
> often when they've experienced the thing (or film) 
> under discussion and she hasn't, doesn't really 
> strike me as terribly "developed." 
> 
> But maybe that's just me...
>


Reply via email to